Four Painless Ways To Give

Check out this site. And, after clicking the button, be sure to check the tabs at the top of the page.

And try Goodsearch. Every time you use the search engine, a penny is donated to your favorite cause. And, if you use the site to go to your favorite stores [listed below the search slot] they will give a percentage of your purchase price to your cause.
I just changed my book-buying destination. I discovered that Amazon gives 1.5% and Barnes & Noble gives 3%. Who knew?

Demeur noted that there's another one out there: free rice.com. There are several quizzes you can take. Each correct answer gets 10 grains of rice sent to the hungry. To date they've sent tons of rice around the world. And it's free for you. Paid for by sponsors.
So, you play a game, have fun and help people who need it. What could be better?

And are you a Facebooker?
There's a site there called Save The Planet. Another game site, there are dozens to choose from. Play, earn points and L$ [lunch money] and donate it to your favorite cause [again, several to choose from]. Sponsors then turn your play money into the real thing and give to the cause of your choice. You even get to see just how many ounces of CO2 you're pulling out of the atmosphere, how many grains of rice you're sending to the hungry, how many square inches of blanket you're giving to the homeless or square feet of rainforest you're saving.
So, if you enjoy playing games anyhow, why not do it and make a difference?

A Balm in Gilead

[jfwiw-- I posted this piece several years ago. I revived it now because it is becoming more and more relevant every day. So, if it looks familiar — no, you're not going crazy.]
xxx
I have a proposition for the ultra-conservatives in this country and for the rest of us. Now, I’m not including all born-again or fundamentalist Christians in this proposal—only those who don’t like the way this country was originally set up and would like to change the direction it’s going. Anyone who wishes to would be welcome to participate and no one would be forced to.
Here it is:

I propose that the US cede a certain territory—say, from the border between Mexico and the United States on the south and along the gulf coast, along the western Texas border north to the Missouri River, and east to the Mississippi River—as a sovereign territory to be handed over to those who don’t want to live under the US Constitution any more. For convenience’ sake, I’ll call the new nation ‘Gilead’. The area is not cast in stone—it is simply one possible region to consider.
The territory thus created would have abundant farmland, a coast and an already developed infrastructure including a number of urban areas ranging from large cities to small towns and the connecting highway network within it. It would also include the oil reserves of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and off the western gulf coast.

Now, before those remaining behind get all up-in-arms—allow me to remind you: the infrastructure was paid for by everyone’s tax dollars. Gilead’s citizens paid taxes while they were US citizens and are entititled to the benefits they would have received from them had they remained in the US.
Think about it on an individual level: if you and your family were to move from California to Boston, you would be inheriting the communication systems, roads and water lines set up there before you arrived. The same would be occurring here—just on a larger scale.
The two governments involved could, should they choose to, agree to a debt-repayment agreement for the infrastructure inherited by Gilead.

Homeowners who live inside Gilead’s boundary who wish to move out could register their homes on the internet. Those who live outside Gilead and wish to move in could do the same. We would then do a 1:1 swap between homes of comparably assessed value. The homeowners would carry their mortgages with them and simply pay them off on their new properties—or work out appropriate agreements with their respective lending institutions. Those who are renting would simply move to the area of their choice.

The area to be included is already populated by a number of people who would want to live in Gilead—so there would be less inconvenience to the general population than would occur if either the east or west coast were the region to be ceded.
Even so, this mass migration would take a while—so why don’t we give ourselves about 15 years to complete the move? This would avoid a massive upheaval of the population all at once and give Gilead’s government time to get set up before the Date of Government Transference.

Considerably less than one generation after implementation of the plan, those people who believe the Constitution was a mistake could move to Gilead and create their own country. Gilead would have no ties to the United States beyond a common boundary and any ambassadorial and trade functions the two governments wish to pursue—just as we have now with Mexico and Canada.

* Inside Gilead, if they wish their legislation to consist of the laws set forth in Leviticus, they could set that up.
* If the primary government or that of any city or state wants to put the 10 Commandments or a Nativity Scene on a public building’s lawn or in the lobby, they could do so.
* If the populous wants to ban any religion other than Christianity, they could do that, too.
* They could close all businesses on Sundays if they wish.
* They could mandate state-sponsored prayer in the schools. They could ban evolution and teach only creationism.. They could include Bible Study in their curricula, as well.
* They could give government funds to faith-based charities.
* Given today’s technology, if they wanted to keep unwanted radio and television broadcasts from crossing their borders as well as limiting internet access, I imagine they could do so.
* They could limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman.
* They could ban abortion and contraception and practice abstinence-only and the rhythm method.
* They could prohibit assisted suicide and direct hospitals to practice all heroic measures to maintain life for as long as possible.

