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.

Corporate Personhood

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

Should corporation have the same rights as individuals?

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.

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.

Topics:

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.

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.

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.

Topics:

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.

Read:

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.

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.

P.S.

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.

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."

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:



Cute.

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.

Debunking the MSM Myth

Watch this segment from CBS News:

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.

Take a Break from the Summer Break 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.

Topics:

Local and regional: Contempt of Court, Time to Suffer No Consequences, and Escambia County Sheriff Lt. Rex Blackburn -- victim or rogue cop; and

Nation and international: eight have been charged with the murders of Byrd and Melanie Billings, but how many will get the death penalty.

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.

Proof That I am Perfect

I am a Nobody.
Nobody is Perfect.
Therefore I am Perfect.

Can't argue with that proof.

Know the Lie and the Truth

To know the truth one must recognize the lie. Read The New York Times, More Lying.

With acknowledgment to Sun Tzu (on knowing the enemy):

If you know the lie and know the truth, you need not fear the argument.
If you know truth but not the lie, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the lie nor the truth, you will succumb in every battle.

Torture for Dollars

UPDATE: Maybe a better title would have been torture by Washington bureaucrats. Read The New York Times, Report Shows Tight C.I.A. Control on Interrogations.

Some people will do anything for a buck, even sell America's soul, the Constitution, to the devil, for lies, or more accurately false leads procured by torture.

Read The New York Times, Interrogation Inc.: 2 U.S. Architects of Harsh Tactics in 9/11’s Wake.

Capitalism is great isn't it, when two former military psychologists can copy methods from a 1957 USAF study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain false confessions and sell them for millions to the U.S. so that Cheney could extract false confessions linking Iraq to 9/11 in order to justify the Iraq war.

Contempt of Court, Time to Suffer the Consequences

UPDATE: No consequences. Read the Pensacola News Journal, Clerk cleared in prayer suit.

Given that decision where the clerk's actions were clearly more planned and deliberate, the U.S. Attorney's Office should save everyone time and money and just dismiss the criminal contempt proceeding against Lay and Freeman.

She said that she was willing to "suffer whatever consequences." Well, today is the day to learn the consequences. Read the Pensacola News Journal, Clerk to face judge in school prayer case.

The ACLU also responds to the myths and facts about its lawsuit and 'wild distortions' by Hedgehog News (which falsely uses the name FOXNews).

For more on the lawsuit against the Santa Rosa County School District read (oldest to newest):

Wrongdoing Not Judicial Tyranny

Is the Rally for the Constitution, or Religion

Contempt of Court or Contempt For God?

Contempt of Court or Contempt For God: Now The Teachers Sue

Whether It Is Contempt of Court or Contempt For God, He Has No Regret

Check back for an update.

Take a Break from the Summer Break 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.

Topics:

Local and regional: local State Republi-con lives large on party tab (the Starbucks tab alone was $839) and Contempt of Court, Time to Suffer the Consequences, and

Nation and international: be afraid, be very, very afraid (so you will vote for Bush our Savior).

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.

The End is Near, The End is Near

Is it the end of the world as we know it, or do tough times bring pessimism?

For some apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic possibilities:

Watch a movie, such as Terminator Salvation.

Read a book, such as One Second After or Lights Out (free).

For other stories, old and new, read the Wall Street Journal, Hollywood Destroys the World.

So cheer up, it could be worse, much worse.

Are You Smarter Than a Second Grader?

Here is a little 'test' that is supposedly part of a second grade computer class in China or Japan.

Some figure it out right away. Others report having to work on it for a week or more to solve it. Take the Frog Leap Test.



No cheating, but after you give it a try if you need help, here is the answer.

Whether It Is Contempt of Court or Contempt For God, He Has No Regret

UPDATE III: For everything you need to know about contempt of court, read the U.S. Attorney's Manual, 9-39.000 Contempt of Court.


UPDATE II: The story has gone national. Read the Washington Times, School prayer charges stir protests.


UPDATE: Maybe he doesn't regret the speech. Read the Pensacola News Journal, A principal's principles.

