What's great about America

The following was originally printed in the National Review on September 25, 2001. I am 3 days late commemorating its 8-year life, please excuse.

I am usually one of those who don't care for the average knee-jerk patriotic essay, but I very much believe this one is not like that. It made me think. The point of view in this essay stirs the soul of America.

I'm not sure that as a nation of people we are as selfless as the essay makes us out to be, but then I realized that even if we are not -- even if we meddle, subside, defend bad or questionable regimes in other countries, and we have and do -- this essay describes the fabric of America and how it is really the fabric of the world.

I believe this essay is a good checklist for Americans. I mean, when you want dissent stifled, read this. But I also think the essay could stand to be updated and I might email the author and ask if he has considered doing that. I'm uncomfortably aware that this was written before we began the counter attack on glodal terror, and I am wondering if the essay would change because of that. I know I have changed. I am more of a warrior about defense than I used to be, so the part of this essay that deals with the way we act in the worlds seems too placating to me. I find my reaction fascinating, because I am not alone, and I think it shows what 911 did to us in a lasting way and that it is an open gate that cannot be closed back. What do you think? Email me.

What Is An American? A primer.

By Peter Ferrara, an associate professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law.


September 25, 2001 9:20 a.m.

You probably missed it in the rush of news last week, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper there an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American.


So I just thought I would write to let them know what an American is, so they would know when they found one.


An American is English…or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani, or Afghan.


An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them choose.


An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.


An American is from the most prosperous land in the history of the world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God-given right of each man and woman to the pursuit of happiness.


An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need. When Afghanistan was overrun by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country. As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan.


An American does not have to obey the mad ravings of ignorant, ungodly cruel, old men. American men will not be fooled into giving up their lives to kill innocent people, so that these foolish old men may hold on to power. American women are free to show their beautiful faces to the world, as each of them choose.


An American is free to criticize his government's officials when they are wrong, in his or her own opinion. Then he is free to replace them, by majority vote.


Americans welcome people from all lands, all cultures, all religions, because they are not afraid. They are not afraid that their history, their religion, their beliefs, will be overrun, or forgotten. That is because they know they are free to hold to their religion, their beliefs, their history, as each of them choose.


And just as Americans welcome all, they enjoy the best that everyone has to bring, from all over the world. The best science, the best technology, the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best athletes.


Americans welcome the best, but they also welcome the least. The national symbol of America welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed.


These in fact are the people who built America. Many of them were working in the twin towers on the morning of September 11, earning a better life for their families.


So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo and Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung, and every bloodthirsty tyrant in the history of the world.

But in doing so you would just be killing yourself. Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

So look around you. You may find more Americans in your land than you thought were there. One day they will rise up and overthrow the old, ignorant, tired tyrants that trouble too many lands. Then those lands too will join the community of free and prosperous nations.
And America will welcome them.

************

Starbucks recently unveiled its latest growth path, and I cannot wait. I am finally jazzed about a Starbucks product, and it is.... instant Starbucks coffee that is not freeze-dried (freeze-drying is why most instant coffees taste gross). Its brand name is Via, and it's apparently getting great reviews for its taste. Here is a really good informative review, I thought.

I will try their instant coffee. I'm hoping it truly will taste like real coffee.

In fact, I just ordered some.

I would love to not have to use a drip coffee maker (my second machine recently broke after 2 months and I refuse to buy another one, and have you checked the costs of most of them lately?) or a French press (mine makes a better tasting coffee without boiled water, but leaves gross sludge in the bottom of my cup and cleaning out the grounds is gross, too).  I have tried some of the instant coffee selections on my grocery shelf, but so many are flavored up.

Trust me, I'd love to sip flavored coffee all day long, but after I had to get 6 cavities filled 18 months ago (including 2 hair-line ones that my dentist says were directly caused by drinking coffee with cream in it), I have to limit my everyday intake to black coffee with sweet n low. I occasionally splurge on a McDonalds Iced Latte with sugar-free vanilla, but only once a week or so.

My order should be here October 5th - a week from today. I cannot wait!

*********

Beck-zilla Explains It All

Well, yesterday a little bit defiant Glen Beck explained what he called his "Hillary remark" that he made on Katie Couric's webcast Tuesday.

If you missed his explanation, you can catch up here , here or here.

Being that I usually always ingest Beck with a little skepticism, what he said did not surprise me. I can even see where he is coming from. However, if you thought Beck was not a conservative, he has now left no doubt that he indeed is one.

Here's the one thing:  let's forget his frog boiling for a minute and concentrate on the narrative of his analogy. He explained that Obama has galvanized the opposition much better than McCain ever could. He said to think about boiling a frog. If you put the frog in tepid water and then bring it to boiling, the poor frog never knows what has hit him and he boils. This example has the frog as the American people, the water as The March Into Liberalism (an evil), and the temperature is McCain. In other words, McCain would have brought us to Liberalism so slowly we would not even notice, thereby becoming complacent and falling right into it.

But, Obama supposedly did us the favor of his boiling water of Liberalism and requiring the frog (the American people) to be thrown into said water. He preferred it this way because we all know that frogs will jump right out unhurt.

Ya got that? Yeah. I think there was jumping, but it was Beck jumping the shark.

Included in his near-rant were his very real accusations against McCain: Progressivist philosophy, immigration amnesty, cap and trade support, and bailout funding. I agree with McCain on immigration amnesty in order to get into the system. Reagan's amnesty saved Social Security ten years later, plus it is physically and economically impossible to find and deport them all now. I disagree with McCain on cap and trade, but I really believe he would have gotten it greatly diluted and less destructive if it had passed under him. And I was not for bailout funding either, but McCain has said had he known how badly they were going to do it, he would have opposed that, so I accept that and do not hold it against him because an awful lot of people did the same or stood there like deer in the headlights.

I think Beck has been wrong-o bong-o from the get-go about McCain when it comes to the progressive label. Here's a test: the self-avowed progressive Hillary Clinton herself would not in a million years label McCain one, so Hello? Point of View here. From Beck's POV, BOTH of them are, hence Beck is far-right on this issue. Logic is a hard thing to dismiss. Trouble is, this issue affects all others in his POV. Apparently, if you are progressive about anything, then you are one? That's a flimsy stretch in my book. And, Beck's entire argument about Teddy Roosevelt's "evil" New Nationalism, IMHO, is hogwash. Is Back actually willing to be against child-labor laws? Back in that day? I suppose if one were so rigid that any tiny restraint on business was wrong, then yes. He should be concentrating on Wilson, who not only lied and misrepresented himself while campaigning with his New Freedom platform that he abandoned once he was elected, at least TR saw there could be monopolies that were good for us. Wilson was too rigid. All were bad.

Bottom line on this: Only a conservative Christian aka hard-right aka strict Constitutionalist would still choose Obama and all we have been through. I'm even more confident now that he is pretty much Rush on TV now. He may have some libertarian leanings on a few issues, but I'm thinking those are only those economic issues that Republicans believe in, too, like unrestricted and unregulated free markets. Beck is definitely not a moderate or centrist, and that, I think is his real hate-on with McCain, because McCain is a moderate. If  Beck is lying and he really is a Republican, then he does not want the party to be led by a moderate (too late for that, aka both Bushes).