Well, you can see the advantages, I’m sure.

Once an adult moved to Gilead, he or she would no longer be a citizen of the US and would not have the Right of Return. On the off chance, someone wanted to come back, they would get in line like any other immigrant and go through the full process. [I would recommend an exception be made for people who were below some agreed-on age—say 21—when the move occurred so that people who were minors on the Date of Transfer can make their own decisions when they reach adulthood. Most of them, though, would likely choose to remain where they grew up.]
Travel between the two countries on business or vacation or to visit friends and relatives would be fully permitted, of course.

In exchange, the United States’ Constitution would be left intact. Those of us remaining in this country would be let alone to live our lives as we wish to do.

This seems to me to be a win-win situation for everyone involved. The needs and wants of all current United States citizens could be met with minimum upheaval and turmoil.

And, whatever you may be thinking—no, this is not tongue-in-cheek. I’ve been thinking about a way out of the situation this country finds itself in and, though many details would have to be worked out, this general plan seems to me to be a fair and equitable solution.
xxx
One more bit:
Since posting this, I thought of another site for the new nation. How about the US Virgin Islands?
Separation by ocean waters rather than a couple of rivers and a land border would be more secure. And they'd love the name, right?

The US might have to offer more help during set-up, I'm not sure. I don't know the economic situation in the VI, what their infrastructure is like, etc.
I do know that the US is notorious for ignoring its possessions off its southeast coast.
And, of course, we would have to secure the cooperation of the Islanders. If we've been ignoring them for centuries, they might not be of a mind to collaborate with this scheme.

The First Step Toward Stopping Big Brother?

Recently, one of my favorite Senators, Jim Webb wrote:
America's criminal justice system is broken.
How broken? The numbers are stark:
• The United States has 5% of the world's population, yet possesses 25% of the world's prison population;
• More than 2.38 million Americans are now in prison, and another 5 million remain on probation or parole. That amounts to 1 in every 31 adults in the United States is in prison, in jail, or on supervised release;
• Incarcerated drug offenders have soared 1200% since 1980, up from 41,000 to 500,000 in 2008; and
• 60% of offenders are arrested for non-violent offensives--many driven by mental illness or drug addiction.

When I was a college kid I was blown away by two instances of totalitarianism.
The first instance, of course, involved Nazi Germany and the internment camps. Six million Jews and six million other human beings (consisting of Catholics, Gypsies, mentally ill, mentally retarded....) were exterminated.
The second instance involved Stalinist Russia which had its own dalliance in extermination but which also incarcerated some ten million people in the Gulags. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote much about this horrible prison system including his The Gulag Archipelago and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
The numbers just astounded me along with the living conditions of these Soviet prisoners. The death rate was astounding.
But times have changed. And now we, the richest country in the world and supposedly the freest, have the largest prison population. To reach 25% of the numbers reached by Soviet Russian sickens me.
xxx
So, now, Obama is pushing to stop the raids on the perfectly legal [per state laws] marijuana clinics.
"Let's not arrest people who aren't breaking the law." What a novel idea.

Now, Mr. Obama, let's take the next logical step. Let's legalize marijuana across the board. I know this idea has been around for a while. It's a good idea. Let's tax it. Let the government use this perfectly good, safer than alcohol commodity as a source of revenue.

An Insider Speaks Out

Wendell Potter, a former high-ranking PR executive for Cigna wrote an expose of the health care industry. The following is an excerpt. The entire article can be found here.
And here is a related article that exposes numerous practices engaged in by the 'health care' industry.
xxx
I'm the former insurance industry insider now speaking out about how big for-profit insurers have hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street investors, and how the industry is using its massive wealth and influence to determine what is (and is not) included in the health care reform legislation members of Congress are now writing.

[I]n recent years I had grown increasingly uncomfortable serving as one of the industry's top PR executives. In addition to my responsibilities at CIGNA . . . I was in a unique position to see not only how Wall Street analysts and investors influence decisions insurance company executives make but also how the industry has carried out behind-the-scenes PR and lobbying campaigns to kill or weaken any health care reform efforts that threatened insurers' profitability.

I also have seen how the industry's practices . . . have contributed to the tragedy of nearly 50 million people being uninsured as well as to the growing number of Americans who . . . are underinsured. An estimated 25 million of us now fall into that category.

What I saw happening over the past few years was a steady movement away from the concept of insurance and toward "individual responsibility," a term used a lot by insurers and their ideological allies. This is playing out as a continuous shifting of the financial burden of health care costs away from insurers and employers and onto the backs of individuals.

As an industry spokesman, I was expected to put a positive spin on this trend that the industry created and euphemistically refers to as "consumerism" and to promote so-called "consumer-driven" health plans. I ultimately reached the point of feeling like a huckster.

