Friday, December 18, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Send Us Your Tired, Your Poor, But Only if They're 'Culturally Unique'
Immigration Caseworker AA0089 Has Some Thoughts About What Is Art
By MIRIAM JORDAN
LOS ANGELES -- When Jordan Peimer booked an Argentine band that fuses Jewish Klezmer music with tango, he thought he had the perfect act to headline his "Fiesta Hanukkah" concert.
"It is hard to imagine any band more fitting than Orquesta Kef," says Mr. Peimer, the program's director at the Skirball Cultural Center here. The event was designed to attract a Jewish audience and the city's burgeoning Hispanic community.
Watch a clip of Argentina's Orquesta Kef.
That was before the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services weighed in with some cultural commentary of its own. The band couldn't travel to the U.S., the agency ruled, because it didn't satisfy a "culturally unique" requirement for a performer visa called P-3.
"The evidence repeatedly suggests the group performs a hybrid or fusion style of music...[which] cannot be considered culturally unique to one particular country, nation, society, class, ethnicity, religion, tribe or other group of persons," read the denial. It was signed by caseworker CSC4672/WS24533.
Mr. Peimer was incensed. "How more culturally specific can you get than Jewish music of Latin America?" he asked. After Mr. Peimer did some venting on his Facebook page, a reader quipped that this is the era of "ethnomusicalsecurity."
In fact, immigration law gives an anonymous group of government bureaucrats a lot of cultural clout: They can decide which foreign ballerinas, musicians and artists qualify as "outstanding," or special enough to deserve a visa to enter the U.S.
Ultimately, most applications are approved. Some organizations and promoters representing artists complain that official judgments of artistic merit are often arbitrary, however.
View Full Image
Argentinian band Orquesta Kef was denied a performance visa.
Orquesta Kef
Argentinian band Orquesta Kef was denied a performance visa.
Argentinian band Orquesta Kef was denied a performance visa.
Argentinian band Orquesta Kef was denied a performance visa.
Los Angeles concert promoter Grand Performances booked an Indian music ensemble called Jaipur Kawa Brass Band for a summer gig. U.S. consular authorities approved visas for six members of the band, but rejected two, including the band's only competent English speaker. No explanation was given. "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services processes the petition but State [consular office] must grant the visa," says a spokeswoman for the agency. "It is outside our area of jurisdiction." The State Department noted only that a common reason for refusal is a perceived intent by a non-immigrant visa applicant to immigrate to the U.S.
The U.S. sponsor for the all-male Brazilian hip-hop company Grupo de Rua applied for a P-1 visa, and submitted articles about the dance company's performances in Tokyo, Berlin, Paris and the Edinburgh Art Festival. Immigration officer number AA0089 requested "evidence the group had achieved international recognition and acclaim."
Immigration officials don't agree that appearances necessarily add up to that. "Being internationally acclaimed is not equivalent to performing on stages overseas," says the spokeswoman.
"We didn't know what to do," says Harold Norris, president of H-Art Management in New York. "We had to turn the whole case over to a lawyer" to get it approved, which it was, as the tour dates approached.
According to the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 9, "internationally recognized" signifies "a high level of achievement in a field evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered, to the extent that such achievement is renowned, leading, or well-known in more than one country."
Artists who wish to visit the U.S. for a performance typically need a P-1 visa; a P-3 visa, issued to entertainers participating in a culturally unique program; or an O-1 visa, for individuals with extraordinary ability in the arts, education or sciences. Once a visa is approved, artists visit a local U.S. consular office to get it stamped in their passport.
Immigration authorities say that in weeding out applicants they deem marginal, they are simply carrying out the intent of Congress in creating the visa categories. The P category is meant to promote the exchange of culture and the arts. The O category is sometimes called the "genius visa. "
Each year, more than 20,000 O and P petitions arrive at the offices of Citizenship and Immigration Services in St. Albans, Vt., and in Laguna Niguel, Calif., where 28 adjudicators review them. The artists' requests represent a small fraction of the visa caseload. The California office alone receives more than 1.3 million visa applications each year.
Adjudicators work in a mustard-yellow federal building whose pyramid silhouette, evocative of ancient Mesopotamia, has been featured in Hollywood films, including "Outbreak" and "Coma." In the cavernous mailroom, visa application packets arrive by the truckload.
"I would like to highlight that USCIS adjudicators work arduously -- sometimes completing receipt, adjudication and consular processing of petition in a matter of hours," says the spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration Services. Though the examiners also tackle visa petitions for software engineers and lettuce harvesters, "they get specific training to understand specific visa categories," she says.
Their decision-making has confounded big-city operas and small-town dance companies alike. Asian, Latin American and European artists have been barred from entering the U.S., at times causing low-grade diplomatic tension.
"It is essential for countries like the United States and the United Kingdom to maintain open borders for arts professionals," says Carrie Annand, a spokeswoman for the British Council, which deploys talent around the world.
The officials' rulings have led to delays, cancellations and additional expenses for orchestras, museums and nonprofit arts organizations.
"A Berlin Wall against cultural diversity" is how Bill Smith of the Eye for Talent agency describes it.
When Mr. Smith tried to get a visa for Mexican indie band Los de Abajo, which already had visited the U.S. several times, immigration adjudicators asked him for some details about his own office: "Color photos should show both the inside and outside of all production, warehouse and office spaces with equipment, merchandise, products and employees clearly visible," said the letter of June 12, 2009.
"I dutifully complied," says Mr. Smith. "Then they denied the visa." The reason: "The group's biography indicates their music is a combination of music...," said the denial, and fusion music, it said, is not "culturally unique." The group had to cancel its tour.
video
Meet Canadian Dancer Ashley Werhun
1:03
U.S. immigration authorities initially refused to renew a visa for Ashley Werhun, a Canadian dancer with the Trey McIntyre Project. The Boise-based dance company secured a visa for individuals with "extraordinary ability" in the arts after applying a second time.
Canadian Ashley Werhun competed against hundreds of dancers for a spot in the Trey McIntyre Project of Boise, Idaho. The award-winning dancer entered the U.S. on a one-year O visa, and toured 35 cities world-wide with the troupe.
Determined to keep Miss Werhun, the dance company filed a petition last February to renew her visa for the next season. "We thought it would be a slam-dunk," says company manager Shawn Testin.
Instead, they received a request for evidence that Miss Werhun was exceptional in her field and superior to others in the troupe. In a company of only 10 dancers, "we couldn't say she is our premier dancer," says Mr. Testin. "Every one is just as important as the other."
Despite providing "hundreds of pages of evidence," according to Miss Werhun, the company got a rejection. She returned to Canada. The company reworked its choreography to account for Miss Werhun's absence.
It hired immigration lawyers to file a new application. To up its chances, the company enlisted Idaho congressman Walt Minnick to lobby.
In late November, Miss Werhun's visa was approved. She rejoined the company in midseason. All told, the visa endeavor cost the nonprofit organization more than $10,000, it says.
Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com
By MIRIAM JORDAN
LOS ANGELES -- When Jordan Peimer booked an Argentine band that fuses Jewish Klezmer music with tango, he thought he had the perfect act to headline his "Fiesta Hanukkah" concert.
"It is hard to imagine any band more fitting than Orquesta Kef," says Mr. Peimer, the program's director at the Skirball Cultural Center here. The event was designed to attract a Jewish audience and the city's burgeoning Hispanic community.
Watch a clip of Argentina's Orquesta Kef.
That was before the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services weighed in with some cultural commentary of its own. The band couldn't travel to the U.S., the agency ruled, because it didn't satisfy a "culturally unique" requirement for a performer visa called P-3.
"The evidence repeatedly suggests the group performs a hybrid or fusion style of music...[which] cannot be considered culturally unique to one particular country, nation, society, class, ethnicity, religion, tribe or other group of persons," read the denial. It was signed by caseworker CSC4672/WS24533.
Mr. Peimer was incensed. "How more culturally specific can you get than Jewish music of Latin America?" he asked. After Mr. Peimer did some venting on his Facebook page, a reader quipped that this is the era of "ethnomusicalsecurity."
In fact, immigration law gives an anonymous group of government bureaucrats a lot of cultural clout: They can decide which foreign ballerinas, musicians and artists qualify as "outstanding," or special enough to deserve a visa to enter the U.S.
Ultimately, most applications are approved. Some organizations and promoters representing artists complain that official judgments of artistic merit are often arbitrary, however.
View Full Image
Argentinian band Orquesta Kef was denied a performance visa.
Orquesta Kef
Argentinian band Orquesta Kef was denied a performance visa.
Argentinian band Orquesta Kef was denied a performance visa.
Argentinian band Orquesta Kef was denied a performance visa.
Los Angeles concert promoter Grand Performances booked an Indian music ensemble called Jaipur Kawa Brass Band for a summer gig. U.S. consular authorities approved visas for six members of the band, but rejected two, including the band's only competent English speaker. No explanation was given. "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services processes the petition but State [consular office] must grant the visa," says a spokeswoman for the agency. "It is outside our area of jurisdiction." The State Department noted only that a common reason for refusal is a perceived intent by a non-immigrant visa applicant to immigrate to the U.S.
The U.S. sponsor for the all-male Brazilian hip-hop company Grupo de Rua applied for a P-1 visa, and submitted articles about the dance company's performances in Tokyo, Berlin, Paris and the Edinburgh Art Festival. Immigration officer number AA0089 requested "evidence the group had achieved international recognition and acclaim."
Immigration officials don't agree that appearances necessarily add up to that. "Being internationally acclaimed is not equivalent to performing on stages overseas," says the spokeswoman.
"We didn't know what to do," says Harold Norris, president of H-Art Management in New York. "We had to turn the whole case over to a lawyer" to get it approved, which it was, as the tour dates approached.
According to the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 9, "internationally recognized" signifies "a high level of achievement in a field evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered, to the extent that such achievement is renowned, leading, or well-known in more than one country."
Artists who wish to visit the U.S. for a performance typically need a P-1 visa; a P-3 visa, issued to entertainers participating in a culturally unique program; or an O-1 visa, for individuals with extraordinary ability in the arts, education or sciences. Once a visa is approved, artists visit a local U.S. consular office to get it stamped in their passport.
Immigration authorities say that in weeding out applicants they deem marginal, they are simply carrying out the intent of Congress in creating the visa categories. The P category is meant to promote the exchange of culture and the arts. The O category is sometimes called the "genius visa. "
Each year, more than 20,000 O and P petitions arrive at the offices of Citizenship and Immigration Services in St. Albans, Vt., and in Laguna Niguel, Calif., where 28 adjudicators review them. The artists' requests represent a small fraction of the visa caseload. The California office alone receives more than 1.3 million visa applications each year.
