One of the points made by President Obama in his speech to the joint session of Congress to advocate health care reform was that he would be receptive to good and constructive ideas from any source, including Republicans who oppose nearly everything he does. It was a fine speech, and it succeeded in raising the prospects of enacting some kind of significant health care reform. If he really meant what he said about considering good ideas from the political opposition, he should make that more clear.
Without a doubt, health care reform is a very difficult challenge. As the saying goes, if it was easy, it would have been done long ago. Obama’s allies in Congress (the Democrats) have major differences among themselves, regarding the merits of different aspects of reform. The Republicans are almost 100% united in opposition, both for sincere ideological reasons and for pure political motives. Obama would like to have a bipartisan bill, but (with very few possible exceptions) congressional Republicans will refuse to back any bill, even if it contains several provisions to their liking. By temperament and political background, Obama has always tried to build a consensus, but neither party in Congress is in the mood. What is a president to do?
In apparent opposition to all conventional wisdom, I still believe that the best solution – both for policy and politics – would be a moderate health care reform bill that uses some of the better ideas from both parties. For the reforms to work, they will have to expand access and reduce overall health care costs, regardless of how payment of those costs is distributed. Reforms that focus on one of these issues while ignoring the other will ultimately fail.
With my usual disclaimer about not being an expert on this or any other subject, the best health care reform at this time would have the following characteristics:
1) No legal resident of the U.S. can have his/her coverage denied or revoked due to personal health issues. [The issue regarding illegal residents is trickier. My inclination is to believe that illegal residents should be included, but I would not insist on it as a condition to support an otherwise good bill.]
2) All persons eligible for coverage must be covered. There can be no “opt out” for individuals or families. Tax credits or similar assistance should be available for those who are too poor to afford coverage, but they have to get the coverage. If insurance companies must accept all applicants and all preexisting conditions, then it makes no sense to allow healthy Americans to stay out of the system before the need for insurance becomes obvious.
3) The tax favored treatment for employer-sponsored insurance should be ended, or at least sharply reduced. People who cannot get health insurance through work should not be disadvantaged the way they are now.
4) Individuals and small groups should be able to join large risk pools, in order to remove cost distortions due to underwriting.
5) Sensible tort reform is necessary. This includes caps on non-economic damages and an effective distinction between ordinary and gross negligence. In return for setting limits, the medical profession must do a better job of policing its members. The current practical necessities of defensive medicine and huge malpractice premiums greatly add to overall health care costs, while doing very little for patient well being.
6) End the interstate prohibition on selling medical insurance. Most states need more effective competition among its potential health insurers. Allowing the sale of insurance across state lines would be a big help.
7) Emphasis on prevention, as opposed to treatment and cure, needs to be a component of health care reform. There needs to be financial incentives for people to participate in wellness programs and annual physical exams.
8) For all the talk about “death panels,” the fact is that a large chunk of health care costs take place in the last six months of the patient’s life. I am not about write off somebody for being terminally ill, but there needs to be more honest discussion about the costs associated with extraordinary measures to keep somebody breathing for a few extra months, or weeks, or days. I don’t know what the appropriate answer is, but this is a big element of the national health care bill, and the issue must be faced with more honesty than it has had so far.
9) The public option is not as great an idea as its advocates suggest. This is especially true if there is an “opt out” provision for each individual state. It would likely have the effect of denying coverage for many vulnerable Americans. It will do nothing to contain actual costs, and the notion that it will “save” money by paying doctors at Medicare (or Medicaid) rates makes no sense. Doctors and hospitals can presently treat Medicare as a loss leader item, pushing up the costs to everybody else. They cannot do that if there is no everybody else. The public option either works like Medicare, providing a short term illusion of cost saving, or it works like a private insurance company, with no saving. The “trigger” provision suggested by Olympia Snowe and some other senators, where the public option would be created something like five years in the future if demonstrated to necessary by conditions at that time, might make sense.
Anyway, the status quo cannot continue indefinitely. We need to have some sensible health care reform, but we need to get something that can pass both the House and Senate. Passing a feel good measure that passes only one house of Congress is useless. I believe that a health care reform bill with the characteristics outlined above would be good public policy, and can pass Congress if President Obama makes clear that this is something he supports. It may seem to be too much of half-hearted reform for the liking of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but even a half-hearted reform now leaves open further reforms in the near future, if those are believed to be needed. The reverse is not true. Failure to pass something now will almost guarantee a very long delay in passing any reform. It will also seriously weaken Obama’s presidency. I do not want that to happen.
Some weeks ago, The Washington Post announced an op-ed writing contest, where non-professional writers were invited to submit an essay of 400 words or less. The essays would be judged by the clarity of writing, and content with an interesting message, but not on whether or not the editors agreed with the content. There were thousands of submissions, including one from yours truly. Out of these thousands, only ten of these amateur writers would advance to the second round, and the process would gradually whittle down to a single winner, who would get the honor of contributing a regular column for something like ten weeks. The winner would receive a fairly modest fee for his/her columns, but the main prize would be the prestige, not the money.
My essay was not one of the ten that made it to the second round, and of course, I was well aware that my odds were very remote. Anyway, now that I am officially out of the running, I would like to share my essay with my fellow OFA bloggers:
With multiple international crises and a serious economic recession to address, along with an ongoing effort to accomplish major reforms in healthcare, other issues have understandably been set aside for now. It can wait awhile, but I hope that some time before the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, there will be a serious examination of the various laws enacted, and enforcement methods used, in the name of “getting tough on crime.” We have the infamous war on drugs, which generally criminalizes the casual possession and use of various drugs, some of which are relatively harmless. We have the “three strikes” laws in many states, which in some circumstances impose long prison terms for minor offenses. Capital punishment is as popular as ever. Politicians frequently try to outdo each other in the contest to appear tougher on crime, because that perception is always a big advantage in elections. Conversely, an American politician who dares to suggest that these measures are ineffective in combating crime have as much chance of getting elected as would a candidate for the Iranian parliament who publicly doubts the existence of God.