I thought I could live with being a well-paid huckster and hang in there a few more years until I could retire. I probably would have if I hadn't made a completely spur-of-the-moment decision a couple of years ago that changed the direction of my life. While visiting my folks in northeast Tennessee where I grew up, I read in the local paper about a health "expedition" being held that weekend a few miles up U.S. 23 in Wise, Va. Doctors, nurses and other medical professionals were volunteering their time to provide free medical care to people who lived in the area. What intrigued me most was that Remote Area Medical, a non-profit group whose original mission was to provide free care to people in remote villages in South America, was organizing the expedition. I decided to check it out.

That 50-mile stretch of U.S. 23, which twists through the mountains where thousands of men have made their living working in the coalmines, turned out to be my "road to Damascus."

Nothing could have prepared me for what I saw when I reached the Wise County Fairgrounds, where the expedition was being held. Hundreds of people had camped out all night in the parking lot to be assured of seeing a doctor or dentist when the gates opened. By the time I got there, long lines of people stretched from every animal stall and tent where the volunteers were treating patients.

That scene was so visually and emotionally stunning it was all I could do to hold back tears. How could it be that citizens of the richest nation in the world were being treated this way?

A couple of weeks later I was boarding a corporate jet to fly from Philadelphia to a meeting in Connecticut. When the flight attendant served my lunch on gold-rimmed china and gave me a gold-plated knife and fork to eat it with, I realized for the first time that someone's insurance premiums were paying for me to travel in such luxury. I also realized that one of the reasons those people in Wise County had to wait in long lines to be treated in animal stalls was because our Wall Street-driven health care system has created one of the most inequitable health care systems on the planet.

Although I quit my job last year, I did not make a final decision to speak out as a former insider until recently when it became clear to me that the insurance industry and its allies (often including drug and medical device makers, business groups and even the American Medical Association) were succeeding in shaping the current debate on health care reform.

I heard members of Congress reciting talking points like the ones I used to write to scare people away from real reform. I'll have more to say about that over the coming weeks and months, but, for now, remember this: whenever you hear a politician or pundit use the term "government-run health care" and warn that the creation of a public health insurance option that would compete with private insurers (or heaven forbid, a single-payer system like the one Canada has) will "lead us down the path to socialism," know that the original source of the sound bite most likely was some flack like I used to be.

Bottom line: I ultimately decided the stakes are too high for me to just sit on the sidelines and let the special interests win again. So I have joined forces with thousands of other Americans who are trying to persuade our lawmakers to listen to us for a change, not just to the insurance and drug company executives who are spending millions to shape reform to benefit them and the Wall Street hedge fund managers they are beholden to.

Take it from me, a former insider, who knows what really motivates those folks. You need to know where the hard-earned money you pay in health insurance premiums -- if you lucky enough to have coverage at all -- really goes.

I decided to speak out knowing that some people will not like what I have to say and will do all they can to discredit me.

I'm writing this because, knowing how things work, I'm fully expecting insurers' PR firms to quietly feed friends of the industry . . . with anything they can think of to discredit me and what I say. This will go on behind the scenes because the insurers will want to preserve the image they are working so hard to cultivate -- as a group of kind and caring folks who think only of you and your health and are working hard as real partners to Congress and the White House to find "a uniquely American solution" to what ails our system.

I expect this because I have worked closely with the industry's PR firms over many years whenever the insurers were being threatened with bad publicity, litigation or legislation that might hinder profits.

One of the reasons I chose to become affiliated with the Center for Media and Democracy is because of the important work the organization does to expose often devious, dishonest and unethical PR practices that further the self interests of big corporations and special interest groups at the expense of the American people and the democratic principles this country was founded on.

After a long career in PR, I am looking forward to providing an insider's perspective as a senior fellow at CMD, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak out for the rights and dignity of ordinary people. The people of Wise County and every county deserve much better than to be left behind to suffer or die ahead of their time due to Wall Street's efforts to keep our government from ensuring that all Americans have real access to first-class health care.

No Way to Treat a President

-- by Eugene Robinson [click on the title for the full article]

"[T]he right-wing Republicans in Congress, especially those in the House, are all too sincere. And that's the problem.

Last November's election so wounded the GOP that the nation is now suffering collateral damage. The Republicans who were punished at the polls for the failures of the Bush years were those in the most evenly contested districts, which meant they tended to be relatively moderate. Those who represent solidly Republican districts were safe, and their greatest fear isn't being defeated by a Democrat next fall but being challenged by a primary opponent who's even more of a right-wing yahoo.

