Friday, November 16, 2012

The election

Congratulations to President Obama on his reelection! May the next four years be very productive for the American people.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Patriotism or racism?

There is a new group opposed to President Obama. It calls itself "Special Operations for America." You can see its web site here: ( The group is headed by Ryan Zinke, a former SEAL and currently a career politician in Montana.

The organization got caught illegally using U.S. military logos on its sites, and had to be ordered by the military to remove them. (See here.)

The SOFA organization is also using on its web site a digitally altered video of Obama that makes his skin darker and more shadowy, making him look more sinister.

Do this comparison:

The video used by SOFA is on their home page, here ( It's the video embedded on the right side, where you can see Obama with his extremely dark skin. If you open that up in, it is here: Scroll to the 1:00 mark, and watch the next 5 seconds.

Now for the original, which is here: Scroll to the 0:32 mark and watch the next 5 seconds.

Notice the alteration of his skin tone and color. (Maybe they should have added the beat of some jungle drums, too.)

I like to think our active duty military personnel and our veterans are better than this, but obviously some of them don't want to be better, and they are not afraid of displaying openly their racial bigotry toward our commander in chief.

Maybe Mr. Zinke and his buddies were once heroes, but today they are racists, and bring disrespect to the military and to America. This type of despicable behavior is not appropriate for a modern civilized people. It is nothing but an appeal to racists and a promotion of ugliness in a quest for personal political gain. America should be better than that.

Sunday, July 15, 2012

The health care law and death panels!

We have all heard about those death panels that are being set up by the new health care law the president got passed. You know, the faceless bureaucrats who sit behind their desks and decide who will die because it would be too expensive (remember those words) to allow efforts to keep them alive.

The news about the death panels started with the tea party darling Sarah Palin. (See here) The notion has been endorsed by another tea party mouthpiece, Michelle Bachmann. (See here)

Senator. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, said that his daughter would not be alive today if the law had been in place when she was born. He said:

"I don't even want to think what might have happened if she had been born at a time and place where government defined the limits for most insurance policies and set precedents [sic] on what would be covered," Johnson writes. "Would the life-saving procedures that saved her have been deemed cost-effective by policy makers deciding where to spend increasingly scarce tax dollars?" (See here)
Republican Congressman Phil Gingrey, from Georgia, says:
“Under this IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board)… that the Democrats put in Obamacare, where a bunch of bureaucrats decide whether you get care, such as continuing on dialysis or cancer chemotherapy, I guarantee you when you withdraw that the patient is going to die,” Gingrey said recently. “It’s rationing.” (See here)
Former New York Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey, who has made a career out of fighting these death panels, says Obama wants to "pull the plug on Grandma." (See here)

I could go on and on about this, but what's the point. The death panel accusation is pure lie. It is a lie by people who claim to be Christians. They want you to believe their lies. They want you to VOTE based on this outrageous lie that they are telling you. The health care law does not call for death panels, pure and simple. (See Wikipedia)

I know it is sad to think that somebody would order that your child, your parent, your spouse, or even you, be denied life saving treatment because it is too expensive (remember those words). But the health care law does not provide for that. It is a lie so big that it has been voted the "Lie of the Year" in 2009. (See here)

(The death panel lie is not the only lie about the health care law. See this article entitled "Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200." That article is nearly three years old, exploding lie after lie, and we still get in our emails the same old lies that have been proven to be false.)

Again, it is an outright lie that the health care law provides for death panels. This lie is designed to cause distress to millions of Americans, to cause them to worry needlessly that they or their loved ones will be allowed to die unnecessarily because keeping them alive is too expensive (remember those words).

Here is a comment at the Tea Party Nation site by a woman whose son is in medical school:
"My son is in his 3rd year of medical school and the thought of him possibly being the doctor that is "FORCED" BY THE GOVERNMENT to write the patient order to remove those tubes horrifies me--this is not why he wants to become a doctor--to give folks mediocre care; to have to be the one who has to carry out the govt's death panels!" (See here)
This woman is agonizing over the thought that her son, when he is practicing medicine, will be ordered to let people die! She is a victim of the vicious lie that the tea party and Republicans are telling. 