I have no problem with being tough on crime, but I believe that many of the actions done with that supposed objective are ineffective at best, and in some cases counterproductive. Smarter and wiser people than yours truly may disagree, but let’s at least challenge some of the cherished assumptions.
Problems with the war on drugs include wasted resources (police, courts, jail), drug classifications which defy common sense (tobacco cigarettes are legal, marijuana is not), enrichment of organized crime (because lawful merchants cannot supply the people with what they apparently want), and the lost opportunity for excise tax revenue.
The three strikes laws remove the ability of a trial judge to use common sense in sentencing a convicted defendant. By imposing a mandatory twenty year sentence (for example) when a much shorter sentence is appropriate under the circumstances, the prisons become overcrowded with inmates who should not be there.
The usual justifications for capital punishment are false. They do not generally deter crime or save the taxpayers money, nor can we be sure that an innocent person is never executed. Execution undeniably does serve one purpose, which is to satisfy our collective thirst for revenge for an especially gruesome crime.
Let’s have some open an honest debate on these issues.
Now, back to the present day (11/2/09). I wrote the above words about a month ago. The Post editors had to sift through thousands of submitted essays – most of them undoubtedly well written – and it cannot have been easy to select the ten best. For the second round, they asked the would-be pundits to write a 750 word essay, on a different subject matter from the one they used in the first round. Two examples are provided in today’s on-line edition of the post:
http://views.washingtonpost.com/pundits/contestants/mara.gay/2009/11/mom_in_chief.html
http://views.washingtonpost.com/pundits/contestants/darryl.jackson/2009/11/sarah_palins_second_act.html
The OFA blog today contains a post from somebody, apparently with the moniker “Worship,” with an interesting message:
While I respect the sincerity of people whose admiration for President Obama seems to extend to the level of elevating the president into a deity, I cannot share the attitude. I want to be clear about my own attitude. I do admire Barack Obama as a person. He is the first presidential candidate to get any direct financial support from me. His campaign was also the first, since I was an idealistic high school student forty years ago, where I volunteered my time. I shared in the excitement of his 2008 election victory. This was not merely a victorious candidate who got my vote, but also (for the first time in my life) my enthusiastic support.
To be realistic, however, it is far too early to be sure that Obama will be a great president, let alone the greatest world leader the world has ever seen. For one thing, a great man (or woman) who happens to be the president is very different from being a great president. The qualities are not the same.
President Obama has, in my opinion, qualities that potentially can make him a great president. He is highly intelligent, a well read student of history, and trained to understand and appreciate competing viewpoints regarding a particular issue or problem. He is secure enough about himself that he does not take political attacks personally. He understands, maybe to a greater degree than nearly any of his predecessors (on a level with the senior President Bush), the role of diplomacy in international relations. While not historically a good predictor of presidential performance, Barack Obama is also (by all available evidence) an excellent family man who lives by an admirable personal moral code. Maybe that is not very important, but if nothing else, the absence of any scandal in his life at least precludes his being a target of personal blackmail. It also could give him some additional credibility when he is trying to push some moral cause.
Great presidents have to be excellent politicians. This means sometimes compromising with ideals in order to achieve something important. It sometimes involves choosing the least bad of several unappealing alternatives (the war in Afghanistan comes to mind). It involves making mistakes. Most historians have judged (correctly, in my view) Franklin Roosevelt as one of our greatest presidents. Despite that, however, there is absolutely no justification for FDR rounding up large numbers of Japanese-Americans and putting them in concentration camps. That is just one example. Jimmy Carter had, and still has, many of the same admirable personal qualities as we see in Barack Obama. Unfortunately, Mr. Carter was not a successful president.
Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker has an excellent op-ed in today’s (10/21/09) Washington Post. Ms. Parker is generally conservative, but not right wing, and this column concerns the Obama administration’s decision that the federal government will not interfere with states which permit the use of medical marijuana. I think it is an excellent column, because it articulates the case I have been trying to make in some previous blog postings, but in this case with the skill of a professional writer. She praises the administration for making the first step toward sensible drug policy, but she also advocates going further.
The usual arguments in favor of legalizing (or at minimum, decriminalizing) weed note that it is less harmful and addictive than some other currently legal products, that its illegal status means a huge waste of police/court/jail resources, and various other ways that the “war on drugs” is counterproductive, at least regarding marijuana.
In addition to these things, although the foolishness of the “war on drugs” has a long bipartisan history, self-described conservatives should oppose the long standing U.S. policy on ideological grounds. It is a case of government interference with an individual’s choice regarding a recreational activity. Besides that, it is (or at least was, when the supposedly conservative George W. Bush was president) a case of the federal government overruling the states on matters of social policy. True conservatives should be appalled by such arrogance of big government.
Anyway, here is a link to Kathleen Parker’s column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102003084.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2009102003110
I have zero respect for Fox News, and in my own opinion, that organization deserves nothing but contempt. Then again, I can say that, because I am nobody of significance. For President Obama’s top White House aides to say it is quite different. Contrary to the assertions of David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, Fox is a news organization. It may be highly slanted and lacking in integrity, but it is still a news organization. It contains legitimate journalists, in addition to the ranting pundits. In my opinion, it is a big mistake for the Obama White House to openly carry on a campaign against Fox News. In doing so, he lowers himself to their level. Maybe I don’t personally think so, but that is the way it looks to a lot of people.