There are quite a few Democratic pragmatists in Congress -- which is why health-care reform is being worked over so thoroughly by the Blue Dogs. In the Republican ranks, especially in the House, pragmatists are few and ideologues are legion. Many of them probably believe the nonsense they spout about creeping socialism and an urgent threat to America As We Know It. But it's still nonsense. The ideologues' sincerity just makes this toxic, rejectionist rhetoric more dangerous."
xxx
I hadn't put together the dynamics of the far-right move of Congress -- particularly the House of Representatives. Robinson clarified that for me and I owe him a debt of gratitude for the realization.

And, of course, he's right on the other matter, too -- the rhetoric is, indeed, dangerous. It can lead to actions by other sincere people. That is what frightens me so much and that is why, every time I see Obama in public, I fervently hope he is wearing a bullet-proof vest.

Great News! Martinez Pulls a Palin.

This is old news, I know, but I hadn't learned the details till today. And I'm filled with revulsion for my country in general and the Rethuglicans in particular. And the Demo-lie-down-and-dies should have stopped it after the fact—so they're just as guilty of betraying the Constitution as these three bandits.

From Mel Martinez' biography at Wikipedia:
Despite an absence of a quorum, the Senate approved The Palm Sunday Compromise, formally known as the Act for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo (S. 686 CPS), in the early hours of March 20, 2005, to allow the case of Terri Schiavo to be moved into a federal court. The bill passed unanimously by voice vote and no formal record of the vote was made. Bill Frist (R-TN), Rick Santorum (R-PA), and Mel Martínez (R-FL), the only Senators present, voted for the bill with the remaining 97 Senators not present.

The act was strongly criticized by many on both sides of the political divide for the following reasons.

* The law applied to only one individual. Comparisons were drawn with bills of attainder, which are specifically prohibited by the United States Constitution. While some saw this as a legally flawed analysis since bills of attainder take away individual rights rather than bestow them, the rights of Michael Schiavo, as Terri's guardian, to make decisions on her behalf were stripped away.

* The law was a violation of the separation of powers. Many argued that Congress had exceeded its powers by substituting its judgment for that of the courts and directing the courts on how to proceed. This argument was addressed by Judge Stanley Birch in a highly critical concurrence with the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, given on March 30, 2005.

* The law failed to create any substantive rights. The law enacted by Congress obliged the federal courts only to review the rulings of the Florida state courts to determine whether procedural due process had been afforded. However, there was no serious argument that the Florida courts had violated any constitutionally mandated procedural requirements. Nineteen different Florida state court judges, at various times, considered the requests on appeal in six state appellate courts.

As in the state courts, all of the Schindlers' federal petitions on behalf of Mrs. Schiavo and appeals were denied, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari – effectively ending the Schindler family legal options.
~~~
At the same time as the above law-aimed-at-one-person was passed, the so-called Sciavo memo surfaced, causing a political firestorm. The memo was written by Brian Darling, the legal counsel to Florida Republican senator Mel Martinez. It suggested the Schiavo case offered "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's base [core supporters] and could be used against Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat from Florida, because he had refused to sponsor the bill. [Nelson won re-election in 2006, btw. So much for the best laid plans of mice and lice.]
xxx
Errrrrrrrrrmmmmm—
No one bothered to suggest that 3 men out of a body of 100 ramming a 'law' through was improper? Hello?!?
At least their plan to keep the agonies of the family going failed. The federal court agreed with the state courts. The circus ended and Terri was allowed to die quietly—at last.

The only good thing I can find to say about Martinez is that he pulled a Palin. He has cut-and-run a year and a half before his term is up.
He had said shortly after taking office he planned to serve only one term.
From here it looks as if he took on the job for just the amount of time he needed to pick up the perks the Senate hands out so generously. He now has a lifetime pension and life-long health care—both paid for by you and me. It's a good gig if you can get it.

So long, Mel. Good riddance. I hope your successor treats Florida better than you have—but I'm not holding my breath.

Back in April, I wrote a piece on Preserve, Protect and Defend about Obama's statement that he wanted to look forward and not pursue the people who developed and carried out the torture programs. In it, I suggested a convoluted reasoning on his part that might, in the long run, bring the perpetrators to justice.

I may not have been looking deeply enough, however.
Today I read a piece by Eugene Robinson in the Washington post. He wrote, with disgust, of the psychiatrists and physicians who participated in the torture.
And I came across this comment on the article.
Whoever gkam is, my hat is off to him or her. The reasoning is absolutely wonderful.
If this is what Obama has in mind our nation may be saved yet.
Please, please let gkam be right.
~~~
gkam wrote:
There are large issues at stake here, and they are not all ours.

Eric Holder has no choice - he MUST investigate these crimes. But if Holder pursues the perpetrators of Shock and Awe, torture, and other war crimes, several things will happen. The conservatives will scream "politics", and the matter will forever be tainted.

