Post #223 If The Tea Party Was Black, Pt. II

I usually don't talk about race because the concept of 'white privilege' is so difficult to explain -- especially to somebody who has been called a "honkie." But not talking about race is probably the biggest example there is of 'white privilege.'

http://www.dickshovel.com/priv.html

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #222 If The Tea Party Was Black...

Too bad people can't be forced to 'walk a mile in my shoes' -- they might learn something....

http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html

Post #221 I, too, am tired

I got an "Fwd" e-mail -- "I'm 63 and I'm Tired" -- in which a tough-talking straight-shooter with 'problems' that most people would trade for proceeds to blame his 'problems' on nearly every aspect of modern society.

I believe people should take responsibility for their own actions and inactions. I am tired of hearing them blame mysterious forces such as "the economy' or Government actions they don't understand or the media and celebrities -- ! -- for their problems. So, no, I was not impressed by that rant.

First, the guy lists his credentials of being a hard worker. Then, he says, "Givn the economy, there's no retirement in sight." Huh? Has this guy never heard of Social Security Insurance?

The question is, what has this guy been doing for 40 years to plan for his retirement? There is no law against having a 'private' retirement account -- or a 'Vegas vacation' account, for that matter. Surely, he has not been relying on the Government to take of his needs, huh?

Well, no -- he has a "paid-off $250,000 condo" as a nest egg -- that's $10,000 a year for 25 years, almost twice as much as my Grandma draws from Social Security. Plus, his nest egg is probably bigger now than my nest egg from my own 'private' retirement account will be when I am 65.

Why is he whining?

He goes on: "I'm tired of being told that I have to 'spread the wealth' to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it." Wow. Who told him that? Glen Beck?

Which brings us to the housing bubble. He blames the Community Reinvestment Act and suggests that "the left-wing Congress-critters" who passed that Act pay.

Uh, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977. It survived amending and tweaking during 12 years of Reagan/Bush and 8 years of Clinton just fine. It wasn't until the Republican Congress and the Republican President after 2001 had their way that we had a mess.

And don't forget the Fed chairman -- appointed by a Republican President, by the way -- who 'pumped up' the money supply by lowering interest rates to a 45 year low. How many Republicans will seek office in November 2010 calling for higher interest rates?

Well, everybody's favorite kicking toy -- the media -- gets a few kicks. He blames the media for his vote for George W. Bush in 2004. The media, he says, "picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his."

I'm sorry that our e-mail writer missed the 'swift boat' ads during the summer of 2004 which prompted the media to go over and over and over John Kerry's daily activities in Vietnam. All I learned about Bush was that he worked on a political campaign instead of protecting our southern flank against the hostile Mexican Air Force.

And, by the way, what kind of military records does an individual soldier have that the Pentagon doesn't? It sounds like a made up controversy to justify his notions -- much like the 'birthers.'

Oh, well, the whole e-mail hits all the 'hot buttons,'but a little bit of thinking calns.

A little bit of thinking, please. Is that too much to ask?

Post #220 Weapons of Mass Destruction Found

German authorities shut down Berlin's main international airport this past Wednesday after construction workers discovered a quarter-ton Weapon of Mass Destruction. They claimed it was a World War II bomb.

But we know better.

Obviously, Saddam Hussein faked his own execution, fled to Germany and has gone back into the WMD business to arm his world-wide network of terrorists who do his bidding.

Obviously, too, we must invade Germany, capture Hussein, destroy WMD, nurture democracy and watch peace bloom.

Can I get an "Amen," Dick Cheney?

Post #219 "Obama, Obama, he da Man!," Pt. II

Conservatives have one last legitimate hope to derail health care reform: The activist, right-wing Supreme Court. As we've seen in "Bush vs. Gore," the Supreme Court has no problem sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. As we've seen with D.C. gun ban, the Supreme Court has no problem seeing a policy it doesn't like and declaring that policy unConstitutional -- no matter how dubious the Constitutional reasoning.

If I was a gambling man, I'd give it 3-to-1 odds that the Supreme Court will ride to the rescue.

Questions arise if the Supreme Court rules against health care reform: Will I still be legally required to buy car insurance? Will my Grandma get a refund from Plan D of Medicare? After all, Plan D was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican President.

Of course, the BIG question: How is adding 32 million Americans to health insurance rolls a bad thing?

Oh, the theory is that adding 32 million poor Americans to health insurance rolls will make everybody's quality of health care go down. If that is so, why not eliminate the poorest 32 million Americans who are now on health insurance rolls to improve the quality of health care. Everything is honkey-dorey -- unless you're one of the 64 million of the poorest Americans.