One of the qualities I most admire about Barack Obama is his ability to stay above most of the petty verbal trashing. There can be no serious doubt that at least some of the anti-Obama rhetoric is based on racist motives. By “some,” I do not suggest that most is based on racial fear or anger. A lot of opposition to Obama’s policies is based on pure political differences, and would be no different than if the same policies were being articulated by a white president. On the other hand, I doubt that the ridiculous “birthers” would have gotten much attention if Obama’s ethnic background was similar to mine. Anyway, despite the likelihood that some of the unfair attacks on Obama are based on racism, Obama has never made that accusation against any of his political rivals, nor has he said or implied that the opposition from ordinary voters is based on racism. This is very much to Obama’s credit. Of course, racism still exists, but President Obama is right to never use racism as an excuse for political difficulties or defeats.
So why does he declare war on Fox News? It just makes Obama – or his White House staff, which amounts to the same thing – look as petty as Nixon and Agnew did when they basically accused much of the press of being unpatriotic. Obama should not bring himself down to Nixon’s level. During the campaign, Obama did an outstanding job of remaining good-natured and calmly shaking off the taunts of his political opponents. As a result, he was the one who looked like a statesman, while the others looked like low-class political hacks. President Obama should remember how Senator and presidential candidate Obama handled political attacks.
Here is a link to an essay by somebody who apparently does not agree with me. The writer says the White House is acting appropriately in “fact checking” the various lies by Fox News. That statement may be true, when it comes to false statements of apparent fact, but that does not extend to general disparaging characterizations about Fox News. That goes far beyond fact checking.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910090010
The WashPost had an interesting article today on the prospects for passing a healthcare bill now:
By Dan Balz With the Senate Finance Committee vote on Tuesday, the default position for health care has flipped. From the will-it-or-won't-it-pass drama of late summer, there is now a growing presumption among Democrats and a number of leading Republicans that Congress will approve some kind of bill by the end of the year.
The path to final passage is not simple. The fragile and disparate coalition of Democratic liberals and moderates (and perhaps a Republican or two) needed to pass the legislation will be stretched to the breaking point. There will be ample opportunities for the coalition to crack apart. Nothing is yet guaranteed, given the wide gulf that still exists over some key provisions in the bill.
But failure to pass a bill now would be more of a surprise than passage. All year, White House officials have argued that failure on health care is not an option, given the debacle that followed the collapse of health care legislation in 1994. Democrats have gotten that message and are now grinding forward toward a conclusion. White House officials believe President Obama is likely to get the signing ceremony he has long hoped for.
What then are the potential political implications for the president, his party and minority Republicans if the year ends with the president hosting a big signing ceremony to herald a new era for the American health care system? A big win for the Democrats? Despair among Republicans? Not surprisingly, Democrats and Republicans have sharply different expectations for what may happen.
Democrats assume substantial political benefits, both for getting the job done and for changes that they believe the public will see as improvements in the kind of health care coverage they have. They believe the passage of a health care bill will stand with other landmark achievements that have come under Democratic presidents, such as Social Security and Medicare.
Chris Kofinis, a Democratic strategist, predicts that, at a minimum, there will be a huge, short-term benefit for the president and his party. "Big social problems create big political and policy challenges, but also huge political payoffs," he said.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was in the Clinton White House when health care failed in 1994, long has argued that there is another potential benefit, which is that Democrats can prove that they are capable of governing and making Washington work.
Given control of the White House and their big majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats should be able to enact their agenda, but the public has come to expect gridlock rather than progress and this has contributed to anger at Washington. "I think that there will be a general sense of satisfaction that we got something done," White House senior adviser David Axelrod said.
Democrats also believe that Republicans' near-unanimous opposition to the bill will provide a double benefit. Not only will Democrats be seen as the responsible, governing party, they argue, but the GOP's image as a party on the sidelines, unwilling or incapable of contributing to a solution to one of the country's most long-standing problems, will be reinforced.
The president, after months of being second-guessed about his handling of the debate and questions about what he has accomplished, may see a boost in his own personal standing as well. White House officials have told Democrats for months that the more popular Obama is, the more their 2010 prospects will be enhanced -- and that a health care bill will be a major positive step toward that future.
All that assumes not only that a bill passes, but also that in its implementation, voters see changes that they like. Democrats believe that in the short term, that is likely to be true, because some of the first changes implemented are insurance reforms widely popular with the public. Provisions that may be more problematic in their impact do not take effect as quickly.
Republicans see the environment far differently. "The sugar high from a signing ceremony just might be as good as it gets for President Obama and Democrats," said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist. "It could be all downhill from there."
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich believes Obama and the Democrats are heading for major problems if they add a health care bill, with all its complexities, on top of the cost of bailing out the economy. The Democrats have ignored warning signs from the public to go slower. Now, Gingrich argues, the health care bill could further harm the economy and strain health system to the breaking point.
"I think the odds are they'll pass something and I think it will be to the left of [the Finance Committee bill]," Gingrich said. "I think it's beyond trouble."
Republicans see voters potentially recoiling against legislation that would add another $800 billion or more to the federal budget. They discount Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Finance Committee bill won't blow a bigger hole in the deficit, and say the health care legislation will be cost the government hundreds of billions more in the years not covered by the 10-year window. They also argue that the final product will be more expensive, with fewer cost controls, than the Finance Committee bill.
"Even if the CBO blesses this bill, Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress will own the explosion of spending and the federal deficit at the ballot box in 2010 and 2012," Madden argued.
Other Republicans sees the potential for the Democratic coalition to fracture further as the debate nears a conclusion. Liberal and labor union opposition to the Finance Committee bill could collide with the House Blue Dogs and Senate moderates. If, in the middle of these final negotiations, Democrats lose the Virginia and New Jersey governors' races next month, the party could emerge more deeply divided.
Republicans also believe that, in the final months of the legislative debate, there will be growing criticism of the bill, particularly from some of the industry stakeholders who have generally held their fire until now. That could divide the country further and make Americans more skeptical about the implications of a new health care system.