It will then go to a Grand Jury, and become instantly secret. We will find out only what the government wants us to know.

What's more, we are not the aggrieved in this matter. These were international crimes, committed in foreign lands, against citizens of other countries, in direct violation of International Law. They belong in the international venue, in the jurisdictions of international courts.

This is terrifically important: The real victims will not trust our country to deal with our own leaders. If we decide to prosecute, it will cheat those victims of those crimes out of THEIR justice, in THEIR jurisdictions, the actual locality of the crimes.

I believe Obama was intentionally waiting, giving time to those building their international cases from the continuous streams of information emanating from the squealing rats jumping ship, and the lice hopping off the rats.

Obama knows that one of the primary criteria of the International Criminal Court is whether it is likely that the offenders will be tried in their own country. By "not looking back", Obama sent a signal to those prosecutors elsewhere to start their investigations. They are doing so as we type.

Brilliant!

As the Big Bad Boys get their day in the Dock of the Hague, we will deal here at home with those who corrupted our Department of Justice and looted the treasury.

That way, everyone wins - we get justice, the aggrieved get their day in their courts, tyranny is exposed and prosecuted, and the entire world gets an object lesson in rampant violence and International Evil.

Justice be done!

The Hubble Looks at Nothing

British health care explained

How does it stack up against ours? You decide.

Trickey with Balls - More amazing videos are a click away

Holder Stepping to the Plate

Holder to Appoint Prosecutor to Investigate CIA Terror Interrogations - - By Carrie Johnson of the Washington Post

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has decided to appoint a prosecutor to examine nearly a dozen cases in which CIA interrogators and contractors may have violated anti-torture laws and other statutes when they allegedly threatened terrorism suspects, according to two sources familiar with the move.

Holder is poised to name John Durham, a career Justice Department prosecutor from Connecticut, to lead the inquiry, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process is not complete.

Durham's mandate, the sources added, will be relatively narrow: to look at whether there is enough evidence to launch a full-scale criminal investigation of current and former CIA personnel who may have broken the law in their dealings with detainees. Many of the harshest CIA interrogation techniques have not been employed against terrorism suspects for four years or more.

The attorney general selected Durham in part because the longtime prosecutor is familiar with the CIA and its past interrogation regime. For nearly two years, Durham has been probing whether laws against obstruction or false statements were violated in connection with the 2005 destruction of CIA videotapes. The tapes allegedly depicted brutal scenes including waterboarding of some of the agency's high value detainees. That inquiry is proceeding before a grand jury in Alexandria, although lawyers following the investigation have cast doubt on whether it will result in any criminal charges.

Word of Holder's decision comes on the same day that the Obama administration will issue a 2004 report by the then-CIA Inspector General. Among other things, the IG questioned the effectiveness of harsh interrogation tactics that included simulated drowning and wall slamming. A federal judge in New York forced the administration to release the secret report after a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union.
Follow the link for the complete article.
xxx
Back in April I wrote a post that suggested that Obama might have pushed Holder toward this move. Maybe it's happening? Wouldn't that be lovely?

"If Stephen Hawking Lived in England" and Other Great Points the Left Doesn't Want You to Know.

by Jennifer Epps
Published on Friday, August 21, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

Fellow Patriots,
Here are some important things to keep in mind when those blood-suckers from the left try to spread their lies about health care!! Print this out so you can bring it to a town hall.

1.) If Stephen Hawking lived in England, he'd be left to die. Thank God he's safe at the University of Cambridge in Massachusetts.

2.) If the government was capable of ensuring health care for seniors, they would have done it decades ago.

3.) If we didn't have a free enterprise health care system in America, then we would not be able to achieve all those advances in medicine funded by the National Institutes of Health.

4.) When the people of oppressed countries like Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Israel, Australia and New Zealand finally get democracy, they can vote out their socialized health care systems.

5.) England's capital is the ultimate proof that national health care kills free enterprise. That's why London has no stock exchange, no banking district, no tabloid newspapers, no big musicals, and no expensive real estate.

6.) Even the World Health Organization agrees that "America has the best health care system in the world"; the WHO ranks the American health care system at the very top part of its list, right after the first part where 36 other countries rank higher.

7.) Free enterprise is the greatest system ever invented and government can't even come close. What else but private industry could have split the atom, or gotten a man on the moon?

8.) If you drove 100 miles on the interstate freeway you still couldn't come up with one good thing that government has done.

9.) I'm writing an urgent letter to my Senator about the health-care issue. I'm explaining how the government never does anything right. I'm sure the Post Office will deliver it in a day or so.