Adjudicators work in a mustard-yellow federal building whose pyramid silhouette, evocative of ancient Mesopotamia, has been featured in Hollywood films, including "Outbreak" and "Coma." In the cavernous mailroom, visa application packets arrive by the truckload.
"I would like to highlight that USCIS adjudicators work arduously -- sometimes completing receipt, adjudication and consular processing of petition in a matter of hours," says the spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration Services. Though the examiners also tackle visa petitions for software engineers and lettuce harvesters, "they get specific training to understand specific visa categories," she says.
Their decision-making has confounded big-city operas and small-town dance companies alike. Asian, Latin American and European artists have been barred from entering the U.S., at times causing low-grade diplomatic tension.
"It is essential for countries like the United States and the United Kingdom to maintain open borders for arts professionals," says Carrie Annand, a spokeswoman for the British Council, which deploys talent around the world.
The officials' rulings have led to delays, cancellations and additional expenses for orchestras, museums and nonprofit arts organizations.
"A Berlin Wall against cultural diversity" is how Bill Smith of the Eye for Talent agency describes it.
When Mr. Smith tried to get a visa for Mexican indie band Los de Abajo, which already had visited the U.S. several times, immigration adjudicators asked him for some details about his own office: "Color photos should show both the inside and outside of all production, warehouse and office spaces with equipment, merchandise, products and employees clearly visible," said the letter of June 12, 2009.
"I dutifully complied," says Mr. Smith. "Then they denied the visa." The reason: "The group's biography indicates their music is a combination of music...," said the denial, and fusion music, it said, is not "culturally unique." The group had to cancel its tour.
video
Meet Canadian Dancer Ashley Werhun
1:03
U.S. immigration authorities initially refused to renew a visa for Ashley Werhun, a Canadian dancer with the Trey McIntyre Project. The Boise-based dance company secured a visa for individuals with "extraordinary ability" in the arts after applying a second time.
Canadian Ashley Werhun competed against hundreds of dancers for a spot in the Trey McIntyre Project of Boise, Idaho. The award-winning dancer entered the U.S. on a one-year O visa, and toured 35 cities world-wide with the troupe.
Determined to keep Miss Werhun, the dance company filed a petition last February to renew her visa for the next season. "We thought it would be a slam-dunk," says company manager Shawn Testin.
Instead, they received a request for evidence that Miss Werhun was exceptional in her field and superior to others in the troupe. In a company of only 10 dancers, "we couldn't say she is our premier dancer," says Mr. Testin. "Every one is just as important as the other."
Despite providing "hundreds of pages of evidence," according to Miss Werhun, the company got a rejection. She returned to Canada. The company reworked its choreography to account for Miss Werhun's absence.
It hired immigration lawyers to file a new application. To up its chances, the company enlisted Idaho congressman Walt Minnick to lobby.
In late November, Miss Werhun's visa was approved. She rejoined the company in midseason. All told, the visa endeavor cost the nonprofit organization more than $10,000, it says.
Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Keeping the Nobel Prize would violate the Constitution
Tad Armstrong
Wednesday, Dec. 02 2009
(Editor's Note: As part of our efforts to provide a variety of views on the
Commentary page, today we debut a monthly "Point of View" column by Tad
Armstrong, a lawyer in Edwardsville. In 2005, Armstrong was challenged by a
local resident to educate citizens about our Constitution. The informal
gathering turned into 3,000 pages of educational materials, five adult-study
clubs in Madison County and a student club at Edwardsville High School.
Armstrong, 58, envisions an ELL Constitution Club (Earn It, Learn It or Lose
It) in communities across the country. You can learn more by calling him at
618-656-6770 or visiting ww.ellclubs.com.)
Congratulations, Mr. President, but if you care about the rule of law, you'll
have to fork over the Nobel Peace Prize within 60 days of accepting it next
week. Contrary to Mel Brooks' pronouncement in "History of the World Part I,"
it's not always good to be the king. It's impossible if you are an American
president.
Article I of the Constitution states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by
the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present,
Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or
foreign State."
Clearly, the presidency is both an office of "profit" and of "trust" and the
prize package (including 1.4 million clams) is included in the terms "present"
or "emolument." Therefore, a sitting president cannot accept it from a "King,
Prince or foreign State" without the consent of Congress.
While the Prize comes from the private Nobel Foundaation, Alfred Nobel left
instructions in his will that winners would be selected by a "committee of
five" appointed by the Parliament of Norway. There is no question that the
intent of Article I and a 1966 law passed by Congress is such that this prize
is "from a foreign State."
What does "consent of Congress" mean? It could be argued that there must be
specific consent of Congress for this prize to be accepted, which Congress has
not provided because, no doubt, most of its members don't have a clue it is
constitutionally required.
But in 1966, Congress passed a law dealing with the receipt and disposition of
foreign gifts and decorations, including those that fall into the lap of a
sitting president. That alone would bar the president from accepting the prize.
That law, now Section 7342 of the U.S. Code, provides that unless Congress
provides specific consent to the president to accept the prize and changes the
rules for its disposition, the prize must be accepted "on behalf of the United
States of America" and the $1.4 million must be turned over to the Treasury.
Did I hear someone say: "Cheap shot! After all, the President graciously
announced that all of the money would be donated to charity. He won fair and
square. Let him experience the joy of giving."
The framers included these Constitutional provisions to send a message to other
nations that they need not offer bribes to our president in the hope of gaining
political advantage, for we don't allow our leaders to accept them. Would
Norway expect Mr. Obama to embrace its global warming policy, for example? Come
to think of it, that might be a very good reason for Congress to consider
refusing the prize.
Additionally, because the money is not the president's to give away, he won't
be tempted to narrow his charitable giving to only those charities likely to
reward him with future campaign contributions. Does ACORN come to mind?
So, Mr. President, you took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the
Constitution "to the best of your ability." You cannot give the prize money to
charities of your choice. In fact, if you do not turn it over to the Treasury,
the law allows Attorney General Eric Holder to bring a civil suit against you
for all of the prize money plus $5,000. I'm not holding my breath.
Kings get to keep their spoils or designate their disposition, but you are not
king. Better fork it over. Your magnanimous decision to give it away is the
only cheap shot on the table. As a lawyer, an oath taker and the president of
the United States, you should know better.
To put all of this in extra-legal perspective, just prior to his death when
Congress was considering awarding President Harry S Truman with the Medal of
Honor, he said he was thankful, but would not accept an award meant for bravery
in battle. He also turned down lucrative corporate positions offered to him
after he left office. He said:
"I knew they were not interested in hiring Harry Truman . . . they wanted to
hire . . . the former president of the United States. I could never lend myself
to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialize on the
prestige and the dignity of the office of the presidency."
Are there any such statesmen left?
Wednesday, Dec. 02 2009
(Editor's Note: As part of our efforts to provide a variety of views on the
Commentary page, today we debut a monthly "Point of View" column by Tad
Armstrong, a lawyer in Edwardsville. In 2005, Armstrong was challenged by a
local resident to educate citizens about our Constitution. The informal
gathering turned into 3,000 pages of educational materials, five adult-study
clubs in Madison County and a student club at Edwardsville High School.
Armstrong, 58, envisions an ELL Constitution Club (Earn It, Learn It or Lose
It) in communities across the country. You can learn more by calling him at
618-656-6770 or visiting ww.ellclubs.com.)
Congratulations, Mr. President, but if you care about the rule of law, you'll
have to fork over the Nobel Peace Prize within 60 days of accepting it next
week. Contrary to Mel Brooks' pronouncement in "History of the World Part I,"
it's not always good to be the king. It's impossible if you are an American
president.
Article I of the Constitution states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by
the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present,
Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or
foreign State."
Clearly, the presidency is both an office of "profit" and of "trust" and the
prize package (including 1.4 million clams) is included in the terms "present"
or "emolument." Therefore, a sitting president cannot accept it from a "King,
Prince or foreign State" without the consent of Congress.
While the Prize comes from the private Nobel Foundaation, Alfred Nobel left
instructions in his will that winners would be selected by a "committee of
five" appointed by the Parliament of Norway. There is no question that the
intent of Article I and a 1966 law passed by Congress is such that this prize
is "from a foreign State."
What does "consent of Congress" mean? It could be argued that there must be
specific consent of Congress for this prize to be accepted, which Congress has
not provided because, no doubt, most of its members don't have a clue it is
constitutionally required.
But in 1966, Congress passed a law dealing with the receipt and disposition of
foreign gifts and decorations, including those that fall into the lap of a
sitting president. That alone would bar the president from accepting the prize.
That law, now Section 7342 of the U.S. Code, provides that unless Congress
provides specific consent to the president to accept the prize and changes the
rules for its disposition, the prize must be accepted "on behalf of the United
States of America" and the $1.4 million must be turned over to the Treasury.
Did I hear someone say: "Cheap shot! After all, the President graciously
announced that all of the money would be donated to charity. He won fair and
square. Let him experience the joy of giving."
The framers included these Constitutional provisions to send a message to other
nations that they need not offer bribes to our president in the hope of gaining
political advantage, for we don't allow our leaders to accept them. Would
Norway expect Mr. Obama to embrace its global warming policy, for example? Come
to think of it, that might be a very good reason for Congress to consider
refusing the prize.
Additionally, because the money is not the president's to give away, he won't
be tempted to narrow his charitable giving to only those charities likely to
reward him with future campaign contributions. Does ACORN come to mind?
So, Mr. President, you took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the
Constitution "to the best of your ability." You cannot give the prize money to
charities of your choice. In fact, if you do not turn it over to the Treasury,
the law allows Attorney General Eric Holder to bring a civil suit against you
for all of the prize money plus $5,000. I'm not holding my breath.
Kings get to keep their spoils or designate their disposition, but you are not
king. Better fork it over. Your magnanimous decision to give it away is the
only cheap shot on the table. As a lawyer, an oath taker and the president of
the United States, you should know better.
To put all of this in extra-legal perspective, just prior to his death when
Congress was considering awarding President Harry S Truman with the Medal of
Honor, he said he was thankful, but would not accept an award meant for bravery
in battle. He also turned down lucrative corporate positions offered to him
after he left office. He said:
"I knew they were not interested in hiring Harry Truman . . . they wanted to
hire . . . the former president of the United States. I could never lend myself
to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialize on the
prestige and the dignity of the office of the presidency."
Are there any such statesmen left?