"I'm not sure you can ever resolve that debate or discussion," Axelrod said hours after the Finance Committee vote. "At this point, I think you have to enact it and implement it well. I think people are prepared for us to enact it. I think there are elements of it that will come on line quickly on which those who supported it will be able to campaign on next fall."
Neither side can be too confident in their assumptions. The Bush White House and Republicans anticipated major benefits from passage of a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens. Initial reaction was negative. Even when opinion turned more positive, other issues proved more powerful and politically costly in Bush's final years. The same could happen next year, especially if the unemployment is high.
The fact that opponents and proponents now think passage is more likely than impasse marks another important step in the battle over health care. But it is clear that the arguments will not cease with the possible enactment of a bill. The debate will shift to a new arena, but it will not subside for some time.
ObamaDoug Notes:
Gracias, Dan Balz. It is an important time in this debate and our work is not yet done, but this sounds a note of promise. We will have a healthcare reform bill to sign in December!
Gracias, ObamaDoug
PO,F8GY!
TUESDAY, Oct. 6 (HealthDay News) -- Expanding health coverage to adults may result in later savings from reduced Medicare spending on these individuals after they turn 65, especially for the uninsured with cardiovascular disease, diabetes or severe arthritis, according to research published online Oct. 6 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
J. Michael McWilliams, M.D., of Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues analyzed data from 2,951 adults who were continuously insured before the age of 65, and another 1,616 who were continuously or sometimes uninsured before this age. They assessed annual Medicare spending after age 65 for each participant.
The researchers found that total annual Medicare spending was $1,023 higher for the previously uninsured, which was a significant difference. The previously uninsured had higher annual hospitalization rates for complications related to cardiovascular disease or diabetes (9.1 versus 6.4 percent) and joint replacement (2.5 versus 1.3 percent).
"There are good reasons to believe that insurance coverage in the pre-Medicare years would reduce expenditures during the Medicare years, and health reform advocates will certainly take heart from the authors' conclusions. Unfortunately, because the data and methods used in this study are not capable of supporting causal interpretations, the savings to Medicare are unlikely to be as large as this study suggests," writes the author of an accompanying editorial.
The study was supported by the Commonwealth Fund. Several co-authors reported relevant consulting work and legislative testimony.
AbstractFull TextEditorial
Copyright © 2009 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.
Adviser Soapbox
Capitalist Case For Nonprofit Health Insurance
John E. Girouard 10.12.09, 7:09 PM ET
If you want to know what went wrong with our health care system and the best way to fix it, all you have to do is look back a few decades to a time when health care was a community concern, considered as essential as any public utility. It should be again, not just because it makes sense but also because it's the most profitable way to go.
The irony in the current debate over a "public option" health plan is that we once had a form of socialized medicine. Blue Cross, the most recognizable name, began in 1929 as a tax-exempt insurer covering a community of teachers in Dallas. Blue Shield was started as a tax-exempt insurer to cover employees of mining and lumber companies in the Pacific Northwest, with a group of local doctors providing care through a service bureau.
We lost the positive aspects of affiliation health insurance starting in the 1960s and through the 1980s when Wall Street discovered there was money to be made turning nonprofit health insurers, hospitals and nursing homes into investor-owned companies. What we got was a massive conflict-of-interest--profit vs. public good--that has culminated in a dysfunctional health delivery system that has undermined our economy, reduced our national wealth and torn our social fabric.
One might argue whether our estimated 47 million uninsured is a moral shame, but there is no argument that millions of people clogging our emergency rooms and other social services because it's their only option is a crime against our economy, both in direct costs and loss of productivity.
A solution that would have something for everyone and meets the test of minimum government intervention would have three tiers of coverage:
1. Primary Care Community Nonprofits: States, regional groups, hospital consortiums and communities would be encouraged to form nonprofit health insurance companies guaranteeing at reduced premiums a primary level of care--ambulatory, emergency room, routine physicals, and so on. Every citizen would be required to be covered.
This would immediately add 47 million new customers generating premium payments into the pool of available revenue. There would be no qualifying exam nor any discrimination based on pre-existing conditions.
Those who paid their mandatory premiums could deduct them on their income- tax returns. Those who failed to pay their premiums might be subject to a minimum tax penalty or some other mechanism to encourage compliance.
These nonprofits might then, like municipalities, be able to turn to the financial markets to raise capital for building projects and other needs, perhaps issuing tax-exempt bonds.
2. Reinsure Catastrophic Risk: Community nonprofits would be required to do what large companies do when self-insuring. They set aside enough reserves to cover their employees up to a set threshold above which they reinsure themselves. Nonprofits could do the same thing, passing risk on to for-profit companies against a financial disaster from big-ticket losses that could result from a single disaster, a disease outbreak, or just having a high percentage of elderly patients needing extensive care.
The for-profit reinsurance business ought to be highly profitable if well-managed. The number of transactions they would have to handle would be vastly reduced, driving down costs. But for this to work, these companies would need to be reinsured as well, much as banks are. That's where government steps in, just as it does in the banking industry.
3. Create a Federal Health Insurance Corporation: Just as we regulate the banking industry because it is essential, requiring banks to pay insurance premiums to guarantee deposits, the role of the federal government would be to act as the insurer of last resort. Such an agency would guarantee claims above a set amount, allowing private reinsurers to calculate their risks more accurately and set competitive, profitable premium rates.
This is not a public option, it is a public imperative. It is what we expect from government after a hurricane or other natural disaster. It seems logical that in the event of a health insurance disaster, Uncle Sam should be ready to step in for the public good. And it seems equally logical that the federal government should be in the business of setting standards and regulating an industry that provides a public service, just as we regulate water, power and public transportation companies.