I criticize President Obama for a too-complex bill and too-long debate -- not pretty watching sausage being made. I would have just opened Medicare to everybody. But I'm happy it's here.

The good news is that the issue of health care is here to stay. And the Republican plan is...?

Post #218 FOX News Bleach Blonde Bobble-Heads!

Where can I buy 'em? :p

Post #217 "Obama, Obama, he da Man!"

Post #217 "Obama, Obama, he da Man!"

President Barack Obama signed a health care bill just this past Tuesday that will for the first time cement insurance coverage as the right of every U.S. citizen and begin to reshape the way virtually all Americans receive and pay for treatment. Obama said, "After a century of striving, after a year of debate, after a historic vote, health care reform is no longer an unmet promise. It is the law of the land."

Thank You.

It as literally a lifesaver for countless Americans. The extension of health care coverage to 32 million who now lack it is to be achieved through a complex cocktail of new mandates for individuals and employers, subsidies for people who can't afford to buy coverage on their own, consumer-friendly rules clamped on insurers, tax breaks, and marketplaces to shop for health plans.

Many thought you couldn't do it -- me, too. And when you said not to bet against you, I thought you were blowing smoke.

Take your victory lap, Mr. President!

And where are our friends, the loyal opposition? David Frum, former speechwriter to President George W. Bush:

"Conservatives and Republicans suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

"It's hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they'll compensate for today with a big win in the November 2010 elections.

"No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there; would President Obama sign such a repeal?

"We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

"So the defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours."

Post #216 ... revised, 2010

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (to corporations), that they are endowed by their Creator (or certified public accountant), with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men (or corporations), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (or corporations of some of the governed), That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People (or corporations), to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,....

-- John Roberts, chief justice, SCOTUS

Post #215 Charles Krauthammer Jumps The Shark

"Jumps The Shark" is a phrase used to describe a TV series which has run out of fresh ideas. The phrase stems from the episode of "Happy Days" in which the gang visits California and 'the Fonz' jumps a shark with his motorcycle.

In his "War? What War?" column of January 01, 2010, Charles Krauthammer jumps the shark -- he repeats the same ol' tired and discredited neo-con world view.

Krauthammer says, "The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension." Um, nobody is uneasy. Of course, Republicans are uneasy about being out-of-power, but nobody leaves their house scanning the skies for falling planes.

Krauthammer also says, "From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face." Um, no. In his inaugural address, Obama said: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." The threat comes from al Qaeda, violent extremists, and terrorists -- rather than a tactic, "terrorism."

"And just to make sure even the dimmest understand," Krauthammer adds, "Obama banishes the term 'war on terror.'"

Well, "jihadists." Krauthammer's favorite term, means 'holy warrior.' What could give more aid and comfort to the enemy than having our President say we are fighting 'holy warriors?'

Krauthammer gives more aid and comfort to the enemy with his, uh, smirkiness. :p He sneers: "Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management." Every major military commander on the ground understands the need to close Guantanamo as it acts as a recruiting poster for al Qaeda. Surely, we shouldn't ignore our military commanders on the ground. Surely, too, we shouldn't ignore the rule of law. Surely, three, we should have confidence in our judicial system.

Why does Krauthammer seem to devalue so much about what is right with America? Simple. He and only he and his neo-con allies know how to fight terrorism. But, of course, reality says otherwise. If Krauthammer and his pals know so much, why did 9/11 happen? And why hasn't al Qaeda been eliminated?

However, let me agree with Krauthammer on one point: "[The underwear bomber is] an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians." But the title of his "War? What War?" column hints at the problem.

Nobody has declared war -- well, nobody with the Constitutional authority to. It is my opinion that we were attacked with an act of war; it is Dick Cheney's opinion that we are at war; George W. Bush told us to go shopping.

Until we get that -- War? What war? -- cleared up, we will continue to flounder. God help us all.

Post #214 Happy 2010!

Well, well, well, don't Republicans feel embarrassed and ashamed? Health care reform has passed both the House and the Senate, and the party of "NO" is left to hoping that the bill falls apart in conference committee. But yet there have been no earthquakes or volcanoes or any other end-of-time scenarios.

Washington, D.C., is like a giant pre-school. Lil' Barack Obama showed up and spread his toys on the table, and Lil' Republican kicked the table over and then cried that Obama wasn't sharing. Like a five year old who wants to sulk, Lil' Republican ignored the numbers which said that health care reform was inevitable -- now, Republicans are on the outside looking in and crying that they wanted health care reform all along.