All of this is backseat to the over-riding importance that McCain would have mitigated Pelosi and Reid better than Obama has. And he most likely would have been a one-termer, but that's a pure guess. Beck's popularity benefits from Obama more -- much, much more -- and I still will bet money here and now if we could be flies on the wall, we'd discover that's heavily at play here.

Which, as I said, not a cause for boycotting him. Just know what you are getting.  What Beck has done beneficial is that he has been a decent substitute for the news media, uncovering information that the Lamestream media has withheld.

It is always hard to coexist with someone who feels as if they should be your enemy, but if you are worse-off alone, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

I have to add, yesterday's on-air stunt and near-rant unsettled me a little. I guess I expect him to hold things together a little better and not be so...rigid. I see him now as less rational. And I feel myself not as open to him as before. Perhaps it is time for me to move on. I don't share his passion for his social conservatism. It's more than a little like I don't share the thirst for Obama's Kool-aid.

In vampire terms, Beck's blood is drying up for me. We shared issues but not loyalty oaths. And when one casket closes, another opens, right? LOL I've been noticing lately that MSNBC in the morning and daytime are getting a little more centrist. Apparently The Bottom Line has won out over there. I'm actually enjoying Morning Joe more than the Curvy Couch Fox Crew, and Dylan Ratigan isn't bad after that. I still cannot stand Chris Matthews so I may stay with Beck for now.

Now that we have that figured out, let me tell you where I went yesterday that gave me some well-loved stress-busting laughter and giggles. I happened upon a site called People of Wal-mart. It shows photos of Wal-mart shoppers, along with the occasional parking lot bumper sticker on shoppers' cars. You browse it by page and it goes on boringly and then all of a sudden, there is a hilarious photo. I'll cut you a break and give you links of some of the ones I laughed at: Oh..My..God, That's a First, All Smiles, Tails, and Tell Us How You Really Feel. Be sure to read the captions, cuz some of them are as funny as the photos. Oh, rated R, probably.

Stuck between Barack and a Hard Right Case

It ain't easy being in between.

Especially on days like yesterday. The first headline I read is that Glen Beck told Katie Couric on her webcast that he thinks McCain would have been worse than Obama as President, and that he might have voted for Hillary over McCain, had she won the nomination.

Those of you who love Beck and share that belief: why do you think that? Cuz I think it's just crazy talk.

Listen, I get that this is what a majority of the hard right wing of the GOP believe. They (you) have an intense mistrust of McCain. I hear it said a lot it's because he is too moderate. I suppose it is because I've never looked at McCain from that viewpoint, so to me he is conservative. I'd like him to be more moderate, as a matter of fact. But when last November's vote was clearly a choice of lesser evils, and now every single conservative Christian I talk to seems to be distraught to the point of Tea Partying about Obama, I just need to know, what the hell where you thinking by staying home on Election Day? Because, you know what, you effectively voted for Obama! Have you figured that out yet? Time's running out. Try to understand that, please.

I'm not just whistling Dixie here. The demographics have now been studied, and they show that had all of you voted for McCain (holding your nose or whatnot), he would be President right now. Yup, that is indeed why Biden made his little verbal eruption ysterday about 2010 will either reinforce or mark the end to all he and Obama are trying to do. They know the demographics, and they have finally accepted the power of the protestors, and they see the handwriting on the wall. If every Republican and conservative actually votes next year, the Dems can be defeated. So now think about what Biden said. It was a reactionary comment to that information, and a call to keep their most liberal supporters loyal and active, because they cannot have any more defections from their base.

Here's a novel idea for those of you who agree with Beck's comment to Couric: quit doing what Rush Limbaugh tells you to. He, like Glen Beck, are first and foremost conerned about their own careers and relevance. Are either one of them your God? No, so quit following them as faithfully as you do our Dude in the Bible. I'm not saying to quit listening and watching. I'm saying, think about what they say with a skeptical mind and remember that their first loyalty is not to you, it is to themselves and their careers.

Although I rarely listen to Rush, I do watch Beck's tv show, but I don't just believe him blindly. I always do my own research. I have to confess that just do not get the logic in Beck preferring Obama or Hillary over McCain. I was a Hillary supporter, but the further I get from then, the more I realize that she was not very different at all from Obama, just a bit less Left. In fact, on a political number line, Obama would be the farthest Left, then Hillary, THEN McCain, basically in the middle-to-slight-Right. So is Beck saying he voted for Obama? That's not illogical to conclude.

How would things be worse with a President McCain right now, Beck? First, it has to be accepted as fact that we would have a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress regardless. This is a statistical fact, because of the races and where they were and who was running. So, we would have had maybe a few less Democrats, but not many. I can tell you that Pelosi and Reid would have been pushing the same things, but the veto pen would be out of ink by now, that's for sure. And since Republicans aren't McCain's best friends either, he might have been able to force them to come up with some better ideas to counter the Dems. Obama has no motivation or reason to do that, none. When bills are vetoed, and when the public weighs in vocally, it forces both parties to work together. Even if the same results happened, we would at least be feeling better that someone up there was trying to govern moderately, instead of so many of us feeling hopeless despair.

Let me just spell it out for you, one more time (since I got cyber-laryngitis last year trying to tell you): the 2008 election wasn't about choosing your ideal candidate, it was about choosing who could best mitigate the effects of Pelosi and Reid in power. Maybe you can see that now, after it is too late?

Now, here is the best part of the what-if McCain presidency: We'd not be having to worry about Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, Valerie Jarrett, ACORN, Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, Communists, Socialists, and Cabinet Tax Cheats.

Man, that alone seems worth it to me. Dang. Think about it. I'm really tired of it, myself. But I will leave you with this. Were we not having to worry about all of those players right now, would Rush and Beck be as popular or as rich? Yep, ya can't trust anyone nowadays...

It's a Mad, Mad, MadMen World

I am a huge fan of MadMen on AMC. It's on Sunday nights at 10 est and repeats through out the week. Third season already, and I've seen every episode probably an average of 3 times each. LOL I like it because it's a period piece and it is intelligent. You have to pay attention to its many nuances to get the full effect, but even if you pay just enough attention to get the plot, it's still very good.

This is how much I love MadMen: I'm watching Oprah right now because Jon Hamm and January Jones (who play Don and Betty Draper) are supposed to be on. Nothing but MadMen could tempt me to break my Oprah boycott. *Update* - it was mostly a yawn. I did enjoy seeing my old Chatty Cathy doll. :-)

MadMen won best drama and best writing at the Emmys last night for the second year. Jon Hamm and Elisabeth Moss were nominated again for best actor and best supporting actress, respectively. I think they had 22 nominations but those are all I remember. The worst part was that episode 6 was on at the same time as the Emmys. I didn't see much of the Emmys, needless to say.

Vanity Fair has an Annie Liebowitz photo shoot with Hamm and Jones, and a story. Haven't read the entire article, but the photos are great. On Tom and Lorenzo's fan blog they showed some of Fashion Week's biggest fashion outfits alongside the photos and it sure looks like the 1960's and the show inspired this fall's styles. Even down to Betty's riding outfit.

Betty Draper's horse riding digs, circa 1963.

Ralph Lauren Collection, Fall 2009

 Valentino Collection, Fall 2009.