Although the death panel accusation against the health care law is a lie, there are death panels! They really do exist in American health care! They have existed for years!

Remember the little girl I talked about in a previous message? (See here) What was the danger there? It's in the video, as clear as can be. The problem was that the girl's insurance company was going to soon cut off her coverage because of a lifetime limit on coverage. In other words, the girl would likely die because some faceless insurance company bureaucrat would decide enough is enough, and would cut off her coverage on the grounds that continuing her life saving treatment is too expensive. (Sound familiar?)

Here is a video I have not mentioned. (See here) It is about another girl, one who needed emergency surgery on her heart when she was 15 HOURS old. Watch the video. Watch the anguish of her mother, who knows that the tea party and Republicans are doing everything they can to take away the law that is keeping her daughter alive. What Christian could possibly want to return to a system where insurance bureaucrats send out letters telling parents that their child cannot live, because that would be too expensive?

Here is another person who is helped by the health care law. (See here) The children in that video are not sick. But who wants to send them a letter telling them that their mother must die because it would be too expensive to keep her alive? Do I hear any volunteers?

Actually, I misspoke. I said there are death panels. That's not true. Because of the health care law that the president and the Democratic Party passed, those death panels are now forbidden. They are ILLEGAL. No longer can those death panels make life and death decisions for you, your children, your parents, just because the insurance company decides it is too expensive, and your life is not worth enough.

Those who complain about death panels are, in reality, just liars and fake Christians. They are claiming to be against death panels and they tell lies about imaginary death panels on the one hand. On the other hand, they are actively working to return death panels to America, so millions of people, like the ones you see in the videos, can die--all because it would be too expensive to keep them alive.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

The owner of a business is not responsible for the business?

Let's say you go to a restaurant and order a steak dinner.

Now let's say what you get is a chicken sandwich. You ask to speak to the owner. The owner says "I'm just the owner, I'm not responsible."

So you are out of luck, right? Of course not! The owner is responsible for the business, whether he cooked the meal or not!

Look at what Mitt Romney thinks about this:

Now, he wants to be our president, right?

A lie about a graph

I was browsing the Tea Party Nation site, and ran across a fabricated graph that was attributed falsely to President Obama. You can see the article and the graph here:

This is what the graph looks like:

The author of that post claimed, "This chart by the way is not a joke, it was actually circulated by the Obama Campaign yesterday. There are seriously no words."

It seemed odd to me that the Obama campaign would be very stupid to put out a graph entitled "Unemployment Rate With and Without Better Stories." I decided to do a little checking, but while reading the comments to the post, I discovered that somebody beat me to it.

Here is a post by one of the tea party members who fell for this. Because corrections to lies at the Tea Party Nation web site often disappear mysteriously, I quickly copied the member's reply, and I'm putting it here.

That person's reply is this:

LOL! At least I can laugh about what happened to me, so I guess that's a good sign.
I sent this story and graph to a friend, and she wrote back after a while. She pointed out that where this article said "This chart by the way is not a joke, it was actually circulated by the Obama Campaign yesterday" is not true.

She pointed out that this chart was not on the Obama site, but was on Mitt Romney's site, at this page.
She said to notice that there is a link for the source of the graph on that page. That link is
She told me to go to that page and read what is right before the graph, and then read what is right after the graph.
Before the graph is this:
"The Obama campaign released a new chart showing what unemployment will be like in a second Obama term (if God forbid, there is one)."
Right after the graph is this:
"I may have lied and that chart is from the great @slublog (who you should be following on Twitter if you're not already) and not the Obama campaign. Who is to say? Dave in Texas reminds me to remind you that as often as you see that chart around, it was invented by a former commenter/co-blogger here at the HQ named Geoff."
By the time I read that, I was so embarrassed! To make things worse, about an hour later, she sent me another link to this document:
The original graph is on page 4 of that document, and it is over 3 years old. Then it became obvious that this graph was altered by somebody later, so it could be claimed that Obama released it "yesterday."
I feel really bad that I fell for this. My friend has told me not to believe everything I read, and I had always told her I knew what was true and what wasn't. Now I've learned my lesson. Thank God my friend is understanding, but she did say she would rather not be bothered with any more stuff like this, as she doesn't have time to separate the truth from all the untruths. I won't repeat what she said about the tea party, but I'll just say that she really made me feel like a fool for even being a member.
Be careful, people. I don't want you feeling like I did when she ripped me a new one. LOL!