This three-tiered approach contains elements that should appeal to most interest groups. The nonprofit primary care level eliminates the conflict of interest that currently exists between profit and the rendering of a crucial public service. Insurance companies would go back to doing what they are supposed to, managing risk instead of managing care.
This system is close to what members of Congress refer to as "the same health insurance we have." Once a year federal employees get to choose who their health insurer is from a list of a dozen or so approved providers. A covered employee with a chronic disease can switch insurers if he or she decides a different company offers a better plan, without an exam and regardless of pre-existing conditions.
This system should appeal to both sides of the "public option" argument.
Liberals who want to see everyone covered and the profit motive taken out of medical decisions would see their aims met as more citizens would likely seek out and receive preventive care instead of waiting until they need to be rushed to an emergency room at enormous expense.
Conservatives who want government to spend less and do more to stimulate the flow of capital and the creation of wealth would achieve their goals in the form of the private financing of nonprofit insurers and in the presumed net reduction in the cost to taxpayers of providing emergency and social services to the uninsured.
John E. Girouard of Washington, D.C., is a financial writer and the author of "The Ten Truths of Wealth Creation."
No comment. fib
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Leading Cuban dissidents cheer Obama's Nobel prize (AP) – 8 hours ago HAVANA
— Many of the 75 activists jailed in a 2003 Cuban government crackdown on political dissent are congratulating Barack Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. In a letter released Monday to international journalists, 29 of those imprisoned six years ago said Obama "has become a global symbol, especially for us who, under difficult conditions, are defending Cubans' right to democracy."
In another letter, 21 of their wives, mothers and other female relatives also cheered Obama. Fifty-four dissidents remain imprisoned on allegations they conspired with the U.S. to topple Cuba's government. Those freed were granted medical parole or forced into exile in Spain. One was released after completing a six-year sentence.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jOSU7Ew6j4vlEn0d_L0eXG0A1w1gD9B9M09G0
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Zimbabwe News.Net
Sunday 11th October, 2009
Former Cuban president, Fidel Castro, has said he was obliged to acknowledge the Nobel Prize given to US President, Barack Obama, was a "positive measure," and especially important considering the "genocidal policies" of some former US presidents. He also said the decision was good compensation for the fact that the US had been defeated in Copenhagen when Rio de Janeiro was picked as a site for 2016 Olympic Games. In an article titled "Reflections," published on the Internet, 83-year-old Castro said while he did not always share the views of those who award the Nobel, Obama’s prize was "an appeal for peace and a search for solutions that lead to the survival of species." In his comments, he said: "Many will say that Obama has not yet earned the right to receive such a distinction. We prefer to see the decision as not so much a prize for the president of the US, but as a criticism of the genocidal policies pursued by a few presidents of that country, who led the world to the crossroads it is at today."
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
http://www.zimbabwenews.net/story/553184
"Dedicated to the seven generations that came before usand the children of Indian Country today,so their innocence and laughter may develop into wisdomas they become the leaders of tomorrow."
American Indian and Alaska Native cultureshold children in a special place of honor. Childrenare the gift of the Creator. The birth of a child iscelebrated and honored. Each tribe has its ownworld view that tells the children their placein the cosmos through stories and ceremonies.The community has a sacred obligation toinstill in them the traditional knowledge of pastgenerations so their innocence and laughter maydevelop into wisdom as they become the leadersof the future.
For countless generations cradleboards wereused by Indian mothers to keep their infantssecure. Most cradleboards carry an umbilicalcord amulet to connect the child with past andfuture generations throughout their life. Weknow that in the same way, safe and nurturingIndian communities enable Native children tofully achieve their potential so we can honor andcontinue the culture and traditions of the pastseven generations.
Unfortunately, all too often Native childrenare born into circumstances that may be richin culture and love, but fail to meet their basicneeds of health, shelter, safety and education.Every Indian child should have the right tocommunity-based, culturally appropriateservices that help them grow up safe, healthy,and spiritually strong – free from abuse, neglectand poverty. Our communities – tribal leaders,parents, grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts,uncles and families – have a vision of a restored,safer, healthier Indian Country for our children.Creating safe and supportive tribal communitiesfor our children today honors our ancestors aswell as the generations to come.
This FY 2009 Tribal Budget Request highlights keyaspects of the vision tribal leaders have expressedto create a safe and healthy Indian Country for ourchildren. In developing these recommendations, werecognize that addressing the years of under-fundingand backlogs that plague Indian Country will beaccomplished over time. The requests that follow donot reflect the full need in Indian Country, but ratherare achievable first steps that we believe Congressand the President should be able to support this year.
I always liked Senator Clair McCaskill. fib
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I feel that I’m in an alternative universe. For eight years some people called anyone who disagreed with the President’s foreign policy or war in Iraq unpatriotic. Then in the course of two weeks, those same people cheer when the United States does not get selected for the Olympics and boo when our President is the unanimous choice for the Nobel Peace Prize. Go figure.
Congratulations Mr. President for standing up to the scorn and derision of your opponents in the election when you firmly stood for the proposition that strength meant being willing to talk to your enemies, not just your allies. Thank you for the confidence and wisdom to say that a hand will be extended when their fist is unclenched. And thank you for understanding that our national security rests on our principles, the example we set for the world, and our alliances along with the excellence and strength of our military, rather than exclusively the latter. God Bless America.
http://clairecmc.tumblr.com/post/208582433/the-twilight-zone
I notice that the entire site has problems. There is no access to blogs of ANY group.
Hope it is some re-organization. Below is an URL to Chris Hass. fib
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/OrganizingforHealthCareBlog
I am craying with tears of happiness. Can't say more now. Can you? fib
ps. It is "thick" today!!! Rejoyce!
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
Play Video AP – 2009 Nobel Peace Prize goes to President Obama
OSLO – President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to build momentum behind his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.