Point of Agreement (shock!)

Now I don't want anyone to have a stroke, so sit down before you read further....

...wait for it...

...wait for it...

I agree with the Obama Administration's plan to enforce a limited pay plan structure on the nation's bank officials via Federal Reserve review of current structure.  The reasoning behind it is to enforce proper compensation for ensuring prudent value and responsible sound growth in the banking system. The most cited example of why it's needed, aside from obscene CEO pay scales in general, is the all-to-many cases of bank and financial loan officers approving tons of too-risky loans in order to justify or earn their bonuses and high pay.

Let me ask you: if all public school teachers earned their incomes piecemeal, in other words paid by the passing student, would there ever be any students who failed? Right. This is exactly why we do not tie teacher pay directly to student success, and the lesson should be applied to other professions when applicable.

The current structure (ie, anything goes and to the highest bidder) is simply too tempting to be implemented ethically. The government already has their hand in the banking cookie jar, so while it is there it might as well try to re-introduce self-discipline.

This isn't a stand-alone belief of mine. I think that all executive pay should have caps. At the very least, I believe that any company that pays its executives more than twice the pay of its overall employee pay average cannot then lay off or fire any employees, not any, as long as they are paying their execs so lopsidedly. Yeah, pass that law and you'll see that limit self-induce in a New York second.

Before I explain further, please know or remember that I have over 30 years experience as a tax accountant in public practice. I've done hundreds of business returns and dozens and dozens of sets of books. I understand the history, theory and practice of corporations. And I am here to tell you that they get far more priviledges than they deserve, legally and legislatively.

Corporations can well afford to have some more restrictions. It wasn't always this way. Up until 30 years ago, they did a decent job of policing themselves as related to executive compensation. When the pension tax laws were first written, there weren't any participation or percentage restrictions, because the vast majority of companies played equitably in order to keep employee unions from growing (and because of concessions unions demanded and fought for). It was only during the Reagan-era Congressional overhaul of the pension benefits tax laws that restrictions were mandated. The reason was, companies were beginning to make unequitable decisions. The shareholders-as-God era was beginning, and with that came the out-of-sight CEO pay scales.

So, now, if they won't self-regulate, someone needs to force them, because we've played this era out and we can no longer continue the Greed-is-Good-Gordon-Gecco philosophy. Let me explain the implications nobody else writes about. If a company with 12,000 employees pays its CEO $36.4 million a year plus stock incentives that veritably promote insider trading when it's highest-paid average employee earns $40 an hour, that's the kind of executive pay structure that needs to be limited. Here's what we never stop to consider, if the CEO gets that much, what about his president, 12 vice-presidents, CFO, and department managers? As the price on the top dog's head swells, so then does the little dogs' prices. Pretty soon, you have a ton of money being spent administratively...for what? Seriously. I think the jig is up about how hard these CEO jobs are. As in, they are hard, but nowhere near that hard.

So it's time to re-introduce America to regulation. (That's the whole reason I'm not for Obama's version of healthcare reform. I feel it needs to just re-regulate a variety of things, enforce the existing laws, make new ones...to regulate, and that is all for now, to see if it improves costs and procedures.) Sending a message to America's corporate boardrooms that publicly traded funds cannot be used to buy people would be a step in the right direction, and starting with the bailed out banking industry is the correct first partner on the dance card.

I told ya I'm no longer a Democrat, but I'm also not a Republican with the knee-jerk unfettered capitalism blood in my veins. Nope. As much as I hate to agree with a tax-cheat, I gotta go with Geitner on this. People should be free, and contrary to the last 30 years, corporations are not people. Let's quit treating them better than we treat ourselves.

ACORN Video Not Surprising

But does it surprise you? When I tried to tell you about ACORN, did you think I was just a worrier, an alarmist, or worse... a conspiracy theorist? Maybe even a RACIST?

"Welcome, Ladies and Gentlemen, to the red-hot word of the 21st century, guaranteed to silence your thorniest critics in one fell swoop! Position yourself today to be able to harness the Power of Skin-Deep Shame!"

Last year, I warned you about ACORN. I also warned you to read radical Marxist and the Father of Community Organizing Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals if you wanted to know the real definitions of Hope and Change. Alinsky's book is ACORN's playbook, so there are even more little kernels of snappiness and awareness in it. Just sayin...

At any rate, state and federal officials are now beginning to acknowledge that something might just be a little illegally nutty with those ACORNers. That's all we who questioned boldly, saw the truth and spoke want. An objective and independent investigation, and no Census affiliation. No federal money at all is icing on the cake, but we feel that the investigation will reveal the motivation to cut off every government-appropriated cent and that is how it should work.

It was just getting people to do the equivalent of "Oh alright, I'll look at the elephant in the room, damnit." So it's a good start, but it still requires vigilant heat on our officials not to back down if ACORN says they've changed and fixed their problems, because they have said that so many times before and kept on with their bad ways.

One thing that I am very happy about is seeing a new generation figure out methods of getting a hearing for justice when the establishment wants to be ostrich-like. The pimpin' and prostitutin' undercover work of James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles was not only ingenious, it was effective. O'Keefe is 25, Giles is 20, and their budget was 1300 dollars, not million or billion or trillion. If you read in O'Keefe's own words what they did and why, and you have read your Rules for Radicals, you realize that O'Keefe and Giles have read it too!

My spirits are lifted by the fact that the moderates, independents and conservatives in this country who are protesting against our government are not backing down, even in the midst of being called racists, violent, argumentative, rude, disruptive, stupid, lemmings, sell-outs, I mean, you name it. If it's bad, it's being used against us. And it will just get worse. We will see people come forward, as they are now beginning to do, and pretend to be social scientists who explain that anyone (or that magical elusive "some" and "certain") who disagrees with Obama is in the end, acting with a racist motive.

Ok, well, where does that leave dissent in this country, then? Last time I checked, that was the First Amendment. I have no doubt that there are racists who are against Obama's policies. It's not only an experiential conclusion, it's a statistical certainty. But it does not then stand that all dissenters are racists, or even most of them. We have just had unprecented, historic changes made and proposed to our government. It is ridiculous to expect no dissent. End of story. Period.

But the bigger point is that dissent is a protected right, still, anyway. Those of us who choose to use it shouldn't have to be labelled so hatefully, but hey, what I've noticed in the last few weeks and months is, that which doesn't kill us is making us stronger. So, bring it on, I guess.

But heed O'Keefe's words:

"ACORN has ascended. They elect our politicians and receive billions in tax money. Their world is a revolutionary, socialistic, atheistic world, where all means are justifiable. And they create chaos, again, for it’s own sake. It is time for us to be studying and applying their tactics, many of which are ideologically neutral. It is time, as Hannah said as we walked out of the ACORN facility, for conservative activists to “create chaos for glory.”

This generation may be ready to take it up a notch. Rather than arguing in each other's faces with the extremely rare violent act of biting off a finger or stealing someone's sign, these kids may act if we cannot get it together. We may be wishing for those town hall arguments. It just depends on what the chaos turns out to be. So far, it's been smart, effective and nonviolent. So far. Still, they got results when no one else could. And for that, they earn my respect and admiration.