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Afghan Surge Sing Along
Afghan Surge Anthem and Sing Along
by Bill Dyszel
(to the tune "The Caissons Go Rolling Along"
Soon our troops, every man,
Will get to Afghanistan,
Then we'll turn right around
And come back.
If we try not to blink,
We might see the Taliban,
Which we wont have,
The time to attack.
When they ship your ass
To the Khyber pass,
You'll see!
It isn't Bali Hai!
It's a stinkin 'hole
Nobody controls,
So of course,
They'll send in the G.I.s
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Stupid is as stupid does
--by Horatio Algeranon
Stupid is,
As stupid does.
The Globe is cooling
Just because...
The temperature
Just yesterday
Was warmer than
It is today!
Statistics don't lie!
The trend is down!!
("Two points make a line"
Is what Euclid found.)
The winter ice,
Has recovered nice.
One whole inch thick!!
That should suffice,
To prevent its melting,
In the summer.
(For Gore, I'm sure,
A royal bummer.)
The CO2 rise
Has begun to slow.
Fallen (!!), in fact,
Two months in a row!
Which means,
Of course,
That fossil burning,
Can't be the cause,
As we've been learning.
The solar output's
On the fall.
A Maunderish Min
Has caused a stall.
A "Little Ice Age"
Is on the way!
It might arrive
Just any day!
The IPCC
Has been FALSIFIED!
That really cannot
Be denied.
They predicted warming,
When it’s been cooling!!
It’s only themselves
They have been fooling.
Stupid is,
As stupid does.
The Globe is cooling,
Just because...
Stupid is,
As stupid does.
The Globe is cooling
Just because...
The temperature
Just yesterday
Was warmer than
It is today!
Statistics don't lie!
The trend is down!!
("Two points make a line"
Is what Euclid found.)
The winter ice,
Has recovered nice.
One whole inch thick!!
That should suffice,
To prevent its melting,
In the summer.
(For Gore, I'm sure,
A royal bummer.)
The CO2 rise
Has begun to slow.
Fallen (!!), in fact,
Two months in a row!
Which means,
Of course,
That fossil burning,
Can't be the cause,
As we've been learning.
The solar output's
On the fall.
A Maunderish Min
Has caused a stall.
A "Little Ice Age"
Is on the way!
It might arrive
Just any day!
The IPCC
Has been FALSIFIED!
That really cannot
Be denied.
They predicted warming,
When it’s been cooling!!
It’s only themselves
They have been fooling.
Stupid is,
As stupid does.
The Globe is cooling,
Just because...
Jabberbloggy
-- Horatio Algeranon's rendition of "Jabberwocky"
'Twas warming and the melting glaciers
Did calve and crash upon the waves
All flimsy were the ice shelf fissures
And the sea ice misbehaves.
"Beware the Jabberblogger, my son!
The un-sourced claim! The dubious stat!
Beware the JunkScience site, and shun
WattsUpWithThat?!"
He took his scientific method in hand
Long time the denialist foe he sought --
And for the duration, by the Surface Station,
He stood awhile in thought.
And, as in nerdish thought he stood,
The Jabberblogger, with blog of fame,
Came snapping photos as fast as it could
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The Razor of Occam went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And, hast thou slain the Jabberblogger?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.
'Twas warming and the melting glaciers
Did calve and crash upon the waves
All flimsy were the ice shelf fissures
And the sea ice misbehaves.
'Twas warming and the melting glaciers
Did calve and crash upon the waves
All flimsy were the ice shelf fissures
And the sea ice misbehaves.
"Beware the Jabberblogger, my son!
The un-sourced claim! The dubious stat!
Beware the JunkScience site, and shun
WattsUpWithThat?!"
He took his scientific method in hand
Long time the denialist foe he sought --
And for the duration, by the Surface Station,
He stood awhile in thought.
And, as in nerdish thought he stood,
The Jabberblogger, with blog of fame,
Came snapping photos as fast as it could
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The Razor of Occam went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And, hast thou slain the Jabberblogger?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.
'Twas warming and the melting glaciers
Did calve and crash upon the waves
All flimsy were the ice shelf fissures
And the sea ice misbehaves.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Amendment 28
THIS AMENDMENT IS PAST DUE. PLEASE PASS IT ON AND CALL YOUR REPs.
Amendment 28
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .
Amendment 28
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .
Friday, November 6, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Terror Cutbacks The Capitol Steps
http://www.capsteps.com/sounds/alqaeda-terrorcutbacks.mp3
FEDERAL AGENTS recently nabbed an alleged al-Qaeda terrorist, Najibullah Zazi, who had to shop for bomb-making materials in beauty supply stores. He said he needed so much peroxide and acetone because he had "a lot of girlfriends." Hey, in these tough economic times, even terrorists need to operate on a shoestring.
FEDERAL AGENTS recently nabbed an alleged al-Qaeda terrorist, Najibullah Zazi, who had to shop for bomb-making materials in beauty supply stores. He said he needed so much peroxide and acetone because he had "a lot of girlfriends." Hey, in these tough economic times, even terrorists need to operate on a shoestring.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War
Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War
President Obama can't outsource matters of war and peace to another state.
*
By BRET STEPHENS
Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. Or it could succeed at the price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between. So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along?
At July's G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No.
Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the "ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations" and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, "respect for the rights of nations," and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran's nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion.
What's an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What else, but pretend it isn't a nonstarter. Talks begin Oct. 1.
All this only helps persuade Israel's skittish leadership that when President Obama calls a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable," he means it approximately in the same way a parent does when fecklessly reprimanding his misbehaving teenager. That impression is strengthened by Mr. Obama's decision to drop Iran from the agenda when he chairs a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 24; by Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly opposing military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities; and by Russia's announcement that it will not support any further sanctions on Iran.
In sum, the conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won't lift a finger to stop Iran, much less will the "international community." So Israel has pursued a different strategy, in effect seeking to goad the U.S. into stopping, or at least delaying, an Israeli attack by imposing stiff sanctions and perhaps even launching military strikes of its own.
View Full Image
GLOVIEW0915
Associated Press
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
GLOVIEW0915
GLOVIEW0915
Thus, unlike Israel's air strike against Iraq's reactor in 1981 or Syria's in 2007, both of which were planned in the utmost secrecy, the Israelis have gone out of their way to advertise their fears, purposes and capabilities. They have sent warships through the Suez Canal in broad daylight and conducted widely publicized air-combat exercises at long range. They have also been unusually forthcoming in their briefings with reporters, expressing confidence at every turn that Israel can get the job done.
The problem, however, is that the administration isn't taking the bait, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps it thinks its diplomacy will work, or that it has the luxury of time, or that it can talk the Israelis out of attacking. Alternatively, it might actually want Israel to attack without inviting the perception that it has colluded with it. Or maybe it isn't really paying attention.
But Israel is paying attention. And the longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike. A report published today by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and signed by Democrat Chuck Robb, Republican Dan Coats, and retired Gen. Charles Ward, notes that by next year Iran will "be able to produce a weapon's worth of highly enriched uranium . . . in less than two months." No less critical in determining Israel's timetable is the anticipated delivery to Iran of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries: Israel will almost certainly strike before those deliveries are made, no matter whether an Iranian bomb is two months or two years away.
Such a strike may well be in Israel's best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America's supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn't need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke.
Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran's disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.
But most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower's responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver's seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would do better to take the wheel again, keeping in mind that Iran is beyond the reach of his eloquence, and keeping in mind, too, that very useful Roman adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum.
President Obama can't outsource matters of war and peace to another state.
*
By BRET STEPHENS
Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. Or it could succeed at the price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between. So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along?
At July's G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No.
Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the "ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations" and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, "respect for the rights of nations," and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran's nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion.
What's an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What else, but pretend it isn't a nonstarter. Talks begin Oct. 1.
All this only helps persuade Israel's skittish leadership that when President Obama calls a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable," he means it approximately in the same way a parent does when fecklessly reprimanding his misbehaving teenager. That impression is strengthened by Mr. Obama's decision to drop Iran from the agenda when he chairs a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 24; by Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly opposing military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities; and by Russia's announcement that it will not support any further sanctions on Iran.
In sum, the conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won't lift a finger to stop Iran, much less will the "international community." So Israel has pursued a different strategy, in effect seeking to goad the U.S. into stopping, or at least delaying, an Israeli attack by imposing stiff sanctions and perhaps even launching military strikes of its own.
View Full Image
GLOVIEW0915
Associated Press
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
GLOVIEW0915
GLOVIEW0915
Thus, unlike Israel's air strike against Iraq's reactor in 1981 or Syria's in 2007, both of which were planned in the utmost secrecy, the Israelis have gone out of their way to advertise their fears, purposes and capabilities. They have sent warships through the Suez Canal in broad daylight and conducted widely publicized air-combat exercises at long range. They have also been unusually forthcoming in their briefings with reporters, expressing confidence at every turn that Israel can get the job done.
The problem, however, is that the administration isn't taking the bait, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps it thinks its diplomacy will work, or that it has the luxury of time, or that it can talk the Israelis out of attacking. Alternatively, it might actually want Israel to attack without inviting the perception that it has colluded with it. Or maybe it isn't really paying attention.
But Israel is paying attention. And the longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike. A report published today by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and signed by Democrat Chuck Robb, Republican Dan Coats, and retired Gen. Charles Ward, notes that by next year Iran will "be able to produce a weapon's worth of highly enriched uranium . . . in less than two months." No less critical in determining Israel's timetable is the anticipated delivery to Iran of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries: Israel will almost certainly strike before those deliveries are made, no matter whether an Iranian bomb is two months or two years away.
Such a strike may well be in Israel's best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America's supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn't need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke.
Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran's disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.
But most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower's responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver's seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would do better to take the wheel again, keeping in mind that Iran is beyond the reach of his eloquence, and keeping in mind, too, that very useful Roman adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Why We Don't Need Socialized Medicine
Why we don't need economic illiterates trivializing the dangers of socialized medicine and spouting abject nonsense on YouTube.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
The Real CIA News
The Real CIA News
Interrogations were carefully limited, briefed on Capitol Hill, and yielded information that saved innocent lives.
Whoever advised people to be skeptical of what they read in the papers must have had in mind this week's coverage of the documents about CIA interrogations. Now that we've had a chance to read the reports, it's clear the real story isn't the few cases of abuse played up by the media. The news is that the program was thoughtfully developed, carefully circumscribed, briefed to Congress, and yielded information crucial to disrupting al Qaeda.
In other words, it worked—at least until politics got in the way.