Welfare Reform Requested by Republicans Comes Under Attack

Two Republican led states, Utah and Nevada, have requested that they be allowed some flexibility in the welfare program so they can spend more time helping recipients find work, and less time filling out paperwork. Some states actually spend more time filling out documentation than they do on job finding efforts for people on welfare. (See the Wall Street Journal)

So the Obama administration has decided to allow some waivers for states that think they can do a better job. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In its waiver announcement, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notes that demonstration projects approved will be “focused on improving employment outcomes” for participants.  This is a major step forward.  Under the current structure, states can meet their TANF work participation rate – the only measure of state performance – without recipients finding paying jobs.  These demonstration projects will help to shift the focus of TANF employment programs from process and “bean counting” (whether recipients participate in programs) to outcomes (whether they actually find and keep jobs). (See here) 
Now what is the Republicans' response to this new empowerment to states to try more effective measures?

A leading tea party site calls it "dictatorship" by President Obama. (See here) Judson Phillips says, "Just like that a law enacted by Congress and signed by another President is set aside.  Yes, it remains on the books, but it is effectively gone."

That is a lie. The law remains. And the goal, as shown above, is still to find employment for welfare recipients, but to allow states to try to do a better job of it.

But Judson Phillips and the tea party are not the only ones participating in the lie. House Speaker John Boehner says Obama has "gutted" the work requirements. (See here)

Mitt Romney says, "President Obama now wants to strip the established work requirements from welfare." (See here) That is a lie. Lying Republicans have even gone so far as to say that the new approach would be "opening the door to letting states count such things as bed rest or going to weight-loss programs." That is a lie.

If these Republicans were telling the truth, then maybe they should explain why two Republican led states asked for this flexibility in the first place. 

Republicans have long asked for more power and flexibility in their handling of programs. Now that they get it, at their own request, they turn around and accuse President Obama of being a federal dictator. Will these lies never stop?

Many of these liars, like the tea party, claim to be good Christians. Maybe I'm behind the times. Maybe something about Christianity changed, and one of the commandments now has been amended to "Thou shalt lie."

I predict more so-called Christians will cheer the lies now being told about the welfare flexibility. It's time for decent Americans to stop applauding these lies and the liars, and start condemning them.

Repealing Health Care - again, and again

As expected, on July 11, 2012, the House of Representatives voted to repeal every provision of the health care law. Every Republican voted for the repeal. They said they want to take a stand on health care. This is the 33rd time they have voted to repeal the law. I think we know where they stand now.

Here is a video that shows a 4 year old girl and her family: click here.

That girl's health has been under attack for years now. She has survived the recent attack in the Supreme Court. Now she is under renewed attack by the Republicans, who want to repeal the health care law, but have no plan of their own. That's right, their "repeal and replace" is really "repeal and do nothing."

Every Christian--indeed, every caring American, regardless of religion--should view that video. Think of the anguish the parents must be going through, to see their girl's health being held hostage to 33 Republican attacks, with more to come. How would you feel if it were your child?

There are those who smugly ask "yeah, that's sad, but tell me how we are going to pay for all of this!!!!!" The answer is simple. We will pay for it the same way we will pay for you and your family's health care when you file a claim on your own insurance. Is that answer not good enough? If your child developed a serious medical condition, and you have insurance, and your insurance pays, nobody would come running to you claiming that your child is bankrupting our nation, would they?