Joe said it's so

By now I'm sure you've heard about the South Carolina Congressional Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during the Presidential address to Congress last week.

You know, when he shouted out, "You lie!"

If you are looking for me to condemn him, don't hold your breath. I've been calling Obama out as a liar for over a year now!

Joe Wilson, while not my hero, is in my opinion, someone who has guts and ain't afraid to use them. That's a breath of fresh air.

At the same time, it's a no-brainer that he broke House rules when he did it. His fellow Representive James Clyburn is, if nothing else, completely consistent, and is leading the charge to have Wilson tarred and feathered censured. This is the man who race-baited Bill Clinton in the primary last year. Every time anyone says or does anything he doesn't like, Clyburn accuses racism. What a joke.

So okay, Clyburn, have your little censure. Wilson, take it like a man and get your little rap on the knuckles and move on. Because it is meaningless. Maybe that is precisely why, when Dems did basically the same thing to Dubya, they did not get censured.  I guess Dems aren't even as grown-up as the Pugs. {Sigh}

Nobody Put These Two in a Corner

Mourning the deaths of two great leading men today...

First, Patrick Swayze (this is a favorite photo of him):

Then I saw this photo taken of him days ago out in L.A. with his wife, and it was very painful to look at. Look if you dare, it is very sobering. Pancreatic cancer sure took its toll on him. He was 57, same age as The Hubster.

I guess everyone has a favorite movie of Swayze's. I liked most everything he did, even the often-panned Grandview, USA he starred in with Jamie Leigh Curtis. Then there was the other movie of his considered a bomb: Red Dawn. I liked that movie a lot...Wolverines! It made a big impression on me at 28 in 1984, because even though I had been in my share of bomb shelter fire drills under my desk as a schoolkid, I'd never before really thought about what it would be like to be invaded by an enemy. Red Dawn brought that home to me.

So, the next year when he played Orry Main in the TV mini-series North and South, I was in looooooovvvvvve. OMGawd. For me, it was Nick Nolte's Tom in Rich Man, Poor Man in the 70's and Swayze's Orry in the 80's that defined awesomeness for a television mini-series. He was perfect in that role and America began to take notice.

Then came Dirty Dancing. Nothing I can say that hasn't been said, except that he made Jennifer Gray sexy. No small task, as she was Jewish cute at best. When Ghost came out in 1990, he was set as a major star, and he made Demi Moore sexy-sensual, not just sexy-cute like she was in St. Elmo's Fire. He also played a great straight-guy to Whoopi's Oscar-winning role. Suffice it to say he made both his leading ladies classy in his presence.

After Ghost, he battled addictions and rehab, but managed to hang in there and give us two more of his best performances: as the awesome, awesome, awesome, did-I-say-awesome surfer-bank robber Bodhi in the ultimate xtreme sport action movie Point Break (with an also awesome Keanu Reeves in his first big break role). For those of you who have never seen this movie, I feel sorry for you. The photo above is Swayze as Bodhi. Here's another:

Oh, man. Hubba hubba and great acting, too. Plus, check it out: Swayze was the better surfer of the two, despite being 12 years older. Yes, they did their own stunts. Ya just gotta rent it if you haven't seen it.

The other great performance was as the sweet and graceful drag queen Vida in To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar. Wow, what an amazing cast in that movie, and several of them were standouts. Still, Vida tends to be everyone's favorite. Even Roger Ebert's, who remarked that Swayze made a pretty nice looking woman. What do you think?

Swayze, a Houston native who graduated high school with actress Shelley Duvall, was in my opinion a pretty good actor when given decent material who put 200% into every role he played and made several less than decent roles presentable. I believe that he was vastly underrated because of his chick-flick roles, much like a beautiful woman is never believed to be a brain. Those of us who liked him, however, know the truth of his talent.

We also lost actor and Broadway star Harve Presnell this week. Younger fans will know him as the SOB father-in-law in Fargo, or Mr. Brooks in Dawson's Creek. But those of us who grew up watching the color musicals of the 50's and 60's will remember Presnell as Debbie Reynolds' husband Johnny in The Unsinkable Molly Brown movie (as well as on Broadway opposite Tammy Grimes), and in one of my favorite movie musicals, Paint Your Wagon, he sings the song They Call the Wind Mariah (as in Carey, and I betcha $10 bucks that's where her mom got her name from...just went to check and I am correct...yes!). 

Presnell then starred as Daddy Warbucks in Annie on Broadway and in between Fargo and Dawson's Creek, he appeared in the movies Saving Private Ryan, The Legend of Bagger Vance,  Flags of Our Fathers, Face/Off, Patch Adams and Old School. He was 75.

I remember when I first saw Presnell sing Mariah in Paint Your Wagon. I was awed by his rich baritone voice, but I was stubborn in my insistence that was Howard Keel. In fact, the two actors looked like brothers. Here's Keel young and old:

Not only did Harve and Howard look alike, their singing voices were alike, too. Both were rich, deep baritones. I had known Keel from movie musicals like Annie Get Your Gun, Show Boat, Calamity Jane, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and Kiss Me Kate. Later on, he was Miss Ellie's 2nd husband on TV's Dallas.
But I digress. We are here to remember Harve, not Howard. I think it is a compliment to mistake Harve for Howard; that is how good Presnell was in musicals and then later on as a straight dramatic actor. Both Presnell and Swayze did their vocation justice and had many fans worldwide. They both loved to work and were complete professionals at it. Their deaths are our loss. God speed, gentlemen. May you sing and dance all you want to now.

More Than I Thought

It was brought jarringly home to me Saturday that some of the media really are covering up news and slanting what they do report in favor of the Obama Administration.

Saturday was the nationwide 9/12 protests and march on Washington, DC. By Saturday evening the internet was a-buzz with rumblings that the likes of NBC, ABC and the New York Times were estimating the DC crowd at 60-70,000 (most sources settled on reporting "tens of thousands"), yet when the DC National Parks Service (whose responsibilities include handling events like this) was asked how many came, this response came from spokesman Dan Barna:

"It is a record.... We believe it is the largest event held in Washington, D.C., ever."

Oh my God. Seriously? Ever? That includes the 1963 March on Washington. That includes Obama's inauguration.

DC participants were reporting that event was forced to start a couple hours EARLY because there were too many people gathered at the kick-off point, and that is a first. They also reported that the Metro train system was running every 20 minutes all day long that were constantly full and reminded the DC residents of weekday rush hour on steroids.

Once again, internet bloggers were carrying out investigative legwork that only a year ago was routinely done by the mainstream media (msm). I know the msm had dropped the ball during other stories, but seeing this one worries me for real.

I mean, what if something really big and dangerous and scary and necessary for us to know in order to safe our own lives comes up. Should the msm be trusted to alert us, in no uncertain terms now? Cuz I mean, what if us knowing this horrible thing would be troublesome for the Obama Administration? Add that to the hypothesis and see if you have 100% trust in your msm of choice (or even the same level of trust you had in them a year ago).

This is pretty much the same way I lost belief in anything Obama says anymore. Things would be pretty bleak, except for the knowledge that there are a lot of other folks who see it like I do. Whether the msm admits it or not.