10.) The last thing anyone needs is a government official getting involved with health. I look after my own health. For example, I always make sure I eat at restaurants rated "A" in the window.

11.) I really resent the government thinking I need any assistance from them. I buy my FDA-approved medication on my own.

12.) If health care were available to all at government expense, people would over-consume, using it when they don't really need it. As in the common phrase: "It's Saturday night, honey. Would you rather go to a movie, or shall we have our gallstones removed?"

13.) For some reason, the lunatic left can't understand that the most important thing in health care is consumer choice. When you're in a car accident and you've lost pints and pints of blood, what you really want to do is to sit down, think over how much you want to spend and where, and comparison-shop. And if you happen to choose an incompetent surgeon, well, he damn well won't get your business next time, will he?
~~~
Jennifer Epps is an L.A.-area political activist, writer, producer, and director who studied theatre and has written several hundred film reviews. She is currently developing an anti-war film.
xxx
I wish I could add something to this but I can't—I just can't do it—that's all.

The Catcerto

enjoy------

The Truth Is Out: Obama Hates Gays

Emma Ruby wrote for the Huffington Post:
"Yesterday, the Obama administration filed a follow-up brief in the Smelt case -- the couple in California challenging DOMA who were the recipients of an imprudently written reply brief back in June. This time, it looks like some liberals in the Justice Department got their hands on a copy of the brief before filing. There are some nice words in there aimed at smoothing hurt feelings.

"But the brief also argues for a new and dangerous interpretation of the rational basis test.

"The rational basis test is applied by the court to laws that violate the equal protection clause, but do not implicate certain protected groups. In other words, if the law does not discriminate on the basis of race or gender, it will likely be upheld if the government can find any rational reason why the law exists. These reasons can be invented on the spot and are usually not tested very vigorously."
See here for the complete article.
xxx
So, after his disastrous comparison of gay marriage to incest and the marrying off of children, he turns around and says, "Oh—well—gay marriage is just too hard to do anything about! Forget it, then. So what if people are denied their rights? That's just too bad for them, then, isn't it?" And he scoops up his marbles and goes home.

To which my response:
"Voting for Obama is just too hard! Forget it then. I'll find someone else—surely someone doesn't see finally allowing people their rights as too difficult a task for the president to do."

My Crusade

Well folks—
I restarted Scattershot so I wouldn't feel obligated to post all politics all the time—then promptly posted 5 political articles. Go figure.

BUT, today I'm departing from that and posting something that has been consuming my waking hours for several weeks. I think I can safely post about it now without jinxing it.

First allow me to say that there's absolutely NO wake-up call like a diagnosis of diabetes. None whatsoever. Nada. Nothing.
The prospect of blindness. Liver damage. Amputated feet. Kidney failure. Heart failure.

For years, I'd try to diet—but would keep eating the same old junk food—just less of it. So, I was hungry all the time and I wasn't losing weight. I’d feel deprived and, sooner or later, would stop dieting. Then I would pig-out and end up GAINING weight. Eventually, I just quit trying. And I kept on eating all the wrong things.

Well, shortly before that fateful diagnosis hit me upside the head with a 2 by 4, a friend’s doc told him to eat 5 times per day to lose weight. I decided to try it. I began eating vegetables and fruits and whole grains and such for the first time in my adult life. And I didn’t lose weight. Rrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhh!
Still, for some reason, I kept at it—who knows why? Maybe one reason was—I wasn’t hungry and I WAS eating right, at least and at last.

So, then I got the diagnosis and I panicked. Lucky for me, my doc sent me to a nutritionist who congratulated me on my move toward healthy eating and explained what I was doing wrong. All I had to do was tweak my diet a bit and the pounds began to fall off. Hey! I was onto something here!

So far, I’ve quit taking the blood pressure medications I’d been on for years AND I’ve quit taking the diabetes med my doc put me on about 5 weeks ago.
I’m eating right, swimming at least once per day and walking most days, as well [another first in more years than I can count.]
One thing that helped in the swimming department was the move, a couple of years ago, to a retirement community. I hadn’t worn a swimsuit in decades—because I would be faced with all those 20-somethings worshiping the sun whenever I headed to the pool. Here, though, almost everyone looks just like me! So no more avoiding the pool out of self-consciousness. The fact that the pool is about 3 blocks away helps too.
And, today, I received another major surprise. During today’s walks [first to the pool and later to my park’s maintenance office] I found myself walking fast! THAT’S a first in years and years.
I wasn’t pressing myself to walk faster—I just did it! It felt completely natural!
Right now I’m restraining myself mightily. If I’m not careful I may just break my arm patting myself on the back.

And—here’s the proof of the pudding:
1] I’ve lost 24 pounds [from 236 down to 212] in—what?—about 5 weeks. My goal is 135 pounds—maybe even a few less than that—we’ll see.
