Health care reform.   Socialized medicine.   Free market medicine.  Communists.  Socialist.  Capitalist.   Greedy pigs.  The Brooks Brothers Mob.  Obamacare. Unamerican.

You have to love buzz words.   If there is an issue, I guarantee that there are a few choice buzzwords attached to it, even if the words aren't even remotely relevant.  The argument ends up being nothing more than a series of buzzwords thrown at each other through every communications channel available.  Finally, the public decides which buzzword it likes the best (rather than an actual argument) and that is the winner.

The issue of the day?  The future of biomedical sciences in the United States.  Some call it health care reform, some call it the end of the line.  It doesn't matter who is right or wrong on the issue because the realm of rational discourse and debate ended the day it was introduced. 

The Obama administration, like every presidential administration before his, is looking for a defining piece of legislation that can give them enough momentum for reelection.  They saw a need and used John Dingell's decades long attempts to produce health care reform as their platform.  After all, how could the American public ever be callous enough to deny health care to everybody.  

Apparently, the Obama administration was asleep in the 90's and missed the outrage over "Hillarycare".  Maybe Obama should have talked to the person with actual experience in the arena of governmental health care reform....Hillary Clinton.  Had he talked to her, she could have prepared him for the public outcry.

The people are angry Mr Obama.  Yes, there are 45 million people uninsured in this country.   However, you forgot the majority that are covered via private or governmental insurers - that's 355,000,0000 people.  These people don't want to see the quality of health care diminish because there are more people that will almost certainly overwhelm our overtaxed medical system (next year we face a shortage of 40,000 internal medicine docs). 

We see calls for nurses (another shortage) but where are the calls to increase the number of doctors?   Where is the push to make the AMA allow more medical schools?   Where is the push to have our state universities expand medical school classes?  When a resource is scare, it costs more.  Produce more docs and the costs will be less.  Did the democrats miss Econ 101?  

The people hear small business saying they will downsize to eliminate their employer provided healthcare requirement.   The people see that it will be far cheaper for large companies to pay the fine and shift their employees to governmental programs.  They see companies for what they truly are - organizations with a goal of turning as much profit as possible - NOT benevolent parent figures caring for their children. 

The people also see how poorly our current governmental agencies run.  Why would we want to hand over an industry that is one fifth of our GDP to the most corrupt, inefficient, incompetent organizations in America, ie the Federal Government?  Hell, the Congress and the Administration know that the fed is incapable, how else can you explain their exemption from the plan?

Nancy Pelosi published an Op-Ed piece recently condemning protestors that shouted and chanted as "unamerican".   Hmmm, she doesn't say that when Code Pink is shoulting down conservatives.   She praises them.  Perhaps if she stopped being a hypocrite and answered the questions with facts other than 2 or choice tidbits of the bill (elimination of pre-existing condition, "patient choice", etc), people wouldn't be so damned mad.

Before anyone comments that I must be a Republican or a Limbaugh suppporter....WRONG.   I am a democrat.   I voted for buth Clintons, Gore, Kerry and Obama.  I support health care reform, but this bill does NOT cut it.   It simply add another layer of beauracracy to an already broken system.  If universal health care is the way to go, fine.   Do universal health care but fix the supply problem and make it mandatory for ALL americans (to include congressmen and presidents).   Also, tax all people EQUALLY - no one group should be responsible more than any other.  

To fix healthcare, you have to rebuild it from teh ground up - not by adding another layer of shit to the pile.

President Barack Obama excited me when he declared that his administration would be a "no-lobbyist" zone.  It established a sense of integrity in him and his administration.  Unfortunately, in his first week in office, he broke that rule with the nomination of Bill Lynn, a former Raytheon employee/defense industry lobbyist, to the office of Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Now, in my wanderings, I found that many people are confused by what a lobbyist does, so let me explain.   A lobbyist is an individual that uses the contacts, relationships they have built, influence and money for a client to get favorable legislation and/or spending passed in government.   Now, the clients can be anybody - non-profit organizations, charities, issue oriented collectives, and commercial entities.  Basically - they are the people that get Congress to act.

In the case of Bill Lynn, he is a commercial lobbyist for Raytheon.   If you don't know who Raytheon is, they are the defense company that was awarded a 3 BILLION dollar contract in December to sell/implement/manage the American Patriot missile system to the United Arab Emirates in December '08.  This is the man that made their governmental contracts a reality.  Now, Obama wants him to help hand out those contracts as the deputy secretary of defense.  

Can you say conflict of interest?   Can you say preferential treatment?

Obama criticized other politicians for doing this very thing - he was supposed to be above handing out jobs to lobbyists who paid were beholden to companies.   For me, this knocks his claims of a "new kind of government" to an all-time low.   Had he not promised me a better, more honest government, I would not even care about the nomination.  It would be just another lobbyist getting a job.  However, Obama SWORE he would be different.  He set the rules but broke them the first day.

So where is the change that I can "believe" in?  Right now, I only see hypocrisy.