Was it contempt of Court or contempt for God? Well now it is alleged criminal contempt of court. Read the Pensacola News Journal, Criminal charges in Pace prayer suit.

Here is the Court's Notice and Order of Criminal Contempt Proceedings:




Bet he now wishes he hadn't made that speech in church. I wonder if he will "back down, back-off, lay down or roll over" now. Watch the video from PNJ.com and you'll know what I mean:



For everything you need to know about contempt of court, read the U.S. Attorney's Manual, 9-39.000 Contempt of Court.

Take a Break from the Summer Break 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.

Topics:

Local and regional: Whether It Is Contempt of Court or Contempt For God, He Has No Regret, and

Nation and international: why not U.S. Senator Maverick No Bull?.

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.

Healther Skelter

Suggested viewing from Mike, who believes it is the "best discussion yet on the Obamacare Death Panels."

Obama Death Panel Debate:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Healther Skelter - Obama Death Panel Debate
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

Are you for private death panels, universal death panels, or the Republi-con favorite, wants whatever scares the public most?

Boys Will Be Boys

Since the dawn of time, man has battled the forces of gravity, gliders, wings and contraptions of all sorts. In the end, all it took was a simple giant water slide down the side of a mountain:

Truthfully, the video looks fake, but it is so hard to tell anymore. What do you think?

Tax and Spend, or Else

Gregory Clark, a professor of economics at the University of California at Davis, and author of "A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World,"wrote an interesting op-ed. Read the Washington Post, Tax and Spend, or Face The Consequences.

Summer Break at NoBullU

NoBullU is on summer break. I'll be back, mid-late August.

Til then, I'll make an occasional post. But there is lots to read and consider here at NoBullU.

And as the economic recovery continues, or not, reread my solution for the economic mess, better than the B & O (Bush & Obama) Bankster bailout that robbed our future.

What is Real Anymore, What is True

Got this from a friend who remarked that "it's amazing what can be done with computers now!!"



I agree, it is amazing what they can do with computers. Makes me wonder what the government does with computers. Later this week is the 40th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11, the first manned mission to the moon. Some think the moon landing was a government hoax.

Now imagine what God can do. OMG do we really exists, or is this all just . . .

REST RESET LOADING . . . . . . . . .

Sorry, disregard the last, my simulated reality program crashed.

BTW, if what we think of as reality was just a fraud, would you want to know?

I think I'll watch a movie.

Rogue Diva Does It Again

UPDATE XII: What candidate, of which party awash in grievance, self-pity, resentment, and anger, impervious to facts or logic, might win 2012 presidential election? Read The New York Times, She Broke the G.O.P. and Now She Owns It, for the answer.


UPDATE XI: Who does Peggy Noonan, political conservative and former speech writer and Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, call "the most careless sower of discord since George W. Bush, who fractured the party and the movement that made him?"

Noonan says this person is "out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity. She experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because she could see no truth in any of it. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence . . . She makes the party look stupid, a party of the easily manipulated."

Read the Wall Street Journal, A Farewell to Harms, for the answer.


UPDATE X: For a remarkable exchange between John McCain and Sarah Palin, the erstwhile mavericky twins, in bites of 140 characters or less, read The New York Times, Sweet, Tweet Revenge.


UPDATE IX: Several lengthy but good articles on The Rogue Diva. Read Time, The Outsider: Where Is Sarah Palin Going Next? and The New York Times, What’s Sarah Palin’s Political Future?

I predict that she will earn a lot of money in the next 18 months, build her network by campaigning and fund raising for other Republican (notice I didn't say Republi-con because I'm trying to be serious here) candidates, run for the presidency, and lose, possibly the primary, but probably the general election in 2012, unless the unemployment rate remains above 8-9%, and if it does, she might just win the elections. That's my prediction, and you heard it here first. In any case, it is going to be an interesting campaign.

Gentlemen, and Lady, let the campaign begin.