Imagine this scene. Jesus is standing before a crowd, preaching compassion and caring for the sick. The crowd is listening. Suddenly from the back of the crowd, somebody yells, "How the hell are we going to pay for all of this, Mr. Liberal smarty pants?"

What would Jesus do?

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Romneycare's Birthday

Romneycare, the Massachusetts health care law that was championed by former governor Mitt Romney, has had its sixth birthday, and Romney did not attend the party. That would have been awkward, since he is opposed to the rest of the country having the same health care his home state has.


Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Update to Representative Jimmie Smith's False Claim

Regarding the cliam by Rep. Jimmie Smith that the Florida legislature cannot submit its members to drug testing due to a Supreme Court ruling on "elected officials," has weighed in on the issue.

Their conclusion: "Smith's claim can be decided by the Truth-O-Meter. It's False."

The Miami Herald has also come to the same conclusion, stating, "Jimmie Smith and other supporters of the bill didn't produce any proof that drug abuse was rampant in the state work force. They just wanted to look like tough guys." Article here.

Previous blog post on this new drug testing law:

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Health Care is a Human Issue

Sometimes we all get caught up in technical issues, or legal arguments.

It is important not to forget that it's really all about people.

See this story:

Will the Republicans and Tea Party be telling that little girl to get a job and quit freeloading?

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Health Care Is Interstate Commerce

Opponents of the federal health care law argue that it goes to far for the Constitution's grant of power to regulate intestate commerce.

There is an article at the Boston Globe that shows just how intertwined health care is with interstate commerce, and the consequences of each state coming up with their own widely differing solutions.

An example:

The doctors and nurses in the emergency room of Holy Family Hospital in Methuen routinely treat patients who lack health insurance. 
How can this be, given that Massachusetts requires its residents to obtain insurance and has achieved near-universal coverage since its landmark health-care law passed in 2006? Simple: many of the uninsured showing up at Holy Family hail from across the state border, a mere three miles away in New Hampshire, which has no such mandate.
. . .
Uninsured New Hampshire residents using the emergency room account for 11 percent of the hospital’s bad debt each year, said Lester Schindel, president of Holy Family.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

"Inspirational Message" in Florida Schools

There is a new law in Florida designed to reduce drug use and return respect and civility to schools. It was recently passed by the legislature and signed by the governor.

This solution to drug abuse took two years of work in getting it passed. According to a sponsor, who said that the moral decline started when state sponsored prayer in schools was outlawed , "Before we removed inspirational messages, the No. 1 problem was talking out of turn. Now, it's drug abuse."

So now student led "inspirational message" are going to fight drug abuse? How long will it take before the number on problem again is "talking out of turn"?

Of course, this is silly. It was (and will be) a lot of time spent on something that will achieve nothing at all, but will cause all kinds of hard feelings and conflict.

When we have people this stupid in the legislature, is there any hope for sensible policy being passed at all?

The great majority of people who contacted Governor Scott had urged him to veto the bill.


Friday, March 23, 2012

Romney's Sampling of States for Health Care

On March 23, 2012, while campaigning in Louisiana, Mitt Romney said, "This presidency has been a failure, and the centerpiece of that failure is this piece of legislation back here, Obamacare." According to  Nia-Malika Henderson and T.W. Farnam at The Washington Post,
"I'm going to return to the states the authority and the responsibility that states have always had to care for their poor and their uninsured," Romney said. "The solution for Massachusetts is quite different than, let's say, the solution for Texas."
Now that he mentions it...

NPR recently had a couple of segments on its All Things Considered program on the state of Health Insurance in Texas and Massachusetts.

For Texas, listen here:

For Massachusetts, listen here:

According to the blog article at The Washington Post mentioned above, Romney didn't really talk much about the plan in Massachusetts, which he helped create as governor. That's would be inconvenient, because "Obamacare" is kind of like a clone of that. Given the figures that NPR cites, RomneyCare seems to be hugely successful in getting the state's people insured. And "the solution for Texas" seems to be to leave as many people as possible uninsured and at risk. And Romney thinks that's just fine.