Always Remember

On 9/11:

On 9/12: 

The Week in Review

Emails, I get 'em. Probably 80% supportive/agree, 15 % disagree civilly and 5% Nutcase. I love 'em all, keep 'em coming, please. And now, everyone who reads me can sign up (see my sidebar at right top) to get my blog posts in your email inbox. It's a new thing I am trying out to see if it's helpful to you. Since it's new, if it doesn't work right in any way, please let me know, so I can fix it, okay? THANKS!

Moving right along...My, my, my, lots happening in our national politics lately.

1. Van Jones, the Green Czar (who's a self-professed *Red*, as in Communist) resigned Sunday at the stroke of midnight and blamed his departure on being pushed out by a smear campaign of lies and hatred. No names on the campaigners, but it is generally assumed that would be Glen Beck, since no other media channel but Fox has been covering Jones' escapades in any depth. I've watched Beck every day and heard all of the questions he raised about Jones, and while the Left would have us think Beck is Rush on TV, 95% of what Beck has presented has been in Jones' own taped and written words. It really boils down to whether one thinks a radical activist can do a fair job implementing Cap and Trade if it becomes law. I can look the other way to a point that he called Congressional Republicans "assholes" in a public meeting. I can even discount somewhat him signing the 911 Truther petition, although prior to his apology for that last week, he lamely tried to say he hadn't read the fine print on it and to me that was almost worst, as in playing us for fools, a stunt I figure he would likely pull again had he gotten away with it. What gets me is that he and those who he works for think it's fine to be a Communist and large in charge. I draw the line at that.

It bothers me that Obama's Gal Friday, Valerie Jarrett is on video saying "they" just love Jones and his work and what he stands for, and "they" have been watching him for a long time. Apparently, "they" includes Michelle Obama and probably then, by deduction, President Obama. And, they all vacationed together this summer. I know it's a stretch to deduce it, since our chief executive can sit in a pew for 20 years and not notice that his pastor is a racist and a race baiter, but I think it's important enough to make the leap.

So, it must be okay with them to appoint Communists to Cabinet-level jobs? Not in my world. And, shouldn't all Czars be properly vetted?

Trust me when I say I hate to bring this back up again, but it's the Donkey in the Room: this reminds me of Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers. This is nothing to worry about, I'm sure Obama would say...again. So, excuse me while I continue to not believe a fricking word our President says.  If you feel something covering up your eyes, that's probably wool, okay?

2. Obama spoke to the nation's schoolchildren yesterday, after much ballyhoo and protest from the citizen heartland. It's fair to say that the details of it changed as the protests escalated. At first, the administration was furnishing a lesson plan (against the policy of the Dept of Education before now, by the way) that included the assignment to have the kids write an essay describing how they could help Obama. Say what? That right politicized it. So, all the flack Obama got was deserved. 'Went too far' would be an understatement. Stupid? Or Conniving and Caught? You be Da Judge. I just wanna know, if this was all innocent, why does Obama have to do things so differently than before, if it's the same as before and nothing to worry about?

In the end, the speech ended up being a good one for the kids, although I continue to believe he's not yet said Word One to students like my daughter, a great student and high achiever. And once again, the Heartland voices of "mob" dissent had to reign him in from an over-reaching intent. Still, his final version ended up being similar to those of our previous Presidents, which is how it should be.

3. Obama will address Congress tonight in a speech on network TV and the subject will be the health care bill. You know I'll have to force myself to listen, but hey, there is a chance that he might actually explain well enough just what he supports and wants in a bill, or maybe explain well enough what is in the bills being considered. I say "explain well enough" because most people I talk to cannot figure that out, even if they have researched it.

There seems to be undertones of expectations that if he doesn't turn things around with this speech, the bill -- and maybe he -- is done for. I'd never bet on that happening because I think if he still has 5% of the people's support, he'll keep on doing what he's doing. Seems like it was years ago instead of a month or so ago that Team Obama was encouraging citizens to snitch on each other if they knew people who were perpetuating "fuzzy" info on his healthcare legislation.

And you wonder why someone out in Middle America or Any America might be suspicious of his school speech when he originally wanted to indoctrinate kids to help enact his policies? And that'd be on top of possibly being labelled a mobster or domestic terrorist for attending a town meeting and speaking out in dissent.

I don't know, maybe I'm hoping he will be different, because if it's another "teaching moment" like his Rev. Wright speech, I may just hurl. Did you know that his approval ratings went up a little bit during the time he was on vacation and not giving speech somewhere?

To me, the fatal part of this legislation was letting Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid create it. Why hasn't Obama steered this with a stern firm hand from Day One if it is his centerpiece legislation? Sometimes I think we have an actor who answered a casting call as President.

Personally, I would like to see healthcare reforms. They just are not in this bill. So, I anticipate a little nap tonight, unless I hear something shocking like the Dems would be willing to take on tort reform.

The Truth and The Truth

Ted Kennedy died last week and for several days I've put off blogging about it because, honestly, I'm pretty conflicted about any Kennedy.

As an until-recently lifelong Democrat, I am well-versed in Kennedy history, Kennedy legislation, and Kennedy myth and scandal as well. I spent my childhood idolizing Camelot, my teens mourning fallen gods, and my twenties waiting for Teddy and his ilk to rescue us from the Evil Reagan Empire.

Then, in my thirties and forties, I happened to start reading books about the Kennedys. My dad read them and gave them to me. I began with Peter Collier's The Kennedy's: An American Drama . Next was Doris Kearns Goodwin's The Fitzgerald and the Kennedys: An American Saga . Both are very good histories with little or no controversial information.

They were also both written before the release of the records associated with the JFK Assassination Records Act of 1992, which was basically a second Warren Commission but with different results. While waiting for researchers to comb through them, I read JFK: Reckless Youth by Nigel Hamilton  and The Kennedy Women by Laurence Leamer . Hamilton's book is the one I'll remember, because I had never before known how personally reckless all 3 brothers were.

Add 50 or so in-depth magazine articles and a couple more books whose titles I can no longer recall, and you are reading the words of an amateur Kennedy historian. So please know that when I say Ted was no John F., that's not a compliment to either brother.

You see, I cannot forget that Ted was the baby of the family and acted like it his entire life. He did many things in his own interest to the point of indulgence. He didn't even try to conceal it. In fact, he would whine about needing to have the right to have it. So while I am grateful he co-authored legislation for Title IX and the Disabilities Act, I also know that were he never born someone else would have gotten those bills through Congress because they had huge public support. And stunts like this latest on-and-off Senator choosing in his own home state prove my opinion beautifully.

Back in 2004 when he thought Kerry might be elected President, Ted convinced the leaders of the Massachusetts legislature to change the law that gave the Governor the power to appoint the U.S. Senator's replacement instead of a special election. Why? Because Mitt Romney, a Republican, was Governor then and he wanted to keep Mitt from appointing a GOP Senator were Kerry to become President. Talk about something coming back to bite one in the butt!

No problemo, though, right? Just change the law back when it shows its teeth. To me, that is the ghost of Joseph Kennedy doing his nasty work, just as surely as if Washington Irving created him. My dad has the theory that Rose Kennedy put what was good in her children but Joseph Kennedy put what was bad in them. And, whether it was John and Bobby fumbling around trying to assassinate Castro, or Bobby trying to contain Marilyn Monroe after John loved her and left her, or Ted trying to control who became Massachusett's Senator, it's all the same, really.