That's the essential judgment offered by former CIA Inspector General John Helgerson in his 2004 report. Some mild criticism aside, the report says the CIA "invested immense time and effort to implement the [program] quickly, effectively, and within the law"; that the agency "generally provided good guidance and support"; and that agency personnel largely "followed guidance and procedures and documented their activities well." So where's the scandal?
***
Mr. Helgerson describes how the CIA collaborated with the Pentagon, the Justice Department and even outside experts to develop specific guidelines for 10 enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, that passed legal muster. The enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) "would be used on 'an as needed basis' and all would not necessarily be used. Further, the EITs were expected to be used 'in some sort of escalating fashion' . . ." The agency had psychologists evaluate al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, to ensure he would not suffer physical or long-term mental harm.
As the program expanded, the CIA "implemented training programs for interrogators and debriefers." By early 2003 it had created guidelines on detention and interrogation and required "individuals engaged in or supporting interrogations be made aware of the guidelines and sign an acknowledgment that they have read them." The guidelines also made "formal the existing . . . practice of requiring the field to obtain specific Headquarters approvals prior to the application of all EITs." This was hardly a rogue CIA.
Congress also knew about it. The IG report belies House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims that she wasn't told about all this. "In the fall of 2002, the Agency briefed the leadership of the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of both standard techniques and EITs. . . . Representatives . . . continued to brief the leadership of the Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of EITs and detentions in February and March 2003. The [CIA] General Counsel says that none of the participants expressed any concern about the techniques or the Program . . ." Ditto in September 2003.
As for examples of "unauthorized techniques," the IG explains that the most "significant"—an accusation that an interrogator threatened a detainee with a gun and a power drill—was the subject of a separate investigation. As for the rest—"the making of threats, blowing cigar smoke, employing certain stress positions, the use of a stiff brush on a detainee, and stepping on a detainee's ankle shackles"—the IG report says the "allegations were disputed or too ambiguous to reach any authoritative determination" and "did not warrant separate investigations or administrative actions."
The most revealing portion of the IG report documents the program's results. The CIA's "detention and interrogation of terrorists has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists and warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States and around the world." That included the identification of Jose Padilla and Binyam Muhammed, who planned to detonate a dirty bomb, and the arrest of previously unknown members of an al Qaeda cell in Karachi, Pakistan, designated to pilot an aircraft attack in the U.S. The information also made the CIA aware of plots to attack the U.S. consulate in Karachi, hijack aircraft to fly into Heathrow, loosen track spikes to derail a U.S. train, blow up U.S. gas stations, fly an airplane into a California building, and cut the lines of suspension bridges in New York.
While the report doesn't take a position on the value of enhanced techniques, the facts speak loudly that they caused detainees to yield important information. The report notes that early on Zubaydah provided some information, but that the waterboard resulted in "increased production." It also notes that since the use of the waterboard, "Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative."
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who planned the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, was not waterboarded. "However," says the report, "following the use of [enhanced techniques], he provided information about his most current operational planning as opposed to the historical information he provided before the use of [enhanced techniques]."
Then there's Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who directed the 9/11 attacks. The report cites him as the "most prolific" provider of information. Yet it later notes that KSM, "an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete." The report explains that KSM was then waterboarded 183 times, and it redacts the rest of the section. This suggests that what interrogators gleaned was valuable enough that it requires classification even today.
This conclusion is buttressed by two other CIA documents released this week, one from 2004 and another from 2005, that outline interrogation results. One provides details of how interrogations brought down Hambali, mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombings. KSM provided information about al Qaeda operative Majid Khan, who had been tasked with delivering money to an operative named Jubair. Khan, who had been caught, revealed information to capture Jubair, who divulged that he worked for Hambali, and provided information for Hambali's arrest. KSM then admitted that Hambali's brother was his likely successor, and that brother in turn provided information to take down an entire terrorist cell in Karachi. Hambali admitted these terrorists were to be trained to fly airplanes into U.S. targets.
The two CIA papers don't discuss enhanced interrogation, though the IG report suggests that KSM provided little of this information prior to his waterboarding. Some will argue that these details could have been elicited without enhanced techniques. We'll never know. The question is whether Attorney General Eric Holder and his new special counsel intend to second-guess the decisions of CIA officials who were operating in the shadow of 9/11 and who, we now know, successfully unraveled terror plots and saved lives.
***
Which brings us to another salient part of the IG report: CIA officials well understood that they might be second-guessed years later by politicians. "During the course of this review, a number of Agency officers expressed unsolicited concern about the possibility of recrimination or legal action resulting from their participation. . . . officers expressed concern that a human rights group might pursue them for activities . . . they feared that the Agency would not stand behind them." Another said, "Ten years from now we're going to be sorry we're doing this . . . [but] it has to be done."
The outrage here isn't that government officials used sometimes rough interrogation methods to break our enemies. The outrage is that, years later, when the political winds have shifted and there hasn't been another attack, our politicians would punish the men and women who did their best to protect Americans in a time of peril.
Interrogations were carefully limited, briefed on Capitol Hill, and yielded information that saved innocent lives.
Whoever advised people to be skeptical of what they read in the papers must have had in mind this week's coverage of the documents about CIA interrogations. Now that we've had a chance to read the reports, it's clear the real story isn't the few cases of abuse played up by the media. The news is that the program was thoughtfully developed, carefully circumscribed, briefed to Congress, and yielded information crucial to disrupting al Qaeda.
In other words, it worked—at least until politics got in the way.
That's the essential judgment offered by former CIA Inspector General John Helgerson in his 2004 report. Some mild criticism aside, the report says the CIA "invested immense time and effort to implement the [program] quickly, effectively, and within the law"; that the agency "generally provided good guidance and support"; and that agency personnel largely "followed guidance and procedures and documented their activities well." So where's the scandal?
***
Mr. Helgerson describes how the CIA collaborated with the Pentagon, the Justice Department and even outside experts to develop specific guidelines for 10 enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, that passed legal muster. The enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) "would be used on 'an as needed basis' and all would not necessarily be used. Further, the EITs were expected to be used 'in some sort of escalating fashion' . . ." The agency had psychologists evaluate al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, to ensure he would not suffer physical or long-term mental harm.
As the program expanded, the CIA "implemented training programs for interrogators and debriefers." By early 2003 it had created guidelines on detention and interrogation and required "individuals engaged in or supporting interrogations be made aware of the guidelines and sign an acknowledgment that they have read them." The guidelines also made "formal the existing . . . practice of requiring the field to obtain specific Headquarters approvals prior to the application of all EITs." This was hardly a rogue CIA.
Congress also knew about it. The IG report belies House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims that she wasn't told about all this. "In the fall of 2002, the Agency briefed the leadership of the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of both standard techniques and EITs. . . . Representatives . . . continued to brief the leadership of the Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of EITs and detentions in February and March 2003. The [CIA] General Counsel says that none of the participants expressed any concern about the techniques or the Program . . ." Ditto in September 2003.
As for examples of "unauthorized techniques," the IG explains that the most "significant"—an accusation that an interrogator threatened a detainee with a gun and a power drill—was the subject of a separate investigation. As for the rest—"the making of threats, blowing cigar smoke, employing certain stress positions, the use of a stiff brush on a detainee, and stepping on a detainee's ankle shackles"—the IG report says the "allegations were disputed or too ambiguous to reach any authoritative determination" and "did not warrant separate investigations or administrative actions."
The most revealing portion of the IG report documents the program's results. The CIA's "detention and interrogation of terrorists has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists and warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States and around the world." That included the identification of Jose Padilla and Binyam Muhammed, who planned to detonate a dirty bomb, and the arrest of previously unknown members of an al Qaeda cell in Karachi, Pakistan, designated to pilot an aircraft attack in the U.S. The information also made the CIA aware of plots to attack the U.S. consulate in Karachi, hijack aircraft to fly into Heathrow, loosen track spikes to derail a U.S. train, blow up U.S. gas stations, fly an airplane into a California building, and cut the lines of suspension bridges in New York.
While the report doesn't take a position on the value of enhanced techniques, the facts speak loudly that they caused detainees to yield important information. The report notes that early on Zubaydah provided some information, but that the waterboard resulted in "increased production." It also notes that since the use of the waterboard, "Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative."
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who planned the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, was not waterboarded. "However," says the report, "following the use of [enhanced techniques], he provided information about his most current operational planning as opposed to the historical information he provided before the use of [enhanced techniques]."
Then there's Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who directed the 9/11 attacks. The report cites him as the "most prolific" provider of information. Yet it later notes that KSM, "an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete." The report explains that KSM was then waterboarded 183 times, and it redacts the rest of the section. This suggests that what interrogators gleaned was valuable enough that it requires classification even today.
This conclusion is buttressed by two other CIA documents released this week, one from 2004 and another from 2005, that outline interrogation results. One provides details of how interrogations brought down Hambali, mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombings. KSM provided information about al Qaeda operative Majid Khan, who had been tasked with delivering money to an operative named Jubair. Khan, who had been caught, revealed information to capture Jubair, who divulged that he worked for Hambali, and provided information for Hambali's arrest. KSM then admitted that Hambali's brother was his likely successor, and that brother in turn provided information to take down an entire terrorist cell in Karachi. Hambali admitted these terrorists were to be trained to fly airplanes into U.S. targets.
The two CIA papers don't discuss enhanced interrogation, though the IG report suggests that KSM provided little of this information prior to his waterboarding. Some will argue that these details could have been elicited without enhanced techniques. We'll never know. The question is whether Attorney General Eric Holder and his new special counsel intend to second-guess the decisions of CIA officials who were operating in the shadow of 9/11 and who, we now know, successfully unraveled terror plots and saved lives.
***
Which brings us to another salient part of the IG report: CIA officials well understood that they might be second-guessed years later by politicians. "During the course of this review, a number of Agency officers expressed unsolicited concern about the possibility of recrimination or legal action resulting from their participation. . . . officers expressed concern that a human rights group might pursue them for activities . . . they feared that the Agency would not stand behind them." Another said, "Ten years from now we're going to be sorry we're doing this . . . [but] it has to be done."
The outrage here isn't that government officials used sometimes rough interrogation methods to break our enemies. The outrage is that, years later, when the political winds have shifted and there hasn't been another attack, our politicians would punish the men and women who did their best to protect Americans in a time of peril.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
1995 Obama Interview
Senator Obama says Jeremiah Wright is a "wonderful man" and he "represents the best of what the Black church has to offer."
Monday, August 17, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Healthcare - LISTEN TO IT
I don't care if you’re democrat or republican.....we had better open our eyes and our hearts before it is too late. This is a MUST listen to. It is not too long ... this should really rile you up!