Don't believe it. Consistency, please.

It's like Sarah Palin's bailout support -- ya know, George W. Bush's bank bailout that she supported during the '08 campaign but bad-mouthed in her book. Now that banks are paying back the money -- it looks like the bailout is working, expect Palin to say any day; "I was for it before I was against it."

Don't believe it. Consistency, please.

'Ah,' ya ask, 'do you believe Sarah Palin is qualified to be President?' Yes, of course, she is -- Sarah Palin is qualified to be President. There is no test -- just present a valid birth certificate. :p After all, we just had the governor of a large state who was not intellectually curious, politely speaking, as President -- wait, that did not turn so well.

Anywho, consider inconsistent former Vice President Dick Cheney who said "[W]e are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe." Indeed, Cheney and his pals have been passing around a recording of a statement by Obama that shows he is weak on terror:

On Nov. 21, 2007, while taking calls on New Hampshire Public Radio, Obama said, "I truly believe that the day I'm inaugurated, that not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I'm reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I've lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also can understand their point of view. The world will have confidence that I am listening to them, and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world. That will ultimately make us safer. And that's something that this administration has failed to understand."

Um, that is correct. How does that make us less safe?

In his inaugural address, Obama said: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." In other words, we are at war with that which is tangible -- Al Qaeda, violent extremists, and terrorists -- rather than at war with a tactic, "terrorism," or a religion, Gawd-forbid.

How does that make us less safe?

The inconsistent Peter King of New York, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Intelligence Committee, chimed in: "I think that the administration has made a mistake by treating this terrorist as a common criminal, by putting him into the criminal-justice system."

How does that make us less safe? And how does the underwear bomber differ from the shoe bomber -- who, of course, was placed in the criminal-justice system by Bush/Cheney?

Consistency, please.

[rolleyes]

Post #213 Sarah Palin is the anti-Christ!

Thought that would get your attention. :p

I don't follow too closely the end-of-time commotion -- beyond knowing that December 21, 2012 is THE day -- and the search for the anti-Christ. But I do know there are three things to look for.

First, the anti-Christ will seduce people. Who can forget Palin's performance during the debate? I felt seduced.

Second, the anti-Christ will be seen as a savior. Well, Palin is already seen as savior of the GOP.

Third, the anti-Christ will wear a green hat.

I have a cousin who is all excited about Palin's book tour. Will she ask about the differences between reality and Pality?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33918869/ns/today-today_books

Or if Palin has a green hat?

America 2009 [rolleyes]

When the shooting at Ft. Hood happened on a Thursday, I figured that out of respect for the dead it'd be at least until the round of Sunday talk shows BEFORE somebody blamed President Barak Obama. I was wrong. It was Friday afternoon, and I heard that Obama was "directly and personally" responsible.

I've tried and tried, but I just can't wrap my mind around that idea that Obama is to blame. It seems more reasonable to blame the previous President for starting the wars that set off the shooter.

But, of course, it is only reasonable to blame the shooter.

Speaking of reason, I thought Republicans were the 'law and order' crowd and would be cheering the trial of 9/11 mastermind. But no. Since we had a Republican in the White House whose policy was to ignore justice, Republicans are upset that a Democrat in the White House would show faith in our judicial system.

Don't Republicans realize the policy of the previous administration amounted to 'no consequence for terror' -- speeding? Ya want a trial? Kill thousands? Ha! Go to Miami Beach and ask Osama how effective the long arm of American justice is.

Speaking of Osama and his pals, why do they hate us? Why did they attack us on 9/11? I thought the answer was clear: They hate us because we are over there. They have probably never read the Constitution nor understand our government -- just as Russia was opposed during the '80s, not because of their government but because they were over there.

But I saw on TV just the other day some congressman doing his best impersonation of a 2002 George W. Bush: "They attacked us on 9/11 because they hate our freedoms, our values and our way of life."

America 2009 * sigh *

Has our educational system failed so badly -- in regards to both the congressman and the voters who elected a dolt? We need a savior. I wonder if Sarah Palin is busy?

Post #212 'KeepAmericaSafe:' Under Construction, Pt. III

I am so disappointed. Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' is still not finished. The eldest daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney has a rallying place for opposition to the "radical" foreign policy of the President Barack Obama, but yet there is still no update about joining the military. Or learning a new language -- Arabic? -- and joining the CIA.