UPDATE VIII: As I suspected, Palin realizes that it is time to cash in. Read the Washington Post, Gold Rush In Alaska.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with the decision. Obama did the same thing by cashing in on his fame and popularity after his speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. And look where he ended up.

Tune in Friday when I discuss why I might support Palin in 2012.


UPDATE VII: Now we know, she quit because she is not a quitter. Really, I'm not making this up. Read CNN, Palin: 'I am not a quitter; I am a fighter.'

Reminds me of her support for the bridge to nowhere, before she didn't support it.

How do you know when a politician is lying?

As another veritasphobic politician, she should make a good president.


UPDATE VI: More seriously though, is it time to cut Palin some slack? Read the Washington Post, The Establishment's Palin Panic.

I agree with Kristol, Palin has a fascinating story not unlike Obama's. And I also agree with Kristol that the source of Plain's problem(s) aren't the Naive-crats, but her own party's establishment that "fears and even loathes Palin."


UPDATE V: As I noted below, one reason she quit was to cash in on a book deal. She better hurry though, before CollegeHumor finishes the film version of what might have been had McCain won:




UPDATE IV: More analysis of why Palin quit. Read Time, Why Sarah Palin Quit: The Five Best Explanations, which lists the most important factors that Alaska insiders say went into Palin's sudden decision.

Probably the best explanation yet.


UPDATE III: Was Palin popular because she was an "ordinary citizen who [took] on the elites" and represented "the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard." Read The New York Times, Palin and Her Enemies.


UPDATE II: The FBI says it is not investigating Palin on public corruption charges.

In the meantime, the analysis of her speech continues. Read the Washington Post, With Palin, Keep Your Eye on That Audible.

The speech reminds me of the criticism of her tired cliches, random jargon, and catchphrases she had been coached to repeat, often resulting in nonsensical answers and gibberish during the election.

If you can't get enough of her mangled syntax, then revisit the Sarah Palin Quotes Generator 24/7, and hear insightful comment and analysis almost as inspirational as the real thing.


UPDATE: Still don't understand why Palin will quit. Read The Daily Beast, Palin Resignation: 11 Theories Why.

Why will the Rogue Diva quit her office early? The media was unfair. People were filing ethics complaints against her. Bloggers (and late night comedians) were saying mean things about her. She didn't want to be a lame duck. The state would be better off without her. Those are some of the reasons she gave.

She will build her network for 2012 by campaigning and fund raising for other candidates.

But I think the primary reason she quit is to cash in with a book and some speeches, maybe a little paid commentary on not-the-FoxNews, before she loses the 2012 Republi-con primary.

For more on this interesting development, read The New York Times, Now, Sarah’s Folly and Sarah’s Straight Talk.

Brilliant move, or dumb, dumb, dumb; only time will tell.

Why do you think Palin quit?

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.

Topics:

Local and regional: another local corruption scandal and are Chamber of Commerce salaries, paid for by tax dollars, including nearly $200k for the Chamber CEO, worth it? Then why did the chamber ignored the USS Lexington Association's request for info, so that it will hold a reunion in Mobile; and

Nation and international: The Rogue Diva: a savvy, skilled, and adept politician or out of control, bizarre, and even egotistical (is accusing politicians of being egotistical like accusing ballerinas of dancing on their toes) and why I might support The Rogue Diva in 2012.

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.

What is the Opposite of Starve the Beast?

UPDATE: Had enough of Republi-con and Naive-Crat borrow and spend, then join Club Wagner.

What is Obama's plan to balance the budget? Read the Washington Post, Fattening the Beast.

I predict that this fiscal-political strategy will be no more successful than starve the beast.

Has the Economy Turned a Corner?

"Industrial production suggests that the economy is poised to turn around, but that the climb out of the current downturn will be a long one." For a graph of various business cycles over the last forty years, go to The New York Times, Turning a Corner?

Was Michael Jackson the Perfect Star for the Era of Fantasy Gone Wild

Has society descended into a Michael Jackson-esque fantasyland, trying to leave the limits and obligations of the real world behind. Read The New York Times, Behind the Facade.