What local circumstances could there be in Texas that makes it preferable that the health insurance situation there be in such a miserable condition?

Since Romney has vowed to get rid of "Obamacare" which is like the plan in Massachusetts, it is clear that for the American people as whole, Romney would prefer the level of coverage that we see in Texas.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Anti-Female Steamroller continues

New Hampshire is now on the bandwagon. In their zeal to stick it to Obama, they have joined the war on women.

See this article:

Note that there is a video in that article. You might want to check that out.

Does anybody really believe this is about "religious freedom" or "saving costs"? And if so, which one?

In the video for that article above, notice that one of the questioners suggested the use of condoms? Does that lady not realize that some members of the Catholic church (and some other religions as far as I know) frown on the use of condoms as a method of birth control? Will the church now rise up in indignation for this public insult to the church and all the Catholics of the world? Am I being silly? Yes, I am. So is that stupid, self-righteous woman who made such a suggestion.

Florida Lawmakers Turn Down Free Drug Testing

Check out the offer that was made to the Florida legislature to have free drug testing--of themselves. Suddenly they don't like drug testing any more.

Rick Scott Signs Drug Testing Bill

The governor of Florida, Rick Scott, has now signed the bill requiring random drug testing of Florida workers.

This is the law in which the legislature exempted themselves and the governor from its requirements.

There will certainly be a law suit challenging this law's constitutionality, and that suit should be won without any problems. See this discussion.

Sunday, March 18, 2012

The Corruption of Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Many may have heard of Joe Arpaio, the Arizona sheriff who is looking into the birth of Barack Obama.

What his supporters may know less about is how corrupt this man is. He has general disdain for human rights. See this article in The Atlantic.

Even less well known may be the criminal records of his appointed posse.

Tea party members view this thug as an American hero.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Drug testing and Jimmie T. Smith's lies

Let's say you serve in the Florida legislature and you want to pass a law that violates people's constitutional rights, but you want to make sure that the law doesn't apply to you. What to do? It's simple. You completely ignore the Supreme Court case that shows you are acting illegally, but then you rely on that very same case to argue that it protects you!

When the Florida legislature passed the bill requiring general drug testing for all state workers, our representatives and senators conveniently excluded themselves from this requirement. Representative Jimmie T. Smith stated that this was because a U.S. Supreme Court case has held that requiring elected officials to submit to the test would violate their rights. Because Mr. Smith was a supporter of this new bill, it is an unspoken premise of his that the Supreme Court's decision applied only to elected officials, and does not apply to other state employees.

Mr. Smith is being dishonest on this, and the people of Florida deserve to know the truth on this issue.

The Supreme Court case that Mr. Smith was referring to is Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997). In that case, Georgia passed a law requiring elected officials to pass drug tests as a condition of service. The court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, in that it imposed an unreasonable search without special circumstances being present. The court did not limit its reasoning to elected officials, as Mr. Smith would have the people of Florida believe.

The court stated first that laws such as these impose a search on state workers, bringing into play the federal constitution's provisions on searches. A search must be "reasonable" the court said, and that requires that either there is an "individualized suspicion of wrongdoing," or there are "special needs."

In this case, there is no individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. That is, workers are not tested on an individual basis because of a reasonable belief that any particular individual has violated some law with drug use. Instead, the law requires all workers to be subject to random testing, and those tested are just unlucky, rather than being suspected of crimes. So this test fails.

The court then turned to the issue of "special needs." The court examined precedents, and concluded, "[the] special need for drug testing must be substantial--important enough to override the individual's acknowledged privacy interest, sufficiently vital to suppress the Fourth Amendment's normal requirement of individualized suspicion.... Georgia has failed to show, in justification of [the law], a special need of that kind." This case was different than other cases which upheld suspicion-less drug testing, because the other cases dealt with issues such as law enforcement, and certain jobs where safety could be severely compromised by the use of drugs. The court held that there was no showing of such special needs, and the law was therefore unconstitutional.