Obama said he was surprised and deeply humbled by the honor, and planned to travel to Oslo to accept the prize, which he said he does not see "as a recognition of my own accomplishments," but rather as a recognition of goals he has set for the United States and the world.
"I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize," Obama said.
Many observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.
Some around the world objected to the choice of Obama, who still oversees wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched deadly counter-terror strikes in Pakistan and Somalia.
Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee said their choice could be seen as an early vote of confidence in Obama intended to build global support for his policies. They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.
Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party who joined the committee this year, said she hoped the selection would be viewed as "support and a commitment for Obama."
"And I hope it will be an inspiration for all those that work with nuclear disarmament and disarmament," she told The Associated Press in a rare interview. Members of the Nobel peace committee usually speak only through its chairman.
The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners'. The Nobel committee acknowledged that they may not bear fruit at all.
"He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate," Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us."
After the prize was announced, Jagland compared the decision to give it to Obama to the prize was given to German Chancellor Willy Brandt in 1971 for his "Ostpolitik" policy of trying to find common ground with Eastern Europe, which was under Communist sway.
He said the same thing was true when then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev got the prize in 1990 after he had launched perestroika and glasnost, and allowed Eastern Europe to emerge from Kremlin control.
The selection to some extent reflects a trans-Atlantic divergence on Obama. In Europe and much of the world he is lionized for bringing the United States closer to mainstream global thinking on issues like climate change and multilateralism. At home, the picture is more complicated. As president, Obama is often criticized as he attempts to carry out his agenda — drawing fire over a host of issues from government spending to health care to the conduct of the war in Afghanistan.
U.S. Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele contended that Obama won the prize as a result of his "star power" rather than meaningful accomplishments.
"The real question Americans are asking is, What has President Obama actually accomplished?" Steele said.
Obama's election and foreign policy moves caused a dramatic improvement in the image of the U.S. around the world. A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world. That indicator had plunged across the world under President George W. Bush.
Asked whether the prize could be seen as praising Obama's reversal of Bush administration policies, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, a senior political adviser to the right-wing populist Progress Party told the AP that: "I guess you could read it like that."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has made no secret of his admiration for Obama, called the decision the embodiment of the "return of America into the hearts of the people of the world."
But Obama's work is far from done, on numerous fronts.
He said he would end the Iraq war but has been slow to bring the troops home and the real end of the U.S. military presence there won't come until at least 2012.
He's running a second war in the Muslim world, in Afghanistan — and is seriously considering ramping up the number of U.S. troops on the ground and asking for help from others, too.
"I don't think Obama deserves this. I don't know who's making all these decisions. The prize should go to someone who has done something for peace and humanity," said Ahmad Shabir, 18-year-old student in Kabul. "Since he is the president, I don't see any change in U.S. strategy in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Obama has said that battling climate change is a priority. But the U.S. seems likely to head into crucial international negotiations set for Copenhagen in December with Obama-backed legislation still stalled in Congress.
Former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the prize in 1983, questioned whether Obama deserved it now.
"So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act," Walesa said.
"This is probably an encouragement for him to act. Let's see if he perseveres. Let's give him time to act," Walesa said.
Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Like the Parliament, the committee has a leftist slant, with three members elected by left-of-center parties. Jagland said the decision to honor Obama was unanimous.
The award appeared to be at least partly a slap at Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for his largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
"Those who were in support of Bush in his belief in war solving problems, on rearmament, and that nuclear weapons play an important role ... probably won't be happy," said Valle, the Nobel Committee member.
The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in international politics" and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage.
"You have to remember that the world has been in a pretty dangerous phase," Jagland said. "And anybody who can contribute to getting the world out of this situation deserves a Nobel Peace Prize."
Until seconds before the award, speculation had focused on a wide variety of candidates besides Obama: Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator, a Chinese dissident and an Afghan woman's rights activist, among others. The Nobel committee received a record 205 nominations for this year's prize, though it was not immediately apparent who nominated Obama.
Obama is the third sitting U.S. president to win the award: President Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919.
Wilson received the prize for his role in founding the League of Nations, the hopeful but ultimately failed precursor to the contemporary United Nations.
The Nobel committee chairman said after awarding the 2002 prize to former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, for his mediation in international conflicts, that it should be seen as a "kick in the leg" to the Bush administration's hard line in the buildup to the Iraq war.
Five years later, the committee honored Bush's adversary in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore, for his campaign to raise awareness about global warming.
In July talks in Moscow, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed that their negotiators would work out a new limit on delivery vehicles for nuclear warheads of between 500 and 1,100. They also agreed that warhead limits would be reduced from the current range of 1,700-2,200 to as low as 1,500. The United States now has about 2,200 such warheads, compared to about 2,800 for the Russians.
But there has been no word on whether either side has started to act on the reductions.
Former Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership in the effort to prevent nuclear proliferation.
"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts."
Obama also has attempted to restart stalled talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, but just a day after Obama hosted the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in New York, Israeli officials boasted that they had fended off U.S. pressure to halt settlement construction. Moderate Palestinians said they felt undermined by Obama's failure to back up his demand for a freeze.
Obama was to meet with his top advisers on the Afghan war on Friday to consider a request by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, to send as many as 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan as the U.S war there enters its ninth year.
Obama ordered 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan earlier this year and has continued the use of unmanned drones for attacks on militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a strategy devised by the Bush administration. The attacks often kill or injure civilians living in the area.
Nominators for the prize include former laureates; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.
In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."
The committee has taken a wide interpretation of Nobel's guidelines, expanding the prize beyond peace mediation to include efforts to combat poverty, disease and climate change.