Pres Obama's & the Democrat's Health Care Bill is unmasked. Would you want your
government to make it mandatory that you have counseling every 5 years on how to end
your life sooner, so they don't have to "care" for you?!
Listen to the interview by Fred Thompson with Betsy McCaughey (former Lt Gov of NY),
it's quite eye-opening, and some other eye-openers are mentioned also.
I know some may say it's "scare tactics" (why escapes me, for she's simply quoting the bill),
but if you'll remember, Betsy McCaughey is the same woman who derailed the Hillary Clinton
Health Care Plan; she actually read the entire bill and blew it apart. She's doing the same here.
http://fredthompsonshow.com/premiumstream?dispid=320&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD03MzUxJnBsYXlsaXN0PXRydWUmY2hhcnR0eXBlPWNoYXJ0JmNoYXJ0SUQ9MzIwJnBsYXlsaXN0U2l6ZT01
Pres Obama's & the Democrat's Health Care Bill is unmasked. Would you want your
government to make it mandatory that you have counseling every 5 years on how to end
your life sooner, so they don't have to "care" for you?!
Listen to the interview by Fred Thompson with Betsy McCaughey (former Lt Gov of NY),
it's quite eye-opening, and some other eye-openers are mentioned also.
I know some may say it's "scare tactics" (why escapes me, for she's simply quoting the bill),
but if you'll remember, Betsy McCaughey is the same woman who derailed the Hillary Clinton
Health Care Plan; she actually read the entire bill and blew it apart. She's doing the same here.
http://fredthompsonshow.com/premiumstream?dispid=320&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD03MzUxJnBsYXlsaXN0PXRydWUmY2hhcnR0eXBlPWNoYXJ0JmNoYXJ0SUQ9MzIwJnBsYXlsaXN0U2l6ZT01
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Senator Takes Aim At Oil Traders
Right on cue, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is calling for the CFTC to stop speculators from driving the price of oil through the roof (as if that's what happening). And the CFTC has his back.
Quoth Mr. Sanders to Reuters:
"Despite the record supply of oil and reduced demand, prices are going up, not down," he said.
Sanders blamed the spike in energy prices on market speculators.
"The last thing people need now is to be ripped off at the gas pump because speculators on Wall Street -- some of the same people who received the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. history -- are allowed to jack up oil prices through price manipulation and outright fraud," he said.
Sanders' legislation directs the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees futures markets like the New York Mercantile Exchange, "to stop sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in prices."
The bill would also limit the number of oil and gasoline futures contracts that a bank holding company engaged in energy trading could control.
Hedge funds that trade in the energy market would also be subject to strict contract speculation limits and would have to register with the CFTC.
Sanders introduced his bill after he wrote to new CFTC chairman Gary Gensler two weeks ago, asking that the agency crack down on speculators.
CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton is backing Sanders' call to action. "I wholeheartedly agree with you that the time to act on these issues is now, and the CFTC should aggressively utilize all available authorities...to address these pressing issues," Chilton wrote to Sanders.
Quoth Mr. Sanders to Reuters:
"Despite the record supply of oil and reduced demand, prices are going up, not down," he said.
Sanders blamed the spike in energy prices on market speculators.
"The last thing people need now is to be ripped off at the gas pump because speculators on Wall Street -- some of the same people who received the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. history -- are allowed to jack up oil prices through price manipulation and outright fraud," he said.
Sanders' legislation directs the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees futures markets like the New York Mercantile Exchange, "to stop sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in prices."
The bill would also limit the number of oil and gasoline futures contracts that a bank holding company engaged in energy trading could control.
Hedge funds that trade in the energy market would also be subject to strict contract speculation limits and would have to register with the CFTC.
Sanders introduced his bill after he wrote to new CFTC chairman Gary Gensler two weeks ago, asking that the agency crack down on speculators.
CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton is backing Sanders' call to action. "I wholeheartedly agree with you that the time to act on these issues is now, and the CFTC should aggressively utilize all available authorities...to address these pressing issues," Chilton wrote to Sanders.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Someone put these people in office
Why we are in trouble in America !!!
A DC airport ticket agent offers some examples:
1. I had a New Hampshire Congresswoman ask for an aisle seat so that her
hair wouldn't get messed up by being near the window.
(On an airplane!)
2. I got a call from a candidate's staffer, who wanted to go to Capetown.
While I started to explain the length of the flight and the passport
information, she interrupted me with, ''I'm not trying to make you look
stupid, but Capetown is in Massachusetts " Without trying to make
her look stupid, I calmly explained, ''Cape Cod is in Massachusetts ,
Capetown is in Africa ."
Her response - click.
3. A senior Vermont Congressman called, furious about a Florida package
we did. I asked what was wrong with the vacation in Orlando .
He said he was expecting an ocean-view room. I tried to explain that is
not possible, since Orlando is in the middle of the state.
He replied, 'Don't lie to me. I looked on the map and Florida is a very
thin state.'' (OMG)
;
4. I got a call from a lawmaker's wife who asked, ''Is it possible to see
England from Canada?'' I said, ''No.'' She said,
''But they look so close on the map." (OMG, again!)
5. An aide for a cabinet member once called and asked if he could rent a
car in Dallas. When I pulled up the reservation, I noticed he had
only a 1-hour layover in Dallas . When I asked him why he wanted to rent a
car, he said, ''I heard Dallas was a big airport, and we will need
a car to drive between gates to save time.'' (Aghhhh)
6. An Illinois Congresswoman called last week. She needed to know how it
was possible that her flight from Detroit left at 8:30 a.m., and got to
Chicago at 8:33 a.m. I explained that Michigan was an hour ahead of
Illinois, but she couldn't understand the concept of time zones.
Finally, I told her the plane went fast , and she bought that.
7. A New York lawmaker called and asked, ''Do airlines put your physical
description on your bag so they know whose luggage belongs to
whom?'' I said, 'No, why do you ask?' She replied, ''Well, when I checked
in with the airline, they put a tag on my luggage that said (FAT),
and I'm overweight. I think that's very rude!'' After putting her on hold
for a minute, while I looked into it (I was dying laughing), I came back
and explained the city code for Fresno, CA is (FAT - Fresno Air Terminal),
and the airline was just putting a destination tag on her luggage.
8. A Senator's aide called to inquire about a trip package to Hawaii.
After going over all the cost info, she asked, ''Would it be cheaper to
fly to California, and then take the train to Hawaii?''
9. I just got off the phone with a freshman Congressman who asked, "How do I know which plane to get on?'' I asked him what exactly he
meant, to which he replied, ''I was told my flight number is 823, but none
of these planes have numbers on them.''
10. A lady Senator called and said, ''I need to fly to Pepsi-Cola,
Florida. Do I have to get on one of those little computer planes?
'' I asked if she meant fly to Pensacola, FL on a commuter plane. She
said, '' Yeah, whatever, smarty!''
11. A senior Senator called and had a question about the documents he
needed in order to fly to China . After a lengthy discussion about
passports, I reminded him that he needed a visa. "Oh, no I don't. I've
been to China many times and never had to have one of those.''
I double checked and sure enough, his stay required a visa. When I told
him this he said, ''Look, I've been to China four times and every time
they have accepted my American Ex press!''
12. A New Mexico Congresswoman called to make reservations, ''I want to go
from Chicago to Rhino, New York.'' I was at a loss for words.
Finally, I said, ''Are you sure that's the name of the town?'' ''Yes, what
flights do you have?'' replied the lady. After some searching, I came
back with, ''I'm sorry, ma'am, I've looked up every airport code in the
country and can't find a Rhino anywhere.' ''The lady retorted, ''
Oh, don't be silly! Everyone knows where it is. Check your map!'' So I
scoured a map of the state of New York and finally offered,
''You don't mean Buffalo, do you?'' The reply? ''Whatever! I knew it was
a big animal.
Now you know why the Government is in the shape that it's in! Could anyone
be this DUMB? &n bsp;
YES, THEY WALK AMONG US, ARE IN POLITICS, AND THEY CONTINUE TO BREED!
A DC airport ticket agent offers some examples:
1. I had a New Hampshire Congresswoman ask for an aisle seat so that her
hair wouldn't get messed up by being near the window.
(On an airplane!)
2. I got a call from a candidate's staffer, who wanted to go to Capetown.
While I started to explain the length of the flight and the passport
information, she interrupted me with, ''I'm not trying to make you look
stupid, but Capetown is in Massachusetts " Without trying to make
her look stupid, I calmly explained, ''Cape Cod is in Massachusetts ,
Capetown is in Africa ."
Her response - click.
3. A senior Vermont Congressman called, furious about a Florida package
we did. I asked what was wrong with the vacation in Orlando .
He said he was expecting an ocean-view room. I tried to explain that is
not possible, since Orlando is in the middle of the state.
He replied, 'Don't lie to me. I looked on the map and Florida is a very
thin state.'' (OMG)
;
4. I got a call from a lawmaker's wife who asked, ''Is it possible to see
England from Canada?'' I said, ''No.'' She said,
''But they look so close on the map." (OMG, again!)
5. An aide for a cabinet member once called and asked if he could rent a
car in Dallas. When I pulled up the reservation, I noticed he had
only a 1-hour layover in Dallas . When I asked him why he wanted to rent a
car, he said, ''I heard Dallas was a big airport, and we will need
a car to drive between gates to save time.'' (Aghhhh)
6. An Illinois Congresswoman called last week. She needed to know how it
was possible that her flight from Detroit left at 8:30 a.m., and got to
Chicago at 8:33 a.m. I explained that Michigan was an hour ahead of
Illinois, but she couldn't understand the concept of time zones.
Finally, I told her the plane went fast , and she bought that.
7. A New York lawmaker called and asked, ''Do airlines put your physical
description on your bag so they know whose luggage belongs to
whom?'' I said, 'No, why do you ask?' She replied, ''Well, when I checked
in with the airline, they put a tag on my luggage that said (FAT),
and I'm overweight. I think that's very rude!'' After putting her on hold
for a minute, while I looked into it (I was dying laughing), I came back
and explained the city code for Fresno, CA is (FAT - Fresno Air Terminal),
and the airline was just putting a destination tag on her luggage.
8. A Senator's aide called to inquire about a trip package to Hawaii.
After going over all the cost info, she asked, ''Would it be cheaper to
fly to California, and then take the train to Hawaii?''
9. I just got off the phone with a freshman Congressman who asked, "How do I know which plane to get on?'' I asked him what exactly he
meant, to which he replied, ''I was told my flight number is 823, but none
of these planes have numbers on them.''