Which reminds me of the warning of Ayn Rand: "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality."

Happy Independence Day to the Republi-CON Party

Watch The GOP's Failure to Launch.

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.

Topics:

Local and regional: is it the end for The Zoo of Northwest Florida and now the teachers sue; and

Nation and international: Republi-CON family values and feuds.

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.

The Banks (and Other Financial Institutions) are Robbing Our Future

UPDATE VII: Another I told ya so. Read the Rolling Stone, The Great American Bubble Machine, about how Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression.


UPDATE VI: Ever wonder who the inside man was for the financial industry coup d'état that seized control of the U.S. Treasury. Read The New York Times, Geithner, as Member and Overseer, Forged Ties to Finance Club.


UPDATE V: How much has been looted from the treasury? Read the Washington Post, IMF Estimates Cost of Financial Crisis at $4 Trillion.

And besides paying bonuses, buying toxic assets with government money, guaranteeing loans, and posting huge profits, what else is being done with our money? Read the Washington Post, Bailout Recipients Spent Millions on Lobbying, Records Show.

Once a foob, always a foob?

UPDATE IV: You might not have realized it, but our government was overthrown in a coup recently. Read The Atlantic, The Quiet Coup, and find out how the Geithner, as Member and Overseer, Forged Ties to Finance Club has effectively captured our government.

New York financial institutions are using our treasury to more pay bonuses, buy toxic assets with government money, guarantee loans, and post huge profits.

Read the Washington Post, Fannie, Freddie Budget $210 Million On Bonuses, Draw Lawmakers' Fire and Reuters, US banks with taxpayer money could buy toxic assets, The New York Times, U.S. Program Lends a Hand to Banks, Quietly, and The New York Times, Big Profits, Big Questions.

At the center of it all, Goldman Sachs, the former firm of former Treasury Secretary Paulson. The AIG bailout never made sense, except if you understood that the money was meant to save Goldman Sachs. Since early on it has been clear that payments to AIG were just a cover to get money to Goldman Sachs. And when the original terms of the bailout proved too onerous, the terms were waived for another sweetheart deal.

UPDATE III: In an editorial, Joseph Stiglitz, an economist and professor at Columbia University, and winner of the 2001 the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, calls the Obama plan ersatz capitalism, "a win-win-lose proposal: the banks win, investors win — and taxpayers lose." He says:

"Some Americans are afraid that the government might temporarily “nationalize” the banks, but that option would be preferable to the Geithner plan. After all, the F.D.I.C. has taken control of failing banks before, and done it well. It has even nationalized large institutions like Continental Illinois (taken over in 1984, back in private hands a few years later), and Washington Mutual (seized last September, and immediately resold).

What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a “partnership” in which one partner robs the other. And such partnerships — with the private sector in control — have perverse incentives, worse even than the ones that got us into the mess."

Read The New York Times, Obama’s Ersatz Capitalism.

UPDATE II: An update from on my post in February. Joseph Stiglitz, an economist and professor at Columbia University, and winner of the 2001 the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, agrees that the Obama public-private partnership to buy up to $1 trillion of 'toxic' bank assets "amounts to robbery of the American people." Read The Daily Telegraph, Geithner rescue package 'robbery of the American people.'

The winner of the 2008 the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, Paul Krugman, an economist and professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times, also doesn't like the plan. Read The New York Times, Financial Policy Despair.

UPDATE: Next week Uncle Sam is expected to triple down on AIG. Read the appropriately named article in The New York Times, Propping Up a House of Cards, in which the writer predicts that the government will spend "quarter of a trillion dollars" to prop up AIG. All for the purpose of saving Goldman Sacks, the former firm of former Treasury Secretary Paulson, the focus of an initial bailout proposal that never made sense, beneficiary of over a hundred billion bailout dollars, and then a hundred billion more.

It is robbery of the future!

The government is aiding and abetting the robbery of our future by investment banks and other financial institutions. Read The Big Picture, Citigroup: World’s Worst Investment to Get Even Worse, in which Barry Ritholtz wrote:

"Losers double down.