But the website still incites a call to talk radio. Surely, the 'God, guns and country' crowd that Cheney is speaking to does not value a call to talk radio over a call to national service. The cynic in me says that Cheney does know her audience -- "ignorance is bliss."

But I am really disappointed because Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' ignores the big story of the week: Last week's release of an FBI interview summary of Dick Cheney's answers in the criminal investigation in the Valerie Plame affair -- on 72 occasions, Cheney equivocated, politely speaking, during his three-hour May 2004 interview. That is why Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald declared that "there is a cloud over the vice president."

Don't worry, Liz, I doubt the crowd you're speaking to has ever heard of Fitzgerald or even \Valerie Plame -- I'm sure they know that Obama is a Muslim! :p

But please explain, Liz:

How did 'Scooter' Libby find out that the wife of Bush administration war critic Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA? Libby's own handwritten notes suggest Libby found out from Cheney, and Libby talked to Cheney about this, according his grand jury testimony. Cheney "cannot recall Libby telling him how he first heard of Valerie Wilson," according to the FBI summary.

How long has ol' Dick suffered from a diminished mental capacity? Should somebody with a diminished mental capacity serve as Vice President!?!

[Insert your own 'diminished mental capacity-as-President' joke here.]

Rest easy, Liz: 'Your' crowd will not consider the implications -- either Dick Cheney has a diminished mental capacity, or he is full of crap! 'Your' crowd will never know.

By the way, the Cheney interview summary was released last Friday to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. At least somebody wants an informed electorate.

Post #211 'KeepAmericaSafe:' Under Construction, Pt. II

Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' is still not finished. The eldest daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney has a rallying place for opposition to the "radical" foreign policy of the President Barack Obama which it says has succeeded only in undermining the nation's security by moving away from the Bush era foreign policy. Yet there is no update about joining the military. Ya know, I'm beginning to think that Liz is as dismissive of the military as her father. :p

How many deferments did ol' Dick get during the Vietnam War!?! Four or five?

"I dismiss men like [Dick] Cheney who inject partisan politics into the profound deliberations our Commander-in-Chief and commanders on the ground are having to develop a cohesive and comprehensive strategy, bringing to bear the economic and diplomatic as well as the military power, for Afghanistan -- something Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld never did."

Who could be so disrespectful? Retired General Paul Eaton who served more than 30 years in the United States Army and from 2003-2004 oversaw the training of the Iraqi military. Ya know, one of those wishy-washy military guys.

Eaton continued: "The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11.

"The only time Cheney and his cabal of foreign policy 'experts' have anything to say is when they feel compelled to protect this failed legacy. While President Obama is tasked with cleaning up the considerable mess they left behind, they continue to defend torture or rewrite a legacy of indifference on Afghanistan. Simply put, Mr. Cheney sees history throughout extremely myopic and partisan eyes."

Of course, Liz repeats the same ol,' same ol:' "Since 9/11, the United States Government, through our armed forces and our intelligence and law enforcement professionals, has succeeded in preventing any further attacks on the American homeland. This is a major achievement." Almost as major as being asleep before 9/11. In August 2009, according to the "Washington Post," after first learning of the alleged Zazi plot, President Obama got briefings three times a day on it. In August 2001, where was ol' Dick?

From Eaton: "As one deeply invested in the Armed Forces of this country, I am grateful for the senior military commanders assigned to leading this fight and the men and women fighting on the ground. ... No human endeavor can be as profound as sending a nation's youth to war. I am very happy to see serious men and women working hard to get it right."

Post #210 disturbing trend

----- Start Forwarded Message -----

The photo below captures a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect US wildlife....

[Picture is of a bear sitting at a picnic table. I've never had the time nor inclination to learn how to add a pic to this blog.]

Animals that were formerly self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democrat Party... as they have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance.

This photo is of a Democrat black bear in Montana nicknamed... Bearack Obearma.

----- End Forwarded Message -----

I chuckled. But then I also wondered: How many peeps who chuckled do not recognize their own paws seeking the aid and comfort of government? I have diabetes and am covered by Medicare. Ya?

Post #209 'KeepAmericaSafe:' Under Construction

Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' is not finished.