10. A lady Senator called and said, ''I need to fly to Pepsi-Cola,
Florida. Do I have to get on one of those little computer planes?
'' I asked if she meant fly to Pensacola, FL on a commuter plane. She
said, '' Yeah, whatever, smarty!''
11. A senior Senator called and had a question about the documents he
needed in order to fly to China . After a lengthy discussion about
passports, I reminded him that he needed a visa. "Oh, no I don't. I've
been to China many times and never had to have one of those.''
I double checked and sure enough, his stay required a visa. When I told
him this he said, ''Look, I've been to China four times and every time
they have accepted my American Ex press!''
12. A New Mexico Congresswoman called to make reservations, ''I want to go
from Chicago to Rhino, New York.'' I was at a loss for words.
Finally, I said, ''Are you sure that's the name of the town?'' ''Yes, what
flights do you have?'' replied the lady. After some searching, I came
back with, ''I'm sorry, ma'am, I've looked up every airport code in the
country and can't find a Rhino anywhere.' ''The lady retorted, ''
Oh, don't be silly! Everyone knows where it is. Check your map!'' So I
scoured a map of the state of New York and finally offered,
''You don't mean Buffalo, do you?'' The reply? ''Whatever! I knew it was
a big animal.
Now you know why the Government is in the shape that it's in! Could anyone
be this DUMB? &n bsp;
YES, THEY WALK AMONG US, ARE IN POLITICS, AND THEY CONTINUE TO BREED!
Monday, May 11, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
What A Vacation !!
I found a Somali cruise package that departs from Sawakin (in the Sudan) and docks at Bagamoya (in Tanzania). The cost is a bit high @ US$800 per day double occupancy but I didn't find that offensive.
What I found enticing is that the cruise company is encouraging people to bring their 'High powered weapons' along on the cruise. If you don't have weapons you can rent them right there on the boat. They claim to have a master gunsmith on board and will have reloading parties every afternoon. The cruise lasts from 4-8 days and nights and costs a maximum of $3200 per person double occupancy (4 days).
All the boat does is sail up and down the coast of Somalia waiting to get hijacked by pirates. Here are some of the costs and claims associated with the package.
$800.00 US/per day double occupancy (4 day max billing)
M-16 full auto rental $ 25.00/day ammo at 100 rounds of 5.56 armor piercing ammo at 15.95
Ak-47 riffle @ No charge. ammo at 100 rounds of 7.62 com block ball ammo at 14.95
Barrett M-107 .50 cal sniper rifle rental 55.00/day ammo at 25 rounds 50 cal armor piercing at 9.95
Crew members can double as spotters for 30.00 per hour (spotting scope included).
They even offer RPG's at 75 bucks and 200 dollars for 3 standard loads
"Everyone gets use of free complimentary night vision equipment and coffee and snacks on the top deck from 7pm-6am."
Meals are not included but seem reasonable.
Most cruises offer a mini-bar... these gung ho entrepreneurs offer......... get this.....
"MOUNTED MINIGUN AVAILABLE @ 450.00 per 30 seconds of sustained fire"
Sign me up!
They advertise group rates and corporate discounts......and even claim "FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY"
They even offer partial money back if not satisfied....here's some text from the ad.
"We guarantee that you will experience at least two hijacking attempts by pirates or we will refund back half your money including gun rental charges and any unused ammo (mini gun charges not included)... How can we guarantee you will experience a hijacking? We operate at 5 knots within 12 miles of the coast of Somalia. If an attempted Hijacking does not occur we will turn the boat around and cruise by at 4 knots. We will repeat this for up to 8 days making three passes a day along the entire length of Somalia. At night the boat is fully lit and bottle rockets are shot off at intervals and loud disco music beamed shore side to attract attention. Cabin space is limited so respond quickly. Reserve your package before Feb 29 and get 100 rounds of free tracer ammo in the caliber of your choice."
As if all that isn't enough to whet your appetite, there were a few testimonials
"I got three confirmed kills on my last trip. I'll never hunt big game in Africa again. ---- Lars, Hamburg Germany
"Six attacks in 4 days was more than I expected. I bagged three pirates and my 12 yr old son sank two rowboats with the minigun. PIRATES 0 -PASSENGERS-32! Well worth the trip. Just make sure your spotter speaks English"
----Ned, Salt Lake city, Utah USA
"I haven't had this much fun since flying choppers in NAM. Don't worry about getting shot by pirates as they never even got close to the ship with those weapons they use and their shitty aim--reminds me of a drunken 'juicer' door gunner we picked up from the motor pool back in Nam"
----"chopper' Dan, Toledo USA.
What I found enticing is that the cruise company is encouraging people to bring their 'High powered weapons' along on the cruise. If you don't have weapons you can rent them right there on the boat. They claim to have a master gunsmith on board and will have reloading parties every afternoon. The cruise lasts from 4-8 days and nights and costs a maximum of $3200 per person double occupancy (4 days).
All the boat does is sail up and down the coast of Somalia waiting to get hijacked by pirates. Here are some of the costs and claims associated with the package.
$800.00 US/per day double occupancy (4 day max billing)
M-16 full auto rental $ 25.00/day ammo at 100 rounds of 5.56 armor piercing ammo at 15.95
Ak-47 riffle @ No charge. ammo at 100 rounds of 7.62 com block ball ammo at 14.95
Barrett M-107 .50 cal sniper rifle rental 55.00/day ammo at 25 rounds 50 cal armor piercing at 9.95
Crew members can double as spotters for 30.00 per hour (spotting scope included).
They even offer RPG's at 75 bucks and 200 dollars for 3 standard loads
"Everyone gets use of free complimentary night vision equipment and coffee and snacks on the top deck from 7pm-6am."
Meals are not included but seem reasonable.
Most cruises offer a mini-bar... these gung ho entrepreneurs offer......... get this.....
"MOUNTED MINIGUN AVAILABLE @ 450.00 per 30 seconds of sustained fire"
Sign me up!
They advertise group rates and corporate discounts......and even claim "FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY"
They even offer partial money back if not satisfied....here's some text from the ad.
"We guarantee that you will experience at least two hijacking attempts by pirates or we will refund back half your money including gun rental charges and any unused ammo (mini gun charges not included)... How can we guarantee you will experience a hijacking? We operate at 5 knots within 12 miles of the coast of Somalia. If an attempted Hijacking does not occur we will turn the boat around and cruise by at 4 knots. We will repeat this for up to 8 days making three passes a day along the entire length of Somalia. At night the boat is fully lit and bottle rockets are shot off at intervals and loud disco music beamed shore side to attract attention. Cabin space is limited so respond quickly. Reserve your package before Feb 29 and get 100 rounds of free tracer ammo in the caliber of your choice."
As if all that isn't enough to whet your appetite, there were a few testimonials
"I got three confirmed kills on my last trip. I'll never hunt big game in Africa again. ---- Lars, Hamburg Germany
"Six attacks in 4 days was more than I expected. I bagged three pirates and my 12 yr old son sank two rowboats with the minigun. PIRATES 0 -PASSENGERS-32! Well worth the trip. Just make sure your spotter speaks English"
----Ned, Salt Lake city, Utah USA
"I haven't had this much fun since flying choppers in NAM. Don't worry about getting shot by pirates as they never even got close to the ship with those weapons they use and their shitty aim--reminds me of a drunken 'juicer' door gunner we picked up from the motor pool back in Nam"
----"chopper' Dan, Toledo USA.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Shortage of Doctors an Obstacle to Obama Goals
Shortage of Doctors an Obstacle to Obama Goals
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — Obama administration officials, alarmed at doctor shortages, are looking for ways to increase the supply of physicians to meet the needs of an aging population and millions of uninsured people who would gain coverage under legislation championed by the president.
The officials said they were particularly concerned about shortages of primary care providers who are the main source of health care for most Americans.
One proposal — to increase Medicare payments to general practitioners, at the expense of high-paid specialists — has touched off a lobbying fight.
Family doctors and internists are pressing Congress for an increase in their Medicare payments. But medical specialists are lobbying against any change that would cut their reimbursements. Congress, the specialists say, should find additional money to pay for primary care and should not redistribute dollars among doctors — a difficult argument at a time of huge budget deficits.
Some of the proposed solutions, while advancing one of President Obama’s goals, could frustrate others. Increasing the supply of doctors, for example, would increase access to care but could make it more difficult to rein in costs.
The need for more doctors comes up at almost every Congressional hearing and White House forum on health care. “We’re not producing enough primary care physicians,” Mr. Obama said at one forum. “The costs of medical education are so high that people feel that they’ve got to specialize.” New doctors typically owe more than $140,000 in loans when they graduate.
Lawmakers from both parties say the shortage of health care professionals is already having serious consequences. “We don’t have enough doctors in primary care or in any specialty,” said Representative Shelley Berkley, Democrat of Nevada.
Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said, “The work force shortage is reaching crisis proportions.”
Even people with insurance have problems finding doctors.
Miriam Harmatz, a lawyer in Miami, said: “My longtime primary care doctor left the practice of medicine five years ago because she could not make ends meet. The same thing happened a year later. Since then, many of the doctors I tried to see would not take my insurance because the payments were so low.”
To cope with the growing shortage, federal officials are considering several proposals. One would increase enrollment in medical schools and residency training programs. Another would encourage greater use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants. A third would expand the National Health Service Corps, which deploys doctors and nurses in rural areas and poor neighborhoods.
Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and chairman of the Finance Committee, said Medicare payments were skewed against primary care doctors — the very ones needed to coordinate the care of older people with chronic conditions like congestive heart failure, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease.
“Primary care physicians are grossly underpaid compared with many specialists,” said Mr. Baucus, who vowed to increase primary care payments as part of legislation to overhaul the health care system.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel, has recommended an increase of up to 10 percent in the payment for many primary care services, including office visits. To offset the cost, it said, Congress should reduce payments for other services, an idea that riles many specialists.
Dr. Peter J. Mandell, a spokesman for the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, said: “We have no problem with financial incentives for primary care. We do have a problem with doing it in a budget-neutral way.
“If there’s less money for hip and knee replacements, fewer of them will be done for people who need them.”
The Association of American Medical Colleges is advocating a 30 percent increase in medical school enrollment, which would produce 5,000 additional doctors each year.
“If we expand coverage, we need to make sure we have physicians to take care of a population that is growing and becoming older,” said Dr. Atul Grover, the chief lobbyist for the association. “Let’s say we insure everyone. What next? We won’t be able to take care of all those people overnight.”