___
Associated Press writers Ian MacDougall in Oslo, Rahim Faiez in Kabul, Celean Jacobson in Johannesburg, George Jahn in Vienna, Monika Scislowska in Warsaw, Poland, Matti Huuhtanen in Helsinki and Jennifer Loven in Washington contributed to this report.
On the Net:
http://www.nobelpeaceprize.org
Honduras talks start, police break up protest
TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) – Talks between representatives of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and the country's de facto leader began on Wednesday as top envoys insisted the ousted leftist be reinstated and police used tear gas on a protest.
Foreign ministers and diplomats including the head of the Organization of American States are overseeing the highest-level dialogue to take place in the coffee-growing nation since Zelaya was exiled at gunpoint three months ago.
Shortly before the meeting began, police fired volleys of tear gas to clear several hundred people marching past the U.S. Embassy in support of the logging magnate.
Police and soldiers armed with clubs and automatic weapons chased away demonstrators who shouted "Help us, OAS." Two people were injured, one by a rubber bullet and another by a gas canister, a local hospital said.
Zelaya and the OAS mission insist the president's return to power is a non-negotiable demand. De facto leader Roberto Micheletti previously ruled out that option but in recent days has not mentioned it, in a possible softening of his position.
"Those who thought it was possible to depose a president and normalize life in the country before starting an election campaign should realize that this has not been possible," OAS chief Jose Miguel Insulza said, flanked by the envoys.
A representative of Micheletti called for an end to the international isolation Honduras has suffered since the putsch and said sanctions had cost the poor country $400 million.
Honduras has a presidential election scheduled for November 29 but critics say curbs on media and public gatherings imposed by Micheletti mean the campaign will not be fair. The results may not be recognized without a prior agreement ending the crisis.
Zelaya said Micheletti only agreed to the talks to fend off international criticism and keep the de facto government going.
"They do not have the least intention of reverting the coup, they are just playing for time," he told the Telesur television channel from the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, where he has been holed up surrounded by troops since slipping back into Honduras two weeks ago.
ZELAYA ON CAMPING MATTRESS
Zelaya was toppled after drawing close to Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, whom powerful conservatives in Honduras say was advising Zelaya to extend his presidential term.
Micheletti took power after the June 28 putsch and wants his rival jailed. On Tuesday he said political amnesty was on the table but did not mention a return to office for Zelaya.
Peter Kent, Canada's junior foreign minister, said the OAS mission was pushing to have Zelaya live somewhere other than the embassy, where he sleeps on an inflatable camping mattress.
"We are realistic," Kent said. "This is not going to be achieved in a day or two days or perhaps even a week. But we believe there is room for progress."
The de facto government says the ouster of Zelaya, forced from his bed into exile by armed soldiers, is legal because he had violated the constitution.
Pro-Zelaya protests since his return to Honduras have led to clashes with security forces that caused dozens of injuries and the death of at least one protester.
Honduran rights group Cofadeh says 10 Zelaya supporters have been killed since June in violence linked to the coup.
Coups and military governments were common in Honduras for most of the 20th century. U.S. banana importer Sam Zemurray helped bring President Manuel Bonilla back to power in 1912 in return for favorable business conditions.
(Additional reporting by Gustavo Palencia, Miguel Angel Gutierrez and Ignacio Badal in Tegucigalpa and David Ljunggren in Ottawa; Editing by Xavier Briand)
I hope for all of us that the president's job, one day, will include mostly this sort of events. Wouldn't that be a wonderful and normal world? Peace!. fib
ps. Warning: the comments below are from the Earth. Educational, too.
After a three-hour meeting on Afghanistan, President Obama gets to have some fun tonight by stargazing with kids and astronauts.
It's Astronomy Night on the South Lawn, and our Oval colleague Traci Watson describes tonight's proceedings (as well as budget challenges facing NASA):
The president will spend this evening not curled up with briefing books but instead studying the heavens through telescopes. This "star party" on the White House lawn is meant to encourage kids to take an interest in science, and to that end Obama and the first lady have invited 150 local middle-school students to stargaze, too.
Unusually in Washington, Wednesday evening was shaping up to be crystal-clear and cloudless -- perfect for viewing the universe.
Much murkier is what's in store for any students who are inspired to become astronauts. In the next few weeks, Obama will have to decide whether to plow billions of extra dollars into NASA's budget. Without that infusion of cash, America's manned space program could not "continue in any meaningful way," according to a September report by space experts convened by the White House.
At the end of the star party, all 21 telescopes scattered across the backyard of the White House will be trained on the moon. That was where astronauts were headed in 2020 in the space plan announced by President Bush in 2004. Now Obama is rethinking that idea.
"We will certainly go back to the moon at some point," John Holdren, the president's science adviser, said as he toured the star party facilities a few hours before sunset. But he couldn't say when.
If Holdren wanted more expert advice, it was easily available. Also on hand for Obama's astronomy night was Sally Ride, the first U.S. woman in space and one of the experts who warned the administration that without significant new funding NASA's human space program is doomed to irrelevance.
Ride, who said she hadn't been at the White House for at least a decade, was enthusiastic about Obama's initiatives.
"There's not very much doubt about the value of science again" in this administration, she said
Ride, an astrophysicist, won't be the only one at the event who knows her way around a telescope. Amateur observers from the Washington area and professional astronomers will be operating the equipment for the first family and students.
Also on hand will be two high school teachers dressed as Galileo and Newton, operating replicas of the telescopes used by those early stargazers.
"We're either really cool or really crazy," said Dean Howarth, a teacher at McLean High School in McLean, Va., who gets to play Newton. "If we're not here this evening, it's because the people at the front gate wouldn't let us in.