Take Action Now, the website extorts:

1) Join Keep America Safe -- give 'em your e-mail address and your home address so that ya can enjoy all sorts of right-wing propaganda (including, I bet, an offer to subscribe to "The Weekly Standard," the neo-con magazine by 'KeepAmericaSafe' co-founder Bill Krystol);
2) Contribute -- the low-end amounts are $25 or $10 per month (anything less means ya is a communist);
3) Write a letter to a news editor -- repeat "invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Torturing suspects is OK and should not be prosecuted. Detaining suspects forever is OK. We need wars with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Somalia. Keep America Safe;"
4) Call talk radio -- repeat "invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Torturing suspects is OK and should not be prosecuted. Detaining suspects forever is OK. We need wars with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Somalia. Keep America Safe;"
5) Write a letter to your congressman -- repeat "invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Torturing suspects is OK and should not be prosecuted. Detaining suspects forever is OK. We need wars with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Somalia. Keep America Safe."

What is missing? How about joining the military? Or learning a new language -- Arabic? -- and joining the CIA? Surely, the 'God, guns and country' crowd that Cheney is speaking to does not value a call to talk radio over a call to national service.

I'm going to give Liz Cheney the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure that she's busy, not dismissive of the military like her father.

Post #208 Who Killed Stephen Hawking?, Pt. II

One complaint against my writing -- but not the only complaint, by the way -- is that I'm too short. Guilty. I happen to think that anybody who is smart enough to connect to the 'net is smart enough to get a point in one sentence -- no need to beat 'em over the head.

However, I'm forgetting the tip from freshman English 25 years ago: If something is important, repeat it. If something is important, repeat it. By repeating the same something a third time in a different way shows that it is really important.

So, I'm going to expand my Post #200, "Who Killed Stephen Hawking?"

* * *

Well, he is not dead. Stephen Hawking, the renowned British theoretical physicist with a neuro muscular dystrophy, is alive -- just on TV getting the "Presidential Medal of Freedom."

So, the question really is: "Who is keeping Stephen Hawking alive?" The answer: Government, BIG, s-l-o-w and inefficient government. I'm sure that his health care is expensive, probably too expensive for Hawking to handle by himself/

It seems ironic to me that the same peeps who rant about government' theoretical future role in life and death decisions have nothing to say regarding private insurers' real current role. Tho the government is keeping Stephen Hawking alive, they want to cite Hawking -- ignoring the fact that he is not dead. But at least government will respond and change its ways. If we, the people, don't want 'death panels,' there won't be 'death panels' deciding the value of life and when to pull the plug on Hawking or Charles Krauthammer or Grandma.

"Who would kill Stephen Hawking?" Private insurers.

It is private insurers who make life and death decisions every day. If ya can't afford insurance, too bad. If Stephen Hawking had to rely on a private insurer....

Or Charles Krauthammer or Grandma. A private company will resist any change that may affect its bottom-line. Their 'death panels' -- which consist of accountants reading balance sheets -- are OK with them.

In 1995, Taiwan wanted to have universal health care -- they scoured the world for the best-run government health care to copy and choose the United States' Medicare. Taiwan of course opened their Medicare to everybody. Why can't we do that? Isn't it the best strategy to copy an already-existing program? That is why the search for an "uniquely American" solution makes no sense -- our "uniquely American" solution is under our noses.

Universal health care is a pro-business stance -- leveling the playing field of the world market. As Charles Krauthammer said in my Post #206, "There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless." What is good for General Motors is good for America, and government-run healh care is good for General Motors.

Universal health care is also pro-workers. As Charles Krauthammer said in my Post #206, "It [private insurance thro employers] makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness." -- government-run health care would mean nobody to be held hostage to a job because of the health benefits.

"Socialism" is the cry -- ignoring last November's election results. That is the same crowd who slurps at the troughs of Medicare and Social Security, Ignore 'em, I say -- they had their chance to be heard.

* * *

Better?

Post #207 Aaarrrggghhh!!!

I've come to really value my time on the 'net -- which seems to be getting less and less these days. And then I get crap in my e-box.

There are plenty of good and true and valid points on which to oppose Nancy Pelosi -- I have a few myself. But her new plane is NOT one.

Ya know the e-mail, the one that says Pelosi requested a "big fat jumbo jet" to ferry big supporters across country. That e-mail is a couple of years old. I'd gotten several over time but not recently. I thought it'd been thoroughly discredited and had died.

But there it was, again, in my e-box just the other day. The peeps who mindlessly -- without checking ar least at snopes.com -- hit "Fwd" on every rant don't realize what a disservice they're doing to their 'cause.' Whatever the 'cause' may be.

My Pelosi-hating e-pal had already lost credibility with me -- this was not his first error-filled "anti-Pelosi" e-mail. I don't know what his problem is, and I don't really care to know.