On November 4, 2008 - I joined with the masses of voters here in the Metro detroit area and voted for President.  Up until the point where I stepped into the booth, I was undecided.   I did not know who I would vote for even though I had educated myself on EVERY issue.   In the days before, I tried to make up my mind using every information resource and election tool available on the internet.  I was even stumped at a non-partisan site that had me fill out a survey of issues so it could match me to the proper candidate - I matched 48% Obama and 48% McCain.  In the end it came down to Palin and her conservative views, attacks on reproductive rights, and I hate to say it - McCain's age.   I voted for Barack Obama because I was worried that if the office took a toll on him - we would end up with a Palin Presidency (possibly worse than Bush).

So now I will stand up and support our new President Elect.  I am going to hope that the Democratic Party can actually do the good that it promises to do.  Obama certainly has the tools to do it - charisma, charm, intellect and a Democrat controlled congress.  If he blows the promises and does stuff I hate - I will disagree out loud.

McCain moved me with his grace last night during his concession speech.  He told booing supporters to be quiet.  He told them that BArack Obama was HIS President.  I loved that he was able to handle defeat without throwing a temper tantrum or calling for recount after recount. 

No matter your candidate - you have to admit that both men fought hard.  The race was MUCH closer than anybody thought it could be after 8 years of George W Bush, a failing economy and an endless war. 

So congratulations to both men on ending such a hard fought campaign with grace and dignity.

We actually drove by a man in fatigues carrying a cross and completely decked out in military camo heading away from our voting station. 

Please note - he wisely hid his nametag under the Palin sign.   We pulled over and asked the man some questions and he immediately began talking about the "great Sarah Palin" and how he wants HER to be President because she is a real conservative.   Jeez...this guy probably likes GW Bush too....

downsized_1104081047a.jpg

PalinLegs.jpg

So Reuters used this photo of Palin speaking to supporters.  Personally, I found it to be more than offensive.  Yes, some will say that I am overreacting - but let me tell you why...

1. You would never see an image of a male candidate from this angle or with bare legs.
2. the photo frames a male supporter between her legs.
3. The male supporter appears armless.  That takes this male between her legs appear to be a phallic symbol.  
4. The phallic symbol is aimed directly to the "V" at the top of the photo.  this "V" is an arrow aiming directly at the vaginal area.
5. The man appears to be ogling her with his facial expression - so he is an ogling phallic symbol ready to penetrate and overpower this woman!

Its one thing to dislike the woman for her conservative views but this goes too far.  The photpographer is an expert and they knew exactly what they were doing when they took the photo.

Ladies and gentleman, I have noticed a disturbing trend in American politics.   There is a large majority of voters that are voting based on popularity rather than being informed voters.   What's worse - the popularity of the candidate is created by the same system that gave us "stars" like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and the cast of "The Hills".

What happened to people that actually went out and learned about the candidates?  In the 18th, 19th and part of the 20th century information was difficult to come by and voters relied on what the news agencies and candidates told them.  This generation has no information accessibility issue - with the internet and half a brain people can find anything they want on the candidates.  So why are people relying on sound bites and packaged information from spin masters? 

People WAKE UP!   You are about to vote for the leaders of your country.  You should put thought into this process.  You should stay up at night wondering who is right for the job.  You should be doing research on their voting history, policy proposals and other pertinent information. 

It doesn't matter WHO you vote for but that choice needs to be an informed one!  Don't let the news agencies, television shows and  (ie corporate america) make that choice for you.   They do NOT have your best interests at heart - they have theirs.  Get the facts and VOTE!

Come on people.   Get off your asses and educate yourself before casting that ballot.  People have DIED for this right and are still dying for this right -  we should show some respect and do it responsibly.

In the immortal words of GI JOE - Knowing is half the battle!

OK Obama Supporters let me give you some advice – enough with the downright dirty attacks on Palin.   We get it – you don’t like her.  You think she is a horrible person.  You don’t want her as the Vice President.  We all understand that and I applaud your passion.  HOWEVER, you must learn to express you dislike for the woman in a mature and intelligent way.  

First off, children should be off limits.  Guess what – it’s nobody’s business about Trig’s birth.  I don’t care if she gave birth to him or if Bristol or the Devil himself gave birth to that kid.  Fact is, Sarah Palin is the baby’s mother – so leave the kid and its mom alone.  Also, who cares if Bristol is pregnant?  She is 17 (a few months young than when Obama’s unmarried mama gave birth) and she is taking care of it in her own way.  That girl is not our concern.

Second, do we really need to attack working women?  That is what is happening when democrats are screaming about how Palin is an unfit Mother.  I actually heard a woman that identifies herself as a feminist declare that if Sarah Palin had stayed home and done her job as a mother – her kids wouldn’t be so screwed up.  WHAT?!?!?!?!  Please people; remember your own values when you attack this woman.  As a liberal – I expect you all to understand that a woman CAN work and be a mother.   Having children should not dictate that you only take low level jobs either.  Don’t even get me started on people saying that she can’t do the job because she nothing but a beauty queen.

Come on people – talk about her stance on the environment.  Talk about her qualifications for the job.   Talk about her positions on social issues.   Talk about things of substance.   I promise you, it can be done.  I know that when talking about Palin’s anti-choice, abstinence only positions – it’s easy to use Bristol Palin as an example but you don’t need to do it.  You can discuss the issue without using her kid.  Do you realize what the nasty attacks are doing?