The experience of Massachusetts is instructive. Under a far-reaching 2006 law, the state succeeded in reducing the number of uninsured. But many who gained coverage have been struggling to find primary care doctors, and the average waiting time for routine office visits has increased.
“Some of the newly insured patients still rely on hospital emergency rooms for nonemergency care,” said Erica L. Drazen, a health policy analyst at Computer Sciences Corporation.
The ratio of primary care doctors to population is higher in Massachusetts than in other states.
Increasing the supply of doctors could have major implications for health costs.
“It’s completely reasonable to say that adding more physicians to the work force is likely to increase health spending,” Dr. Grover said.
But he said: “We have to increase spending to save money. If you give people better access to preventive and routine care for chronic illnesses, some acute treatments will be less necessary.”
In many parts of the country, specialists are also in short supply.
Linde A. Schuster, 55, of Raton, N.M., said she, her daughter and her mother had all had medical problems that required them to visit doctors in Albuquerque.
“It’s a long, exhausting drive, three hours down and three hours back,” Ms. Schuster said.
The situation is even worse in some rural areas. Dr. Richard F. Paris, a family doctor in Hailey, Idaho, said neighboring Custer County had no doctors, even though it is larger than the state of Rhode Island. So he flies in three times a month, over the Sawtooth Mountains, to see patients.
The Obama administration is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into community health centers.
But Mary K. Wakefield, the new administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, said many clinics were having difficulty finding doctors and nurses to fill vacancies.
Doctors trained in internal medicine have historically been seen as a major source of frontline primary care. But many of them are now going into subspecialties of internal medicine, like cardiology and oncology.
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — Obama administration officials, alarmed at doctor shortages, are looking for ways to increase the supply of physicians to meet the needs of an aging population and millions of uninsured people who would gain coverage under legislation championed by the president.
The officials said they were particularly concerned about shortages of primary care providers who are the main source of health care for most Americans.
One proposal — to increase Medicare payments to general practitioners, at the expense of high-paid specialists — has touched off a lobbying fight.
Family doctors and internists are pressing Congress for an increase in their Medicare payments. But medical specialists are lobbying against any change that would cut their reimbursements. Congress, the specialists say, should find additional money to pay for primary care and should not redistribute dollars among doctors — a difficult argument at a time of huge budget deficits.
Some of the proposed solutions, while advancing one of President Obama’s goals, could frustrate others. Increasing the supply of doctors, for example, would increase access to care but could make it more difficult to rein in costs.
The need for more doctors comes up at almost every Congressional hearing and White House forum on health care. “We’re not producing enough primary care physicians,” Mr. Obama said at one forum. “The costs of medical education are so high that people feel that they’ve got to specialize.” New doctors typically owe more than $140,000 in loans when they graduate.
Lawmakers from both parties say the shortage of health care professionals is already having serious consequences. “We don’t have enough doctors in primary care or in any specialty,” said Representative Shelley Berkley, Democrat of Nevada.
Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said, “The work force shortage is reaching crisis proportions.”
Even people with insurance have problems finding doctors.
Miriam Harmatz, a lawyer in Miami, said: “My longtime primary care doctor left the practice of medicine five years ago because she could not make ends meet. The same thing happened a year later. Since then, many of the doctors I tried to see would not take my insurance because the payments were so low.”
To cope with the growing shortage, federal officials are considering several proposals. One would increase enrollment in medical schools and residency training programs. Another would encourage greater use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants. A third would expand the National Health Service Corps, which deploys doctors and nurses in rural areas and poor neighborhoods.
Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and chairman of the Finance Committee, said Medicare payments were skewed against primary care doctors — the very ones needed to coordinate the care of older people with chronic conditions like congestive heart failure, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease.
“Primary care physicians are grossly underpaid compared with many specialists,” said Mr. Baucus, who vowed to increase primary care payments as part of legislation to overhaul the health care system.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel, has recommended an increase of up to 10 percent in the payment for many primary care services, including office visits. To offset the cost, it said, Congress should reduce payments for other services, an idea that riles many specialists.
Dr. Peter J. Mandell, a spokesman for the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, said: “We have no problem with financial incentives for primary care. We do have a problem with doing it in a budget-neutral way.
“If there’s less money for hip and knee replacements, fewer of them will be done for people who need them.”
The Association of American Medical Colleges is advocating a 30 percent increase in medical school enrollment, which would produce 5,000 additional doctors each year.
“If we expand coverage, we need to make sure we have physicians to take care of a population that is growing and becoming older,” said Dr. Atul Grover, the chief lobbyist for the association. “Let’s say we insure everyone. What next? We won’t be able to take care of all those people overnight.”
The experience of Massachusetts is instructive. Under a far-reaching 2006 law, the state succeeded in reducing the number of uninsured. But many who gained coverage have been struggling to find primary care doctors, and the average waiting time for routine office visits has increased.
“Some of the newly insured patients still rely on hospital emergency rooms for nonemergency care,” said Erica L. Drazen, a health policy analyst at Computer Sciences Corporation.
The ratio of primary care doctors to population is higher in Massachusetts than in other states.
Increasing the supply of doctors could have major implications for health costs.
“It’s completely reasonable to say that adding more physicians to the work force is likely to increase health spending,” Dr. Grover said.
But he said: “We have to increase spending to save money. If you give people better access to preventive and routine care for chronic illnesses, some acute treatments will be less necessary.”
In many parts of the country, specialists are also in short supply.
Linde A. Schuster, 55, of Raton, N.M., said she, her daughter and her mother had all had medical problems that required them to visit doctors in Albuquerque.
“It’s a long, exhausting drive, three hours down and three hours back,” Ms. Schuster said.
The situation is even worse in some rural areas. Dr. Richard F. Paris, a family doctor in Hailey, Idaho, said neighboring Custer County had no doctors, even though it is larger than the state of Rhode Island. So he flies in three times a month, over the Sawtooth Mountains, to see patients.
The Obama administration is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into community health centers.
But Mary K. Wakefield, the new administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, said many clinics were having difficulty finding doctors and nurses to fill vacancies.
Doctors trained in internal medicine have historically been seen as a major source of frontline primary care. But many of them are now going into subspecialties of internal medicine, like cardiology and oncology.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
The real story of Obama's Decision Making with the hostages.
I personally can not verify this story, but it sounds more realistic based
on my experience with American Military Personnel.
I've also always had the highest respect for the SEALs so I'm possibly
biased.
Anyway, this is the email I received today. You judge for yourself!~
This came from a reliable source with a different account of how the SEAL
team and the Navy took out the three Somali pirates.
Subject: Ah, now the truth comes out
Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking
why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:
1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36
hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they
couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger
3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted
in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no
fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at
the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN
and SEAL teams
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and
OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead
raggies
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" Behaviour.
As usual with him, it's BS.
Read the following accurate account.
Philips' first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn't
worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country's
Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling
Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors - and none
was taken.
The guidance from National Command Authority - the president of the United
States, Barack Obama - had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only
acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage's life was in clear,
extreme danger.
The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on
by the Somali pirates - and again no fire was returned and no pirates
killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel
thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a
mandate from the commander in chief's staff not to act until Obama, a man
with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of
decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a "peaceful solution"
would be acceptable.
After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the
on-scene-commander decided he'd had enough.
Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to
the hostage's life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet
another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before,
the Navy officer - unnamed in all media reports to date - decided the AK47
one captor had leveled at Philips' back was a threat to the hostage's life
and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.
Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and
Philips was safe.
There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the
last week that culminated in yesterday's dramatic rescue of an American
hostage.
Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration
and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and
[1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of
the inexperienced president's toughness and decisiveness.
Despite the Obama administration's (and its sycophants') attempt to spin
yesterday's success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the
inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.
What should have been a standoff lasting only hours - as long as it took the
USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location -
became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag
handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
on my experience with American Military Personnel.
I've also always had the highest respect for the SEALs so I'm possibly
biased.
Anyway, this is the email I received today. You judge for yourself!~
This came from a reliable source with a different account of how the SEAL
team and the Navy took out the three Somali pirates.
Subject: Ah, now the truth comes out
Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking
why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:
1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36
hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they
couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger
3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted
in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no
fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at
the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN
and SEAL teams
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and
OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead
raggies
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" Behaviour.
As usual with him, it's BS.
Read the following accurate account.
Philips' first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn't
worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country's
Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling
Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors - and none
was taken.
The guidance from National Command Authority - the president of the United
States, Barack Obama - had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only
acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage's life was in clear,
extreme danger.
The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on
by the Somali pirates - and again no fire was returned and no pirates
killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel
thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a
mandate from the commander in chief's staff not to act until Obama, a man
with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of
decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a "peaceful solution"
would be acceptable.
After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the
on-scene-commander decided he'd had enough.
Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to
the hostage's life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet
another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before,
the Navy officer - unnamed in all media reports to date - decided the AK47
one captor had leveled at Philips' back was a threat to the hostage's life
and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.
Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and
Philips was safe.
There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the
last week that culminated in yesterday's dramatic rescue of an American
hostage.
Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration
and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and
[1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of
the inexperienced president's toughness and decisiveness.
Despite the Obama administration's (and its sycophants') attempt to spin
yesterday's success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the
inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.
What should have been a standoff lasting only hours - as long as it took the
USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location -
became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag
handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
NBC Brass Doesn't Like All The Obama-Bashing On CNBC
Apparently, the right-wing tone of CNBC -- which has provided a platform towards tea protesters and tips on Obama-proofing your portfolio -- isn't going over well at NBC corporate.
Top talent and execs at the network were ordered to a three-hour meeting, organized by Jeff Zucker, to discuss the issue, reports Page Six.
"It was an intensive, three-hour dinner at 30 Rock which Zucker himself was behind," a source familiar with the powwow told us. "There was a long discussion about whether CNBC has become too conservative and is beating up on Obama too much. There's great concern that CNBC is now the anti-Obama network. The whole meeting was really kind of creepy."
One topic under the microscope, our insider said, was on-air CNBC editor Rick Santelli's rant two months ago about staging a "Chicago Tea Party" to protest the president's bailout programs -- an idea that spawned tax protest tea parties in other big cities, infuriating the White House. Oddly, Santelli was not at the meeting, while Jim Cramer was, noted our source, who added that no edict was ultimately handed down by the network chieftains.
For its part, the network denied that the meeting had anything to do with the political tone of the network.
We could see the politics of CNBC alienating some viewers, but from our perspective it seems to provide a nice counterweight to its sister network MSNBC, which has basically become Air America on TV. But at least at this point, with Obama still riding very high, and big business running very low that's probably just the right stance to take.