Nowhere in any of the court's opinion did it rely on any distinction between elected officials and other state workers. I cannot fathom how anybody can truthfully claim the court did rely on such a distinction.

Now, in Florida's case, Mr. Smith relies on a case to exclude drug testing for elected officials, when that case does not say what he claims. Ironically, the very case he attempts to rely on will be the case used to strike down the law that he and the Florida legislature did pass. That the Georgia law targeted elected officials did not limit the reason it was struck down. Instead, the court's reasoning applied to all state employees, absent individual "special needs." Mr. Smith's argument is like taking a case that holds an owner of a dog liable for the dog's bites, and claiming that it would not apply to the owner of a bear for the bear's bites.

Elected representatives should not be lying to the citizenry regarding their actions. And they should not willingly violate the Constitution as clearly interpreted by the court systems. In this case, Mr. Smith cannot claim to be unaware of the case in question. He cited it for an inappropriate purpose. It is inconceivable that he didn't know what the case actually held. He simply lied about the effect of the case.

We may have grown jaded and expect our politicians to lie to us, but that doesn't make it right. And when the lie is used to justify granting an exemption to themselves, it's even worse. When our politicians lie to us, it's important that somebody point out the truth, so the voters can decide whether that politician should continue in the position of trust that we have granted them.

References: (Chandler v. Miller)

Friday, March 16, 2012

Birth Control in Arizona

The Huffington Post reports:
Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.
What is it with this constant war against women lately? If this bill passes, women could have to prove to their employers that they want insurance coverage for contraceptives, but they won't use it for birth control purposes.

Rick Santorum Promises War on Pornography

On Rick Santorum's web site, he promises a vigorous war on pornography if he is elected president. He says pornography causes profound brain changes. See here.

But Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune points out that with the rise of Internet porn, the incidence of rape has declined:
A state-by-state study by economist Todd Kendall of Clemson University found that "the arrival of the Internet was associated with a reduction in rape incidence. However, growth in Internet usage had no apparent effect on other crimes." He concluded, that "in contrast to previous theories to the contrary, liberalization of pornography access may lead to declines in sexual victimization of women."
So it looks like profound changes in the brain are not the only thing resulting from porn exposure. Another effect is less sexual violence against women. If Santorum has his way, this will change.

Rick Santorum Says Dutch Euthanize their Elderly

As reported by The Atlantic:
Rick Santorum claimed that 10 per cent of the Netherlands' deaths were from euthanasia, 5 percent forced, and that "elderly people in the Netherlands don't go to the hospital" or, if they do, wear bracelets saying "do not euthanize me," all of which is false.
A Dutch reporter asked a Santorum spokesperson (video included) about this, and she imitated a broken record, not really addressing the issue of the false claim.

More information is here, along with a video of Santorum making his claims.

Women's Health Disaster in Texas

In an effort to punish Planned Parenthood (because it provides abortions), the state of Texas has prohibited the organization from treating Medicaid patients. This violates federal law funding Medicaid by discriminating against providers on the basis of a non-Medicaid paid service.

The result is that under federal law, Medicaid funding for Texas must be terminated.

This jeopardizes health care for 130,000 low income women in Texas who rely on Planned Parenthood for services like cancer screening.

Republicans are blaming the Obama administration, but it has been pointed out by the Huffington Post:
But an HHS spokesperson told reporters on Thursday that this was not Obama's decision and that the administration's hands are tied on the issue. “Medicaid law is very clear; a state may not restrict patients’ choice of providers of services like mammograms and other cancer screenings, if those providers are qualified to deliver care covered by Medicaid. Patients, not state government officials, should be able to choose the doctors and other health care providers that are best for them and their families. In 2005, Texas requested this same authority to restrict patients’ choices, and the Bush Administration did not grant it to them either.”