When we give special status to people in families like the Kennedys and the Bushes, we see time and time again how they abuse that. I'm sick and tired of it beyond belief. When will we learn our lesson and realize that it is the non-patricians among us that we should celebrate, because their abilities to succeed mark what is unique and great about America and its government, not that some priviledged rich family can grab power? No matter how charismatic.

At Ted's funeral, not one word was mentioned about Joan, his first wife for almost 25 years and the mother of all of his children. Not. One. Word. It was as if she never existed. To me, that illustrates how Ted operated, in the true and typical spirit of Joseph P. So, sorry, I cannot celebrate the greatness of this man like he was some kind of god. He was deeply flawed and he screwed up repeatedly.  Every time the Left denigrates George W. Bush, I think, tell me how he was really any different from Ted Kennedy, huh? In my book, neither should have ever been elected.

I have one wish: that this marks the end of both families' role in our governance. If I want Camelot, I can read a book or watch a movie. Just like, if I want Hope and Change, I'll support someone who has actually made those things happen, not someone who can talk a really good line (and definitely not someone who has been handed the baton by Ted Kennedy, hello?)...

Responsibility is so annoying

I've been reading a certain blog that belongs to a woman in New York state who makes decent art and produces thought-provoking content when she's blogging about it. Lately, though, she's been blogging about politics, which would be okay even if I disagree with her, except that she has shown in her personal life a tendency to be a high roller that just walks away when the going gets tough. And, of course, she wants government-paid health care for all.

I don't know, but I do not exactly value the opinion of someone who bought a half-million-dollar house on a variable rate loan that was impossible to keep up unless incomes constantly rose, which of course as luck would have it her income fell and the interest rate increased and now she's just walking away.

And, of course, she did the obligatory self-berating. Twice. But, she got over it really quick, pushing it out of her mind and life, vacationing here and there, buying as usual and whatever, instead of realizing that behavioral habits show either responsibility or irresponsibility.

And now, this person wants me to ignore the uncomfortable fact that we cannot afford to give everyone health care. Hmmm, why oh why do I see a parallel here?

Just today, the Obama administration finally corrected their projected deficit numbers to agree to what the CBO had asserted 6 months ago (and were attacked for it).  The administration admitted that they were $2 trillion off! TWO TRILLION off. Over the next ten years, their projected deficit of $7.1 trillion is really $9 trillion! NINE TRILLION DOLLARS.

I realize that someone who thinks that Life is bought with a credit card that has no limit would ask their fellow Americans to take on the cost of government-provided health care. Or maybe, someone who does not understand math at all. Or, someone who is just a high-roller with her own money. Or someone who just doesn't understand personal responsibility, maybe?

Did you know that just for the month of June only, we paid China over a billion dollars in interest on the money we owe them? $1.2 BILLION in INTEREST. How long can we keep that up?

Government-provided health care is a lofty and valiant goal. But the timing of doing it now is wrong, wrong, wrong. The CBO already proved it will not be paid for and will in fact add to the deficit substantially. And that smacks a big fat hole in "We cannot afford NOT to do it."

Check out U.S. Debt Clock and make sure you notice how much each household owes. Try not to freak out looking at all of that REALITY.

And when it all comes crashing down around us, who will be walking away instead of rolling up sleeves, picking up the pieces, accepting the limitations and rebuilding the old-fashioned way?

You know, having a political opinion that is different than mine does not keep me from reading and appreciating others' points of view. But reading someone show their irresponsible ass in their personal life and then expect me to play right along skeeves me out and is painful to read. And definitely does not convince me of her argument.

Hillary's No Good Very Bad Days

By now, most of you have heard about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's press conference in Africa, where she called out a young African man who was more interested in what her husband thought about things than what she thinks. Just so you know, I think she blew it. But past that, she didn't blow much. My thought is, move on, nothing more to see here, aside from the lasting moral Don't Mess With the BullCow, Boys, You'll Get the Horms.

Since I read and watch news on both sides of the partisan divide, I have seen this covered in ways that have run the gamut from just-the-facts to in-depth psycho-babble. Curiously, the psycho-babble has come from the left-leaning sources. Whodathunkit? I mean, here is a perfect opportunity to rake Hillary over the coals on the Right, yet it has been mostly respectful.

MSNBC, though, takes the cake for what I call bitch-envy, I have to say. I've heard Daily Beast's Tina Brown and MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell explain that Hillary was tired, her hair was flat in the heat, her pantsuited figure frumpy for lack of working out, and even that she was negatively distracted by Bill Clinton partying in Vegas for his birthday. Wow,  I guess it is true what they say about women being women's worst enemies.

But, only once did I even hear it suggested that Hillary could have been less than cordial due to the fact that nobody would have asked a man what his wife thought and you go girl, give em hell. That came from The NY Post's Kirsten Powers, a refreshingly even-toned and unafraid voice in these here political woods. That was my take on it after watching the episode.

Still, I must confess, I should have left it at that, but it kept occurring to me that Hillary just might have been a wee little bit irked watching America reliving a deja vu gotcha moment of hers while the African trip was unfolding. And no matter how hard I tried to discard it as just more bitch-slapping, I finally decided I really think it might have played a part in her temporary loss of temper. And, furthermore, I do not classify this as bitch-slapping or bitch-envy, but maybe just an observation of human nature and dreams once dreamt.

While Hillary was over in the African continent, we were over here in the midst of health-care meltdown. The clueless moron might respond, "and, so?" Those of us old enough to know better might recall that the last brave warrior to be struck down while fighting for nationalized healthcare was....wait for it...Hillary Clinton, as First Lady, in 1993-1994. One could conclude it was the reason for the GOP takeover of Congress in the 1994 midterms.

Now, I'm no Hillary mindreader. But, it stands to reason that even if she now merely looks back on that as a memory, it's not a good one. And if she still has the fight in her to support nationalized healthcare, then seeing us disembowel the stupidly constructed Congressional healthcare bill has to be downright enraging to her, although she should be placing private anger at Pelosi and Co. and at O'Boy Wonder himself for their many mistakes in trying to pass it. I'm thinking it would be a huge understatement to be visualizing her saying "Not again!"

So, if the gossips and bitches of the world (and that includes men like WaPo weinie Dana Milbank) want some kind of psycho-babble reason d'etre, I'd tell them to look no further than the current state of the healthcare bill. I'll not mention that Other Bill who was in Vegas, even though I know in my heart I'd have been nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof...and then once Hillary gets a vacation on Martha's Vineyard after all of that travelling, hear comes another Bill, as in hurricane, to muck that up.

Harbinger of healthcare?

Listening to the news list the multitude of players who are on board with healthcare reform, you might think it foretells a lot of cooperation and sacrifice toward the common good, no?

Ya might wanna rethink that, if this unfolding news story is any indication, because it's sort of a real-life application of things to come.