My advice is to NOT hit "Fwd" on a rant that doesn't have a link to show where it came from. Go to townhall.com or huffingtonpost.com and find a column ya agree with and e-mail that. Peeps who sign their columns have an interest in maintaining credibility. Keep in mind, tho, some columnists thrive on being over-the-top and playing fast and loose with the facts -- they usually claim to be a "comedian."

If ya lie down with dogs, ya get fleas. If ya send a column by a comedian, don't be surprised when peeps laugh at ya.

Post #206 Charles Krauthammer's Health-Care Reform Plan

QUICK! CALL 9-1-1!! LET'S RUSH THE CONSTITUTION TO THE HOSPITAL!!!

Charles Krauthammer wants to take away your Constitutional right to have your day in court. "[I'd a]bolish the entire medical-malpractice system. Create a new social pool from which people injured in medical errors or accidents can draw. The adjudication would be done by medical experts, not lay juries."

I'll agree with Krauthammer that Obamacare "simply multiplies the current inefficiencies and arbitrariness, thus producing staggering deficits with less choice and lower-quality care."

But unConstitutional socialism is not the way to go.

Neo-cons. [rolleyes] No wonder the complaint is that Republicans have no plan. All that is heard is nonsense.

There are two components to Krauthammer's plan: 1) Tear up the Constitution; 2) Raise taxes. "The plan is so simple it doesn't even have the requisite three parts," Krauthammer said. "Just two: radical tort reform and radically severing the link between health insurance and employment.

"There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless. It makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness."

Yep, but the solution is -- well....

"Tax employer-provided health-care benefits," Krauthammer said, "and return the money to the employee."

I must have been asleep that day during 'Conservatism 101,' but how does taxing businesses -- big and small, I'm guessing -- help? I appreciate the willingness to mention taxes -- taxes = services, after all. But I think my idea in my Post #203 to tax the individuals who use Obamacare is better.

Look, Obamacare is just too complicated. We ought to just copy an already-existing program -- Medicare, the plan for only Senators and congressmen, Charles Krauthammer's plan (not his neo-con fantasy but what he currently uses)....

Post #205 Don't want no socialism 'round here....

I have a few cows. I sell 'em for meat. What I really hate is the way the government sends a 'Agriculture Extension Officer' to tell me how to raise cows.

We need to get the government out of agriculture. Let's end the socialism of agri-welfare. Just think of the tax-savings for everybody, and I can pass my savings in the cost of raising cows along to ya. Wouldn't ya like cheaper hamburger?

I know what ya is thinking. But I promise to have a vet check out my cows every week -- keep 'Mad Cow disease' out of the food supply. Unless of course that is the week lil' BobbiSue needs braces. But, hey, the chances of ya getting sick is small.

No, sir, no socialism for me! :p

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #204 9/11, revisited, Pt. III

As I said in my Post #175, every time I think about forgiving George W. Bush for 9/11, I read my Post #104 -- which follows. It is a Damning indictment of the Weasel's ineptitude and doesn't even include some of the most obvious examples -- Condi Rice's July '01 meeting with George Tenet or the August '01 Presidential Daily Briefing. Nor did I mention Bush's opposition to the 9/11 Commission or his refusal to give a formal interview.

The most depressing thing I saw on TV during MSNBC's replay of the coverage of that morning was, before 12 noon, Tom Brokaw identified the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, and cited a speech he had given in London the month before in which he threatened the United States.

Why wasn't Bush all over this?

* * *

Post #104

Subject: 9/11, revisited

President George W. Bush stood atop the rubble of the World Trade Center, wrapped his arm around a firefighter and said, "These terrorists shall hear from us. But, if we can't get 'em, we will invade a country that did not attack us and does not threaten us."

Wait -- was that a dream or a nightmare?

Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq

Why a meeting with the deputies and not the Secretaries? Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries. As Clarke told the 9'11 Commission, "It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies' committee didn't meet urgently in January or February."

The Secretaries' first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001.

On January 25, 2001, five days after Bush took office, Clarke sent Condoleezza Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda" It was, Clarke wrote, "developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)

SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

As Senator Carl Levin said, "I'm concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center."

And where was Bush?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Ari never did.

On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, "What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?"

And they gave us Iraq instead....

* * *

Bill Clinton knew. In Australia on 9/11, the former President immediately knew who the culprit was. But yet in the White House on 9/12, there was an obsession with Saddam
Hussein as there was an obsession with Saddam on 9/10 -- 9/11 just gave an excuse to take out the bad man. So what if there had to be lies about the actual connection between Saddam and Osama? There was a get-Saddam mindset BEFORE 9/11.