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Contraception and Health Care Costs

There is a report that concludes that making contraception more available reduces overall health care costs to society, and thus satisfies the tenets of "fiscal conservatism". According to the article at The Atlantic:
Every dollar that our society spends on preventing unintended pregnancies produces us "savings of between two and six dollars," according to a new report from the Brookings Institution. The savings come from averting health care, child care, and other costs associated with unplanned pregnancies. That's a rate of return of 100% to 500%, making it one of the safest and most profitable investments anywhere. 
"Unintended pregnancies are disproportionately concentrated among women who are unmarried, teenaged, and poor," the report finds. Those are all groups of people who could probably use help affording contraception. If you happen to dislike the idea of your money going to help poor, unmarried, or teenage women, consider the fact that you will not just get your money back, you'll at least double it and at most quintuple. You'll enjoy this profit in the form of lower health care costs and lower taxes.
The article goes on to note:
When Texas cut $73 million from state family planning services, the increase in unplanned pregnancies ended up costing $230 million in additional Medicaid burdens, according to the nonpartisan state Legislative Budget Board.  
So, contraceptive use helps women keep control of their reproductive decisions, reduces the number of abortions, increases health overall in society, and saves money. This makes sense to me!

Wall Street exposed?

A major player in Wall Street has written a damning expose of the firm he worked for, Goldman Sachs. You can see it here, from the New York Times.

It is, at the least, interesting reading.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Drug testing for state workers

The Florida legislature just approved random drug tests for state workers. They excluded themselves, because they said that would violate their rights.

No. I'm not kidding.

Florida minimum wage preserved

The proposal to lower the minimum wage for Florida restaurant workers has died, and will not become law--at least not this year.

The Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association says it will try again later.

It looks like Senator Nancy Detert, a main proponent (I think she was the sponsor, or was at least the lackey of the Association) of the bill is now claiming she didn't support it, and she says she didn't know exactly what was in the bill. Yeah, right....

Previously Detert said she and others were being brave and bold in their efforts to gut the pay of restaurant workers.

Story here:

Another news source here:

A powerful editorial previously written on this issue:

If you want to be "brave and bold" yourself, you can write to the senator who championed this bill here:

The big video of Obama

The tea party, or whoever, must be really desperate. How can they put out something about the "smoking gun" video and expect people not to laugh at them?

See the story and video here:

Really, people, this is pathetic.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Limbaugh's contribution to the Democrats

Rush Limbaugh is helping the Democrats with the reelection this year. He's showing how hateful the Tea Party and many other Republicans are. Maybe the Democrats can buy some advertising space on his program, to help him stay on the air so he can spew more of his hatred.

And the others in the race

I see Santorum is not the only one trying to appeal to fanatics. The others are trying to get their votes, too.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Santorum and the race

It appears that Rick Santorum is trying to appeal to the Tea Party, with attacks and claims that appeal to the lowest of thinkers. His ideas on issues like contraception, religious freedom, environmental protection, and public education seem to be so far from America's thinking in general that if he were the nominee Obama should win handily.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Florida Minimum Wage Law

Here goes the legislature again in Florida, passing special interest laws intended to screw people. There is a bill under consideration now that will reduce the pay of restaurant workers. Story here:

How much can working class people take, with the tea party and their puppets squeezing all they can out of America?

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Tea Party Nation (TPN)

I signed up for the Tea Party Nation site to see what was going on there. No wonder that thing is not open to the public. All kinds of paranoid ramblings, along with some of the most illiterate and ignorant posts I've ever seen. The URL is here:

To check it out, use a throwaway email account to sign up with. Then sit back and chuckle at what you see. Or cry.

Tea Party presidential candidates

The tea party presidential candidates didn't last long did they? And Gingrich is doing poorly, despite his butt kissing efforts. Way to go America! Take your country back from those jerks.

Tea Party Decline

I wonder if the Tea Party has yet detected that it is detested by the rest of America. It looks like the Republican leadership is sensing that things have changed, but it is still uncertain whether the rank and file is still as clueless as they seem.

Upcoming national elections

Things are really nasty lately. I'm glad I am no longer a Republican. I don't think I could stomach myself if I were.