Take this hospital in southwest Houston. It's part of the for-profit Hermann Hospital system, which is reputable and leading-edge and has locations all over Houston. Last week, officials announced that Hermann had entered into an agreement to sell this particular facility in the heart of super-busy southwest Houston to the Harris County Hospital District. In short, the plan is to make it a county hospital to help alleviate the horrendous overcrowding and undermanning of the much-maligned Ben Taub and LBJ county hospital facilities just south of Downtown. People with gunshot wounds report sitting and bleeding for hours before getting treatment, on a busy night. Our county taxes support these hospitals, sheriffs, and roads, and little else. Both are huge money drains. Ben Taub is where everyone ends up going who don't have insurance and arrives in an ambulance. LBJ is where all women without insurance go to deliver their babies.

Today, I read this story in the Houston Chronicle:

***********
Proposed sale to hospital district draws firestorm
Doctors: Many staffers say they will leave facility if deal goes through

By TODD ACKERMAN
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Aug. 14, 2009, 10:32PM

The majority of the Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital medical staff is unhappy about the facility's proposed sale to the Harris County Hospital District and will leave if the deal goes through, according to a number of doctors there.

The staff members, whose retention is crucial to the hospital district's hope of consummating the transaction, believe the district's plan to market the facility to private insurance patients and make it financially viable is doomed, they said Friday. They also argued it is not what their patients want.

“Doctors here believe a county facility is not the place to bring private-pay patients,” said Dr. Owen Maat, a gastroenterologist with a busy practice at Memorial Hermann Southwest. “They want to go to an attractive hospital where they get a private room and are treated well. That doesn't happen at a county hospital.”

Maat said a “letter of opposition and pledged non-support” will be sent to the Harris County Commissioners Court, the Memorial Hermann Healthcare System board, and the hospital district administration and board early next week. It is being written this weekend and could be brought to medical staff members to sign Monday.

The doctor's resistance follows vocal opposition earlier this week by Harris County Commissioner Steve Radack, whose district includes Memorial Hermann Southwest, and some measure of skepticism from County Judge Ed Emmett.

The deal requires the approval of the five-member Commissioners Court.

District President and Chief Executive Officer David Lopez said Friday he'd heard a letter is in the works, but is still optimistic that Memorial Hermann Southwest doctors can be persuaded to stay. The plan is for the facility to have both private and academic doctors.

“Retaining the medical staff is our No. 1 priority,” said Lopez. “We just hope they will meet with us one on one to give us the chance to let them know who we are and how we operate and to develop a trust in us.”

Raucous forum
Reaction at Memorial Hermann Southwest has been strong since officials of both institutions announced last week that they have agreed on key elements of a sale of the medical complex at Beechnut and the Southwest Freeway, which includes a 629-bed hospital; four office buildings; and vascular, cancer, surgery and outpatient imaging centers.

Lopez said the rumored price tag of $165 million to $185 million is “in the neighborhood.”

Post-announcement meetings with employees — particularly a Tuesday night forum with 150 physicians — made the recent health care reform town halls with members of Congress “look peaceful,” said Memorial Hermann Healthcare System President and CEO Dan Wolterman.

Radack has said he has received numerous calls of concern from doctors since the proposed deal was announced.

Unknown percentage
Lopez said it's too early to know what percentage of the medical staff it would need to retain for the deal to remain feasible.

Memorial Hermann Southwest has 425 active members on its medical staff, according to a hospital spokeswoman, though one doctor estimated that 80 to 100 doctors account for about 80 percent of its business.

The spokeswoman objected to the characterization of widespread unhappiness among doctors about the deal. She described it as a vocal faction.

Tax hike needed?
Retaining the hospital's physicians and their private-insurance patients is crucial if the hospital district wants to avoid imposing a tax increase, as it has stated. Such patients help defray the cost of care to indigent patients the hospital district serves.
“If the district thinks they can do this without raising taxes, they're insane,” said Dr. Michael Kleinman, a Memorial Hermann Southwest surgeon. “It might take a while, but there's going to be an exodus of doctors from here.”

Kleinman added that “there's a reason you don't see doctor's office buildings next to Ben Taub and LBJ,” which are hospitals currently operated by the district.

No contracts
Kleinman and Maat said that even if doctors wanted to stay and bring paying patients to a new county hospital, they couldn't because the district has no managed-care contracts. They noted that such contracts typically take at least a year to put together.

Lopez responded that he doesn't see that as a problem because he thinks the district will be able to negotiate to take over Memorial Hermann Southwest's existing managing-care contracts when they expire. He said that is why he wants to meet with the doctors — to clear up confusion.

District officials already have met twice with doctors as a group. They have not met with them one on one.

The sale is scheduled to close by late November, but Lopez said the date can be extended if there are still unresolved questions.

The Chronicle's Cindy George contributed to this report.
***********

Whoa! We don't even have legislation yet, but let's just take a moment and do what I did in my professional life for 30 years: Let's look ahead and extrapolate a bit.

Once a bill passes and the dust settles, there are going to be deals like this popping up all over. Why? Hospitals are going to want to dump their least-profitable facilities. Government entities like counties are going to feel a need to expand even more than at present. Everyone involved in care-giving is going to be figuring out where they stand in all of it, and there will be lots of moving around, lots of reorganizing.

Obama may have sent signals recently he'd be willing to drop the single-payer idea and the government insurance option, but Congress has said no such thing. Besides, when is the last time Obama told the whole truth and nothing but? {Crickets chirping...}

I had to laugh when I read this, because of all the hoopla surrounding the AMA's recent endorsement of reform. Here's ya a little known fact: only 15% of AMA's membership includes currently practicing doctors. Yes, you read that right. Who the hell make up the other 85%? That's a good research topic for another day, but the point is, maybe that endorsement ain't saying much if you expect it to mean that doctors are all in favor.

I'd say the docs in this news story represent the prevailing doctor viewpoint. Kind of like AARP's position is not the same as its members.

Oy, fasten your seatbelts...when Margot Channing said it would be a bumpy ride, she wasn't kidding!

Bottom lining it

In my last post, I discussed the reasons why I object to the health care legislation that is being negotiated in Congress. Now, having gone through all that, you may think I am adamently against any kind of reform. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want something passed that is well thought out and fair to all. Even though it goes against my skeptical nature, I would love to have a single-payer system that was run efficiently and effectively.

Up until now, though, I was not convinced at all that what Congress would pass would do little more than cause a big chaotic mess. And on top of that, I was seeing people all over the nation vilified and ridiculed for voicing their freedom of speech to object to Business As Usual in D.C. That is what really ticks me off, that people cannot disagree with this administration without being called astro-turfers, racists, idiots, mobsters, and domestic terrorists. It's just not right and I would have much more respect for Obama if he would have the decency and confidence to speak out and tell his supporters to quit the name calling. Even today at his Montana town hall, though, he continues to ridicule some of the things citizens have told him.

Sticks and stones. I guess I'll have to be bigger than him. I'll have to take a higher road than the president. Que sera sera. I know I am none of those things. I'm putting it aside for now in order to focus on health care.

In the last week, though, I think the protest message is getting respect, no matter how much the messengers are being shot at. Suddenly, Obama is singing a more subdued tune. The insurance companies are going to be reformed now. I like that. The way people are getting dropped for pre-existing conditions or forgetting to disclose they had mumps at age 9 -- that practice needs to be stopped, as well as the practice of making insured people pay medical costs of uninsured people in the sneakiest way possible.

