Things may be weird around here for the next hour or three, because I am remodeling. Apologies for any inconvenience. 🙂
TC
Maintenance is finished. Smileys are back. 😀
Oct 052011
Jul 182011
Still down. Hopefully not for long.
Jul 172011
I have severe stomach flu and need to take the day off.
Nov 292010
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has his panties in a bunch, because the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled the FCRC a hate group. That must be particularly embarrassing for a pseudo-Christian organization that falsely claims love as the driving force behind their faith. I see it as imperative that authentic believers take the lead in promoting acceptance of and coexistence with others, rejecting the path of intolerance, hate and violence promoted by the Republican religious right.
The Family Research Council is angry after being labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Family Research Council is a Christian fundamentalist organization that has a long history of demonizing members of the gay and lesbian community.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. Founded by civil rights lawyers Morris Dees and Joseph Levin Jr. in 1971, the SPLC is internationally known for tracking and exposing the activities of hate groups.
The conservative Christian hate group Family Research Council (FRC) has long been an outspoken and vicious critic of the LGBT community. Recently the FRC has been a major critic of anti-bullying programs meant to protect gay and lesbian youth.
The SPLC’s recently released report added some of the nation’s leading Christian conservative groups, including the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association, and the Traditional Values Coalition, to its registry of hate groups, groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
Not suprisingly, the Family Research Council doesn’t like being lumped together with the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups. The FRC launched a strongly worded response [hate group delinked] to the SPLC, calling the action a "slanderous attack"
However, while Tony Perkins, leader of the FRC, and other leaders of the Christian hate movement may deny it, it seems clear that their demonization of homosexuals plays a role in fomenting the anti-gay violence, hatred and bullying that is present in society.
The Family Research Council is perhaps the most prominent voice in conservative social politics and their dehumanizing rhetoric around the gay and lesbian community is nothing short of despicable… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <The Portland Examiner>
It’s really quite simple. When people regularly practice hatred claim to be Christian, they aren’t.
Apr 062010
Computer is stillin the shop. I am still using my cell phone. All my software was lost. I can pick up the computer late tomorrow. I expect to spend all day Thursday reinstalling software. Argh!
Apr 042010
I am posting from my phone. My computer is down. I do not think I can get to the repair shop before Thursday. I shall return sooner if I can.
Mar 012010
BR7RPBSKA8BS
Please ignore this, folks. It’s for validation.
Feb 262010
I tried to find one exchange that personified the health care summit. Here’s my choice.
CALVIN WOODWARD
AP News
Feb 25, 2010 13:07 EST
When President Barack Obama and a Republican lawmaker sparred Thursday over what might happen to health insurance premiums in an overhauled system, both cited a nonpartisan analysis that looked at that very question. The president gave a fairer summary of what the analysis found.
Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander declared in his statement to the White House health policy conference that "for millions of Americans, premiums will go up" under the Obama plan. That much could be true — but for millions of others, premiums are expected to go down and those who face higher costs would be getting better coverage than they have now.
The debate on that point is key if Americans are to accept the insurance changes Obama wants. Democrats know that pitching their plan as a means to extend coverage to the uninsured is not enough: They must convince middle-income Americans who already have insurance that they, too, will end up with a better deal under the overhaul. So the squabble was about more than a bureaucratic report.
Obama sharply challenged Alexander on his claim and insisted he had the facts on his side when quoting from the report by the Congressional Budget Office. For the most part, he did.
THE CLAIMS:
Obama: "Lamar, when you mentioned earlier that you said premiums go up, that’s just not the case, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
Alexander: "Mr. President, if you’re going to contradict me, I ought to have a chance …. The Congressional Budget Office report says that premiums will rise in the individual market as a result of the Senate bill."
Obama: "No, no, no, no. Let me — and this is an example of where we’ve got to get our facts straight."
Alexander: "That’s my point."
Obama: "Well, exactly, so let me — let me respond to what you just said, Lamar, because it’s not factually accurate. … Here’s what the Congressional Budget Office says: The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they’re currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent. What the Congressional Budget Office says is that because now they’ve got a better deal, because policies are cheaper, they may choose to buy better coverage than they have right now, and that might be 10 percent to 13 percent more expensive than the bad insurance that they had previously."
THE FACTS:
Both are right, but Obama offered important context that Alexander left out.
The analysis estimated that average premiums for people buying insurance individually would be 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 under the Senate legislation, as Alexander said. But the policies would cover more, and about half the people would be getting substantial government subsidies to defray the extra costs.
As the president said, if the policies offered today were offered in 2016, they would be considerably cheaper under the plan, even without subsidies. One big reason: Many more healthy young people would be signing up for the coverage because insurance would become mandatory. They are cheap to insure and would moderate costs for others.
Moreover, the analysis estimated that almost 60 percent of the people covered under individual policies would qualify for subsidies, bringing their own costs down by more than half from what they pay now…
Inserted from <TPM>
Here’s the video:
In short, while the Republicans were not as ill prepared as they were during their conference, they had nothing to bring to the table, except for their tired old talking points and lies. The Democrats were not that impressive either, but Obama stood out.
The GOP has made it abundantly clear that there is no negotiating with them. Without the public option, the bill is far less than it should be. Nevertheless, the good qualities it does have are too significant to allow it to slip away. After a VERY brief pause (ten minutes would be ideal), lets move on to reconciliation. AQs soon as it’s passes, and signed, it will be tome to start pushing for health care reform: single-payer.