That’s the classic trading rule which the USA is about to violate in an enormous way. According to trading maven Dennis Gartman, one should “never, ever, ever, under any circumstance, add to a losing position.”

And yet that is what we are about to do.

To review: Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson made a terrible investment on behalf of the taxpayers by purchasing a 7.8% stake in Citigroup (C) for an initial $25 billion dollars. He further put the US on the hook by guaranteeing against 90% of future losses on $301 billion in assets. Subsequently, we (the taxpayers) injected another $20 billion dollars.

At the time, Citigroup had a market cap of about ~$50 billion dollars. Today, its worth ~$13 billion.

So for about 100% of the market value of Citi, plus insurance guarantees worth of as much as 500% of its value (~$275 billion), we got less than 1/10 of a company that in total was worth 1/5 of our investment.

Pretty good deal, eh?

That $45 billion dollar stake now has a market value of just over a billion.

And, its about to get even worse.

Rather than do what is the FDIC-mandated-by-law thing, we will instead convert the nearly worthless common into preferred shares. The taxpayers stake will rise to near 40% of Citigroup.

NYT:

“Under the terms of the deal, the Treasury Department has agreed to convert up to $25 billion of its preferred stock investment in Citigroup into common stock. It will convert its stake to the extent that Citigroup can persuade private investors, including several big foreign government investment funds, to do so alongside the government, two people close to the deal said.”

What does this do for us? Well, the higher investment stake creates an enormous incentive for John Q. Public to continue to pour money into Citi, regardless of valuation. The inept banking giant then has access to infinite amount of capital, courtesy of you, the 1040 filers.

Its just another example of why these insolvent banks should be nationalized, or for you squeemish free marketers, FDIC mandated, pre-packaged Chapter 11, government funded reorganization.

If Obama continues to listen to the god-awful advice of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, he will doom his presidency, and finsh marginally ahead of George W. Bush on the list of worst presidents.

This is not change we an believe in . . ."

Let me say again, the taxpayers paid $45 billion dollar for stock in an investment bank that now has a market value of only about $1 billion.

It is bank robbery of taxpayers. The government is robbing our future to save the Ponzi scheme that was Wall Street. The banks know it. Read The Baseline Scenario, Robbery Note - From The Banking Oligarchs This Morning, in which Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote:

"The modern bank robber calmly hands a note to the teller, asking for money and making a moderately specific scary threat. The robber, of course, expects the teller to hand over unmarked bills without a fuss.

This morning’s “research” note from a major international bank is entitled, “Falling Short: The government needs to buy toxic assets,” and the heart of their one page argument is, with the emphasis as in the original,

One main stumbling block to the purchasing of troubled assets has been pricing, specifically how does the government price a diverse set of assets in a way that does not put the taxpayer on the hook. However, this should not be the standard by which we judge the efficacy of the plan, because a more prolonged deterioration in the economy will result in a higher terminal unemployment rate and a greater deterioration of the tax base. As such, the decline in tax revenues will crimp many of the essential services provided by the government. Ultimately, the taxpayer will pay one way or another, either through greatly diminished job prospects and/or significantly higher taxes down the line to pay for the massive debt issuance required to fund current and prospective fiscal spending initiatives. We think the government should do the following: estimate the highest price it can pay for the various toxic assets residing on financial institution balance sheets which would still return the principal to taxpayers.

Tell me if you think I am overreacting - it has been a difficult week - but I interpret this as saying: “give us as much money as you can, or else.” And the “or else” appears to be unemployment up around 20% and debt/GDP in the red-for-danger zone.

Can bankers really trump the American government in this fashion? It’s painful to read, but probably helpful that the oligarchs put their cards (and notes) on the table so brazenly. This is, after all, a critical fight to save American democracy, and it’s good to know what we are up against."

All the while the investment banks and other financial institutions pay dividends and bonuses, and have lavish retreats and their CEOs get 'golden parachutes.

This is why it is time to refresh the tree of liberty.