2] Though I’ve quit the blood pressure meds, my bp hovers around the 130’s/80’s range—a marked improvement even from the levels when I was taking 3 meds to keep it under control.
3] My fluid retention has dropped dramatically—though I’ve stopped taking the diuretic. OK, OK, yes, I’m taking dandelion root now but, hey!—it’s not nearly as strong as HCTZ AND it is high in potassium, which the HCTZ was leeching from my system. So, that’s a Good Thing.
And [4] **drum roll** my blood sugar level hit 78 yesterday! SEVENTY EIGHT!
For those who may not know—70-90 is normal. And my starting level was 154!

So—today I’m claiming my bragging rights—in case you hadn’t figured that out already. =)

Urine Luck! Pee May Be the Fuel of the Future

Scientists at Ohio University have stumbled on a major break-through that could be the key to bringing hydrogen fuel cells into wide-spread use. Scientists discovered that placing a nickel-based electrode in a pool of urine and applying a small electrical current produces hydrogen gas.

"One cow can provide enough energy to supply hot water for 19 houses," Ohio University professor Gerardine Botte said of the discovery.
The scientists are hoping to make commercial version of the technology available by next year.
xxx
hmmmmmmm---
Maybe they've found a practical way to run those hydrogen fueled cars? Pull up to the pump and out comes -- PEE!
No more depending on middle eastern countries for our fuel and we could clean up those huge pig farms in N. Carolina.

The Truth about Canada

Heard on National Public Radio
These days, we can hardly turn on our TV's without seeing political ads telling us how horrible Canadian health care is.

Now, just so you know, no one in Congress or the White House is suggesting that the US adopt the Canadian design. [Though why they aren't, I don't know--it's a great system. Oh--that's right--the insurance companies don't want it. I forgot.]

Sarah Varney, reporter for NPR member station, KQED, decided to check out health care north of the border. See what you think.
xxx
Varney opened her piece with a visit to a doctor's office. She interviewed John Riley who was being treated for colon cancer in a small doctor's office in a gritty, working class neighborhood. He and his wife have been seeing the same doctor for over twenty years. They are allowed to choose their own physician.

Varney asked John if he had been required to wait for treatment. "Nothing but good. Everything has been going bang, bang, bang."
Did he have out-of-pocket expenses? "Other than gettin' there. No. Everything is good. I'm covered. I'm covered."
xxx
So, how does the Canadian health care system work? It's paid for by income tax and sales tax. All Canadians are covered and can see any doctor they want, anywhere in Canada with no co-pays or deductibles.

Some things aren't paid for: optometry, dental care or prescription drugs. Some people carry additional insurance to pay for those--others pay out-of-pocket for them.

American opponents to a new health plan like to call Canadian health care "Socialized Medicine [HORRORS!]." That's not an accurate description. Actually, it's socialized insurance--meaning that the risk is pulled together and paid for by the government.

While individual provinces and territories set their own overall health budgets and administer the health plans, the delivery of the actual care is private. Doctors run their own practices and bill the government rather than the patient or a 3rd party provider.

A physician Varney interviewed [Dr. Barsalai] told her that doctors earn a good living in Canada and don't have to handle the hassles involved with dealing with hundreds of different insurance policies--each with its own rules.
The article didn't say so, but I would imagine the issues of pre-approval or preexisting conditions don't come up.

Barsalai said that medical costs in Canada are half of what they are in the US. Infant mortality is lower. Life expectancy is longer. Obesity is lower and accessibility is higher.
Canada must be doing something right.

The Commonwealth Fund, a respected and non-partisan health research organization surveyed the 19 top industrialized countries in regards to deaths that could have been prevented had appropriate care been available. Canada rated 6th in positive outcomes while the US rated last.

Steve Morgan, a health economist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, said, "I think a lot of it has to do with access. Canadians who need to manage a chronic condition or are faced with an urgent situation don't think about their pocketbooks. They seek the care and, more times than not, they get the care they need."

Varney met with Morgan and his colleagues at the UVC Center for Health Policy Research to find out what the data they've collected over the years reveal about the Canadian health system. Varney advised them of what the American public is told about the Canadian process: that health care is rationed, there are long waiting lists and a government bureaucrat gets between the patient and his/her doctor.
Professor Bob Evans, one of the grandfathers of the health economics field, said, "An illusion has been created that there are long lines of people who are near death waiting for care. That's absolute nonsense!"
Evans has been studying the two systems [Canadian and American] since they were founded about the same time during the 1960's.
He went on to say, "Are there people lined up not getting the appropriate care they need in appropriate times? Of course there are. It's a huge system and a very complicated one. And things do go wrong. But, as a general rule, what happens here is: when you need the care--you get it. We're not a third world country! [He sounded downright incensed.]