I don't mind telling you, this is why I said at the beginning of this post that I'd take a single payer system, because it's like why it's so silly to keep your green beans separate from your beets on your plate when it all goes in your stomach and mixes up. We will pay for these uninsured people (of which ThereButFor TheGrace could include me) one way or another, and I'll always be lower-middle class on the socio-economic scale, so hey, I'd rather have those making over $250K pay for them instead of me whenever I go to the emergency room. Just sayin'. Just being honest.

Now, whether you agree with me or not, one thing is not up for debate at all: when Congress gets back from August vacay, they are going to pass a bill, because the Dems have the votes to do it with or without the Repubs. So, you know what? I'm willing to get on board as long as they do one thing: put themselves and all other government employees, including the president, on the same plan. No exceptions. If they do that, then I will feel reasonably safe in trusting that whatever they come up with will be good for all of us.

As far as I know, though, they won't do that. Don't you wonder why? Don't you want to demand it? I mean, if this snake oil they're selling is soooo good, why not stand behind it? My brother says I'm onto something, and that we ought to all rise up and demand it, but he wants it for a different reason. He doesn't want anything changed, so he thinks us doing that would stop Congress dead in their tracks from doing anything, because he's willing to bet his entire savings they wouldn't agree to it.

Now, I don't agree. If they HAD to, I think they would still pass a bill. I think it would be a good bill, as in a good health care system for you and me, precisely because it would be good for THEM.

That, I fear, is the only way we are going to get anything we can use that's better than what we now have or better than nothing. It would definitely ensure it. Think about it.

As the World Slowly Turns

Summer's trudging along. We have several days of heat and sun, broken up occasionally by rain, which we had some of yesterday, I think. At this point in the season, my sleep gets all messed up no matter I do. I usually just lay down whenever I feel like it and sleep as long as I can, then get up, then lay down. I have to really force myself to do the laying down part enough, in order to get enough sleep. I do this to be able to have some waking hours in daylight. Sometime next week, if I do what I usually do, I will just finally give into my biorhythm to sleep during the day and be awake at night. The heat in the hottest part of the year makes me sleepy, and it is just cooler enough at night to make me prefer to be awake then. I usually live that way until October when it finally begins to cool down a few degrees where you feel it.

*************

Now, onto politics, which is also a slowly turning world. But, recently, the turn has been away from Obama and the Dem Congressional leadership. Were I to feign anything but relief and a little pleasure, you know I'd be lying.

I hadn't posted much lately because I'd frankly been so upset at what Washington DC's been concocting that I finally just gave it to God. My thinking was, if I am wrong in my beliefs about all this, it will appear to me in time. And vice versa if I am right. Sometimes you just have to sit back and let things develop.

Part of why I was so upset was how Obama and the Dems were trying to smear people (like me) who had attended Tea Parties. And again when people began attending Town Halls around the country. I cannot begin to describe how upset this made me, because you see, I know without a doubt these people are REAL. The anger is REAL.

So, the last week or so has been quite a nice change for me to see as finally, the other side has to admit that there is grassroots opposition. And, I think it's opposition to more than just the Health Care bills being considered in Congress -- 600+pages in the Senate and 1000+ in the House.

I'm actually open to health care reform, but not what this Congress is proposing. And I think most of those who oppose it feel the same way. It's like, why not reform the current system, why completely replace it? People are beginning to realize that tort reform is not even being discussed or negotiated, and tort reform is a huge part of increased costs. Also, we need to re-teach American business to be regulated again, and there has been zero attempt to try that first. With proper laws and enforcement, the insurance companies can be made to treat us fairly and can be made to create pools that insure those who've been previously uninsurable as well as those who are currently uninsured. Those two things would be well worth trying first.

Why am I against the current proposals?

* I am against the universal computerized records. For one thing, it's been discovered that in the legislation is a provision that lets the government see into your bank account! Hello, why the hell is that there? And for another thing, every single example Obama cites for why this is needed leaves me unconvinced. Like, this is needed to be able to send your test results taken with one doctor to another doctor or specialist that you may need to go to next, in order to eradicate duplicates. Well, call me crazy, but what the heck is wrong with ME doing that, with ME owning my own damn records? Hello, again.

* Also buried in the legislation is a requirement that ERISA companies (those companies big enough to be required to be covered by the ERISA fairness rules, in other words, any large national or international company) must phase out their insurance covereage of employees, thereby forcing these employees to join the government option. Oh, yeah, that really supports Obama's assertion that if ya like the insurance you've got, you can keep it. My husband's employer is one of the world's largest and so this will affect us.

* During the campaign, Obama told us that if we wanted to know what he believes, to look at who advises him. Well, at least 3 of his health care advisors believe in a theory called Complete Lives. This is the basis for the Death Panel fears, because under Complete Lives, each person needing health care is scored by how valuable their remaining life is. One teenager is worth 14 senior citizens. And a teen is more valuable than a one-year-old because society has not invested schooling dollars on the baby but has on the teen. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to think how this could be applied to who gets what care and how much under socialized medicine. And even if it isn't done that way at first, what happens when we get in a financial bind worse than now and have to make hard decisions about money, and by that time everyone is in the single-payer government plan? I do not think it is silly or alarmist at all to worry about these things. In fact, I think it is naiive and foolish not to.

*There's no lead-in time to beef up the current inventory of doctors in this country, and that is a recipe for disaster if we were to implement an overhaul instead of reform. Just talk to any senior citizen on Medicare. They will tell you how hard it is to find a doctor who will treat them because Medicare pays less than private insurance (and because of the doctor shortage).

*I'm also generally opposed to a system replacement because we are the quality standard in the world as far as medical procedures. People in other countries with socialized care come to us if they can afford and pay to have their lives saved. My concern is, if we change, where do we go if we are in need of a faster option or another option if we can afford it?

* I do not believe the current proposal will save one cent. In fact, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) confirmed this, basically stating that the costs under the current proposals will skyrocket. Okay, why change anything then and just continue to pay the inflation from year to year? Here's the reason they are insisting on this overhaul: to insure those 10 to 40 million (still no creditable evidence as to exactly how many). I'm not in favor of it. Sorry. Figure out some other way to insure these folks that is more direct. It can be done. Hell, I could come with something if I had to, I guarantee.

* I think if Congress thinks their legislation is good for the people, then they need to require that it applies to them, too. No loopholes. We all should demand this. They are not royalty. They are "the people", too.

* There is nothing in either house's bills that allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. To me, that is another tell-tale sign that Obama is not sincere in his assertion that we can keep our present insurance. When I watch the tape of an interview he did a while back where he explains that a move to single-payer would have to be done without eliminating private insurers...at first, right away, but would have to be done gradually, I believe him even less.

Anyway, put this all together and it sours the stomach. It makes a cumulative effect that reflects negatively on Obama, and we are seeing it in his falling approval ratings. People didn't like the bailouts, the stimuluses, and all of the dramas about CEO planes and bonuses, forgotten campaign promises about transparency that would have given citizens more power to be informed, and the fact that Obama is in constant campaign mode and has not switched to a governing mode. He still cannot communicate in specifics, only generalities. At some point, a mature grown-up statesman transitions, and I believe that many people are beginning to see these faults in him.

And then, as one woman at a Town Hall put it, "I'm sick of being lied to and lied about." I couldn't have put it any better.