According to Page Six, no official policy was handed down at the meeting.
Top talent and execs at the network were ordered to a three-hour meeting, organized by Jeff Zucker, to discuss the issue, reports Page Six.
"It was an intensive, three-hour dinner at 30 Rock which Zucker himself was behind," a source familiar with the powwow told us. "There was a long discussion about whether CNBC has become too conservative and is beating up on Obama too much. There's great concern that CNBC is now the anti-Obama network. The whole meeting was really kind of creepy."
One topic under the microscope, our insider said, was on-air CNBC editor Rick Santelli's rant two months ago about staging a "Chicago Tea Party" to protest the president's bailout programs -- an idea that spawned tax protest tea parties in other big cities, infuriating the White House. Oddly, Santelli was not at the meeting, while Jim Cramer was, noted our source, who added that no edict was ultimately handed down by the network chieftains.
For its part, the network denied that the meeting had anything to do with the political tone of the network.
We could see the politics of CNBC alienating some viewers, but from our perspective it seems to provide a nice counterweight to its sister network MSNBC, which has basically become Air America on TV. But at least at this point, with Obama still riding very high, and big business running very low that's probably just the right stance to take.
According to Page Six, no official policy was handed down at the meeting.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Late night humor 4-2-09
President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama met the Queen of England. As a gift, they gave the Queen an iPod. I guess she can use that while she’s jogging. And she likes it. She said it’s so much easier to use than that giant boom box she used to carry around.
So they gave the Queen an iPod. I remember when British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was here, the Obamas gave him a DVD box set. So, it looks like they’re saving the big gift, the Nintendo, for the Pope.
People in England are lining up by the thousands to see President Obama, because this is really different for them. They’ve never seen someone like him — a 47-year-old man with a full set of perfect teeth.
Do you know that over 500 administrative staff members traveled to London with the President? Not for the summit. They just want to be out of the country during tax time.
At the big G-20 summit, President Obama met with the Chinese president, and they had the traditional exchanging of gifts. The Chinese do that. They exchange gifts. President Hu Jintao gave President Obama a gift made in China, and President Obama gave Hu a gift from America made in China.
How’s this for hypocrisy? While Congress has been chastising companies for giving out bonuses, last year, members of Congress gave out over $9 million in bonuses, paid for by the taxpayer, to their staff. But Congress is saying they’re not hypocrites because this extra money they give their staff really isn’t bonus money. It’s hush money. They just call it bonus money for legal reasons.
And months after Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was convicted for taking illegal gifts and lost his re-election, the Justice Department now wants all charges dropped. Apparently, there was such misconduct by the prosecution that he’s going to be a free man and he gets to keep all the gifts. When he heard that, Rod Blagojevich announced he is moving to Alaska.
And the U.S. government has launched a Web site to help people deal emotionally with this economic crisis. The site is for people who experience depression, crying, and anxiety. In fact, the first person to log on the Web site was Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
And according to MSNBC, experts say insomnia can double your risk of suicide. Well, that’ll help you fall asleep.
So they gave the Queen an iPod. I remember when British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was here, the Obamas gave him a DVD box set. So, it looks like they’re saving the big gift, the Nintendo, for the Pope.
People in England are lining up by the thousands to see President Obama, because this is really different for them. They’ve never seen someone like him — a 47-year-old man with a full set of perfect teeth.
Do you know that over 500 administrative staff members traveled to London with the President? Not for the summit. They just want to be out of the country during tax time.
At the big G-20 summit, President Obama met with the Chinese president, and they had the traditional exchanging of gifts. The Chinese do that. They exchange gifts. President Hu Jintao gave President Obama a gift made in China, and President Obama gave Hu a gift from America made in China.
How’s this for hypocrisy? While Congress has been chastising companies for giving out bonuses, last year, members of Congress gave out over $9 million in bonuses, paid for by the taxpayer, to their staff. But Congress is saying they’re not hypocrites because this extra money they give their staff really isn’t bonus money. It’s hush money. They just call it bonus money for legal reasons.
And months after Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was convicted for taking illegal gifts and lost his re-election, the Justice Department now wants all charges dropped. Apparently, there was such misconduct by the prosecution that he’s going to be a free man and he gets to keep all the gifts. When he heard that, Rod Blagojevich announced he is moving to Alaska.
And the U.S. government has launched a Web site to help people deal emotionally with this economic crisis. The site is for people who experience depression, crying, and anxiety. In fact, the first person to log on the Web site was Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
And according to MSNBC, experts say insomnia can double your risk of suicide. Well, that’ll help you fall asleep.
Political humor
President Obama is in London but he is still following his Final Four - Chase, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan and Bank of America.
Scientists are working on a drug to cure kleptomaniacs. They admit such an remedy should have been perfected years ago. But for some reason, the formula in the lab kept disappearing.
Barack Obama made his first trip as president to England. Here is my question. If the President is in England, who’s running General Motors?
As you know by now, the government is now taking an active role in the auto business. President Obama offering hope, change, and 0 percent financing.
You know what’s interesting? Today, a reporter in Crawford, Texas, asked former President George Bush how he felt about General Motors and Bush said, “You know, since I left office, I don’t really follow the Iraq war anymore.”
Actually, President Obama says that G.M. filing for bankruptcy may be the best alternative. He said that bankruptcy is a good legal tool for a company not to have to pay creditors back, which sounds great until you realize, hey wait a minute, we’re the creditors! Great, so you want to help them not pay us back. I mean, even A.I.G. is going, “Why didn’t we think of this?”
So, it’s pretty crazy. Look, we’re bailing out Wall Street, we’re bailing out banks, we’re bailing out car companies. In fact, did you know there’s a special box on your tax form this year you can check if you want a portion of your taxes to actually go to running the government?
And there was kind of an awkward moment yesterday as President Obama was leaving to go to the G-20 summit. Hillary Clinton called and said, “Can I run the country while you’re gone? Please, can I?”
Thousands of people showed up in London to protest this G-20 economic summit. Protesters smashed windows at the Bank of Scotland. Did you see it on the news? The banks were closed. The windows were all boarded up. It looked like our banks.
A British genealogist who traced President Obama’s roots claimed Obama is related to the royal family. Well, did you see President Obama standing with Prince Charles? If those ears are any indication, I think they may be related.
And more embarrassment for the President. Just a few weeks after President Obama named Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as his Health and Human Services nominee, she now reveals she owes over $7,000 in back taxes. Another one owes. See, that’s the difference between the two political parties right there. Republicans believe in no new taxes. Democrats believe in no old ones.
And China says it wants to replace the U.S. dollar with a new global currency. They want to move from a gold-based standard to a lead-based standard.
And from the animal kingdom, it seems a loggerhead sea turtle nearly swam to the doorstep of a Florida Keys turtle hospital. This is the only licensed veterinary facility in the world that solely treats sea turtles. This turtle somehow knew to swim right up to the hospital. Isn’t that amazing? Sad part, they had to turn him away when his H.M.O. wouldn’t cover the visit.
Anybody here got a General Motors car? Well, look out for this guy, this Barack Obama. He comes in, doesn’t like what he sees at General Motors and tells the C.E.O., Rick Wagoner, to take a hike. Wagoner, however, got a $20 million bonus. But the good news is the 20 million was in G.M. stock.
Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, asked President Obama if he ever played darts. And Obama said: “Sure I play darts. How do you think I picked my Cabinet?”
Scientists are working on a drug to cure kleptomaniacs. They admit such an remedy should have been perfected years ago. But for some reason, the formula in the lab kept disappearing.
Barack Obama made his first trip as president to England. Here is my question. If the President is in England, who’s running General Motors?
As you know by now, the government is now taking an active role in the auto business. President Obama offering hope, change, and 0 percent financing.
You know what’s interesting? Today, a reporter in Crawford, Texas, asked former President George Bush how he felt about General Motors and Bush said, “You know, since I left office, I don’t really follow the Iraq war anymore.”
Actually, President Obama says that G.M. filing for bankruptcy may be the best alternative. He said that bankruptcy is a good legal tool for a company not to have to pay creditors back, which sounds great until you realize, hey wait a minute, we’re the creditors! Great, so you want to help them not pay us back. I mean, even A.I.G. is going, “Why didn’t we think of this?”
So, it’s pretty crazy. Look, we’re bailing out Wall Street, we’re bailing out banks, we’re bailing out car companies. In fact, did you know there’s a special box on your tax form this year you can check if you want a portion of your taxes to actually go to running the government?
And there was kind of an awkward moment yesterday as President Obama was leaving to go to the G-20 summit. Hillary Clinton called and said, “Can I run the country while you’re gone? Please, can I?”
Thousands of people showed up in London to protest this G-20 economic summit. Protesters smashed windows at the Bank of Scotland. Did you see it on the news? The banks were closed. The windows were all boarded up. It looked like our banks.
A British genealogist who traced President Obama’s roots claimed Obama is related to the royal family. Well, did you see President Obama standing with Prince Charles? If those ears are any indication, I think they may be related.
And more embarrassment for the President. Just a few weeks after President Obama named Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as his Health and Human Services nominee, she now reveals she owes over $7,000 in back taxes. Another one owes. See, that’s the difference between the two political parties right there. Republicans believe in no new taxes. Democrats believe in no old ones.
And China says it wants to replace the U.S. dollar with a new global currency. They want to move from a gold-based standard to a lead-based standard.
And from the animal kingdom, it seems a loggerhead sea turtle nearly swam to the doorstep of a Florida Keys turtle hospital. This is the only licensed veterinary facility in the world that solely treats sea turtles. This turtle somehow knew to swim right up to the hospital. Isn’t that amazing? Sad part, they had to turn him away when his H.M.O. wouldn’t cover the visit.
Anybody here got a General Motors car? Well, look out for this guy, this Barack Obama. He comes in, doesn’t like what he sees at General Motors and tells the C.E.O., Rick Wagoner, to take a hike. Wagoner, however, got a $20 million bonus. But the good news is the 20 million was in G.M. stock.
Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, asked President Obama if he ever played darts. And Obama said: “Sure I play darts. How do you think I picked my Cabinet?”
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Introducing the Government-Backed DMV Automotive Repair Center!
Stop worrying about the warranty on your GM or Chrysler automobile.
President Obama has announced that your warranty will be backed by the US Government. Now, getting service will be as easy as a trip to your local DMV office
Introducing the Department of Motor Vehicles Automotive Repair Center!
President Obama has announced that your warranty will be backed by the US Government. Now, getting service will be as easy as a trip to your local DMV office
Introducing the Department of Motor Vehicles Automotive Repair Center!
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)