When federal funding for health care declined when a recession occurred during the 1990's, lines for nonessential services [and even some urgent ones] grew. The Canadian Supreme Court did find that, in some serious cases, patients had, in fact, died as a result of waiting for medical services. Stories of the deaths and of people traveling to the US for medical care dominated Canadian news. As a result, the Canadian government poured billions of dollars into reducing waiting times in the areas that were the most critical including cardiac care, cancer and joint replacement surgery.
As a result, the amount of wait time has been dropping. Most provinces now report waiting times on publically available websites. No such data or accountability is available in the US.

That's not to say there aren't frustrations regarding waiting for health care in Canada. At BC Children's Hospital, Jocelyn Tomkins, a young woman born with a condition similar to spina bifida, stated, "I haven't been able to walk since I was eight. I've had lots of surgeries and interventions but, beyond that, I hold a job and I live a pretty much normal life."
Jocelyn credits an army of doctors and physical therapists for that normal life but she admits there have, on occasion, been roadblocks.
"Of course there were some times when I had to wait for care and those were always the most frustrating moments."
A few years ago, when she was on a wait list for a pain clinic, she traveled first to Seattle and then to Texas. The care she required cost $1,800.00. Very few Canadians do go south for health care. It's a bit like getting struck by lightning--it's rare but, when it happens, everyone talks about it.

On some occasions, provinces pay for people to receive specialty care in the US. One such instance is the fact that a shortage of neonatal beds in Canada leads some women with high risk pregnancies to travel to the US [at Canadian expense] to deliver. It doesn't happen often and polls show that the vast majority of people are happy with their health care.

A few people would like to purchase private health insurance. Currently that is not allowed.

Canadians share some anxieties with their counterparts south of the border: a concern regarding their aging baby boomer population; overuse of emergency departments and a shortage of primary care doctors. But what Canadians don't worry about are losing their health insurance or going bankrupt because of a health crisis.

Republicans Just Never Learn, Do They?

Rusty Depass, a GOP activist, stated that Michelle Obama's ancestor was a gorilla and posted it on Facebook.
Later he made a non-apology apology, saying ""I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest."

"IF I OFFENDED ANYONE?" Did he really say that?
Later he attempted to blame Michelle Obama for his words.
[Click on the title for the complete article.]

His comment was similar to the early days of the Nazi party when men in brown shirts and swastika armbands stood on street corners handing out handbills that compared Jews to apes. Comedians made similar "jokes" in nightclubs.
Do we want to return to those times?

Speech is free in this country and must remain so unless we want to drift into a totalitarian state. Therefore, we cannot outlaw such remarks. However, what we can do is try such statements in the court of public opinion.

So, what do you think?
***
Apparently, I can't stay away from politics after all.
My excuse, this time, though, is that this had been in my hopper for months and I just stumbled across it today.

Una and Laura are home! YAYAYAYAYAY!
Thank goodness we now have a president who doesn't posture, yell "Bring it on!" and label other countries as evil but, instead, pursues diplomatic avenues.

Una and Laura owe Obama and Clinton their freedom, maybe their lives.
The rest of us owe them the potential of reopening relations with North Korea and, possibly, a safer world.

Hnh! I went and closed my political blog because I was so discouraged — and here comes some good news. Go figure.

Tell Me Why

written and sung by a 13-year-old boy. the grown-ups don't have an answer.

I LOL'd. you will too.

Christian the Lion

And here's the full story. It's over an hour long in 10 minute increments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzxms9-qQZ4&feature=related
Well -- so much for that.
The owners of Born Free who own this video, as well, threatened to sue the person who posted this to Youtube. You can view the 1st and last segments and, if you like them, a link is provided where you can order a copy of the whole program. **sigh**
xxx
sequel:
the story began in 1969 and, I think, the last any human saw of Christian was in 1974.

One of the more astounding parts of the story was this:
John and Ace phoned George in 1974 and told him they wanted to come for another visit. [2 years after the video above]. George told them that it had been quite a while since he'd seen the pride and doubted they would be able to find them.
They decided to go anyway--at least to see George.

When they got to the camp, George told them that the pride had returned the day before and they were just outside the camp.
Christian and the men had another lovely visit. The lionesses were not happy about it and let it be known but Christian stayed with the men for a couple of days.

After John and Ace left, the pride left the camp and they were never seen again. George kept hoping they would return but they never did.

George believed [and I do, too] that Christian knew John and Ace were coming and came to meet them.
After that visit, they never planned another trip to Africa so there was no need for Christian to return to the camp to greet them as he was fully assimilated to Africa by then.