These attacks on Palin’s family have actually energized the Republican base.  Democrats have actually done the work for the Republicans.  The GOP was worried that conservatives wouldn’t come out to vote for the moderate McCain – but the DNC fixed that problem.  The latest polls are now showing McCain 15 points ahead.  I know that people say the polls are irrelevant but that is crap.  The DNC has a case of chronic apathy when it comes to voters – the GOP does not.  An Obama lead in the polls means little because many supporters will just be too lazy to vote in November, but a McCain lead is huge.  The GOP voters go to the polls.

So we need to find new ways to attack Palin and McCain.  If you want Obama to be in office and to be the “Change” that this nation needs – act like you are representing him.  Right now, many Obama supporters are acting like petulant children rather than mature informed voters and that has to change.  Obama supporters need to go at this differently or else they will be the reason that Obama loses.

Oh and FYI – I have been hesitant to support Obama in the past but McCain’s choice of Palin as his running mate changed my mind.  She is far too conservative for my taste.  As the tie-breaking vote in a narrowly divided Senate, she would work against most of my interests.  So I guess as of right now, I support Obama.

So apparently, there are rumors floating around that Condi has been actively campaigning to be the Republican running mate to McCain.  Really?!?!?   Seriously?!?!?!?   Can she possibly be serious?

Talk about political suicide for McCain.

I'm sorry but right now, if McCain gets into office, it will be because the democratic party is split.   We have two nominees fighting viciously.   We have democrats that refuse to support the other democratic candidate.  We even have people, like myself, that ar willing to vote McCain if our chosen candidate doesn't get the nomination.

HOWEVER....that will change if you put one of Bush's Administration in office.   Let me tell you - I don't think Condi should be doing anything except selling coffee at Starbucks after her stint in the Bush Administration. I will vote for Obama should McCain even THINK of doing that!

What, are the Republicans are jealous of the Democrats flair for losing unloseable elections and wanted to top the Democrat stupidity?

OK, I was under the impressionthat Obama was about "change".  I thought he was supposed to be a new kind of politician - young, fresh, HONEST.   Yet every time I start thinking that I can support him for President - I find out he is nothing more than a liar.

Canadian memo suggests Obama's NAFTA comments 'political positioning'

Obama's adviser rejects interpretation

Last Updated: Monday, March 3, 2008 | 4:59 PM ET

CBC News

Barack Obama's threat to withdraw from NAFTA should be viewed as "political positioning," according to a memo written after the U.S. presidential hopeful's senior economic policy adviser met with Canadian officials.

The memo, obtained by the Associated Press, was written by Canadian consulate staffer Joseph DeMora, after a meeting in Chicago last week with Austan Goolsbee and Canadian Consul General Georges Rioux.

"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said.

"He cautioned that this message should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Goolsbee has disputed the memo's characterization of his comments.

Last week, both Obama and his Democratic rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, threatened to pull the United States out of the 15-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico unless it's renegotiated.

CTV reported last week that an Obama aide told Canadian officials he wasn't serious considering disrupting the continental trade deal.

The memo is the first evidence of any such discussion to emerge publicly.

The leaked conversations have sparked accusations south of the border that the Conservatives are interfering in the presidential nomination campaign.

"You've got a right-wing government in Canada that is trying to help the Republicans and is out there actively interfering in the campaign," senior Democratic adviser Bob Shrum said on MSNBC's Meet the Press on Sunday night.

On the Canadian Embassy website Thursday, the government denied that conversations took place between Canadian officials and members of any presidential campaign regarding trade. By Monday, that statement was replaced by one that apologized for any confusion DeMora's memo may have caused.

"In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

Responding to criticism during question period Monday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he denied "any allegation that this government has attempted to interfere in the American election."

Clinton lambasted her opponent Monday for saying one thing about NAFTA to appease economically depressed Ohio, and then giving Canada — which opposes new trade negotiations — "the old wink-wink."

Both Goolsbee and Obama spokesman Bill Burton dismissed DeMora's 1,300-word memo as an inaccurate characterization of the "introductory meeting" in Chicago.

"It all boils down to a clumsy, inaccurate portrayal of the conversation," Burton said.

Goolsbee said he did make some comments on trade after being invited for a 40-minute tour of the consulate but that any reference to political positioning was DeMora's language — not his.

"I certainly did not use that phrase in any way," he said.

I saw this question posted on a message board and the responses were so interesting.  Please note, this is not meant to imply that anybody running for office in the US is Muslim - so please do not take it this way.

Personally, if it was a moderate Muslim and they were completely qualified to fill the position. YES!!!   I know many moderate Muslims here in the Detroit area and let me tell you - they aren't any different from other Americans.   I would happily support a Muslim if they were right for the job!

NOW...if the Muslim is a conservative, fanatic, zealot or extremist Muslim then the answer would be 100% NO!!!  However, that rules applies to extremists of ALL religions and that includes far right evangelical Christians, hard-line Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and all others.  

So would YOU vote for a Muslim?   Please try to respect anybody that answers this question and not attack people.