(Posted by Traci Watson and David Jackson; photo by Pablo Martinez Monsivais, The Associated Press)
I have not seen anybody discuss the issue so far, so maybe the answer is so obvious that it is not worth the brief time to address this question: Is it really necessary for a healthcare reform bill to get the support of 60 senators? I understand the business about filibusters and cloture votes, but the press has implicitly assumed that, without exception, every senator who does not support the Senate legislation will automatically support a filibuster against the bill. Maybe this is true, but have our Senate leaders (along with former Senators Obama and Biden) even considered the possibility that one or a few senators might behave differently from what is assumed?
One famous TV newsman, who should know better, brought up the issue again yesterday about Barack Obama's "present" votes while in the Illinois State Senate. The implication was that Obama was too much of a weasel to vote for or against a proposed bill, so he voted "present" in a cynical attempt to avoid committing himself. The context of yesterday's reference was in relation to Obama's taking some time to consider his alternative courses of action if Afghanistan. In the Illinois state legislature, "present" has a specific meaning, of which most of Obama's critics are either ignorant or else willfully distorting the picture. In effect, "present" means the same thing as "nay" (or "no"), but is basically a signal that the legislator supports the intentions of the bill, but that the bill as written is too flawed to support. I bring this up now, only to illustrate that what may seem obvious is not necessarily so.
Back to the subject of getting healthcare reform through Congress, it appears that the House will pass some kind of a bill, the Senate will pass a very different kind of a bill, and hopefully a conference committee will work out some unified bill that the president can sign. This process is clearly difficult, and it is not yet certain that anything will eventually pass both houses of Congress. It would be a difficult task in any circumstances, but it is made much more difficult by the fact that a determined group of 41 senators can block any legislation. Even getting unity among the Democrats in the Senate seems impossible. Some of the progressives have indicated that they will absolutely refuse to support a bill that does not contain certain provisions, while some moderates in the same party apparently will refuse to support a bill that does contain those same provisions.
Is it at least possible that a small number of senators could be persuaded, even if the bill that emerges is personally disappointing to them, to invoke cloture? In other words, they might not vote in favor of the legislation itself, but they would agree to kill a filibuster that would prevent the Senate from voting the bill up or down. President Obama's popularity may not be as high as it was when he first took office (those poll ratings were never going to be sustainable), but he is still by far the most popular and admired politician in the country. There have got to be some senators who owe him, at minimum, the opportunity for a Senate bill to come to a floor vote. In addition, some "blue state" Republicans, most notably Olympia Snowe, might find it to their own political advantage to kill a filibuster, even if they do not support the bill. The Senate bill may not really need 60 votes.
I have previously written about my own preferences about what healthcare reform bill I would like to see enacted into law, but I will not rehash the arguments here, because that would confuse the more basic issue. Politically, Obama needs some kind of healthcare reform bill to pass, and I would rather see a disappointing healthcare reform bill pass than to have no healthcare reform pass. While the task is difficult, I believe it is at least possible that support by a slightly under 60 senators could be enough.
In a famous Sherlock Holmes story, one of the important clues was a dog that did not bark. In evaluating the early stage of the Barack Obama presidency, one of the significant achievements may be the depression that did not happen. Sure, unemployment is 9.8%, the highest rate since Ronald Reagan's first term, and the U.S. economy at this time is hardly the backdrop for bragging rights. What we will never know for certain is what would have happened in the absence of some of the controversial measures taken by Barack Obama during the first year of his presidency. The U.S. has experienced a nasty recession, but it could have been a great deal worse. It looks like the recession may be technically over, in the sense that the economy could show positive growth in the quarter that ended Sept. 30, 2009. The numbers are not in yet, but it looks likely that the recession is over, or about to be over. High unemployment will continue to be a fact for some time to come, and for those who are unemployed, it has to feel more like a depression than a mere recession that may be technically over.
Former Vice-President Dick Cheney tells anybody who will listen at Fox News that the previous administration kept America safe for 7+ years after the "9/11" terrorist attacks in 2001. Given the rest of the legacy of that administration, there is little to brag about. The most significant achievements of the Bush "43" record are the tax cuts and the Iraq War. Both were presented to the American public on a foundation of lies, although I really do not want to rehash the arguments here. My point is that the main positive legacy that Bush "43" officials emphasize is the disaster that did not happen: a major terrorist attack in the U.S. after 2001. I have always thought that this was an overblown claim, and that their careless disregard for constitutional rights was not a necessary component for keeping America safe. Still, for the sake of the moment, let's concede the argument that Bush-Cheney kept us all safe from the terrorists after you-know-what. It is obvious that Bush administration officials, who want to portray their record in as positive terms as possible, are counting on the absence of later terrorist attacks in the U.S. as an important positive element of their legacy. Their biggest credit, in other words, is not for something that actually happened, but for something that did not happen.
In a similar line of thinking, I believe that a major achievement of the first year of the Obama presidency is a disaster that did not happen: an economic depression reminiscent of the 1930's. There has definitely been a serious recession, and unemployment will remain uncomfortably high for many months after the resumption of positive economic growth. The recession was brought on by the collective actions of governments, companies, and individuals over a long period of time. President Obama inherited a bad recession, and irresponsible stewardship from the federal government during both Republican and Democratic administrations contributed to the problem. A long period of very low interest rates discouraged saving and encouraged increased debt. In effect, presidents and congresses continued to put off the needed changes, because it was easier to put off the day of reckoning and let their successors get the blame than to assume the responsibility themselves. It does no good for Obama to blame his predecessor(s) for the conditions confronting him. He knew what he was getting into, and he wanted to be president anyway. The U.S. economy is badly in need of certain adjustments, and there is no way to make those adjustments painless.
The U.S. economy may be starting to recover, but it will not feel very satisfying for quite some time. This would be the case, no matter who was president. Where I believe that Obama deserves some major credit is that the recession did not turn into a 1930's-style depression. It could have happened. The stimulus bill, which I thought was basically a good idea but not well executed, is criticized for being ineffective. It may have been ineffective in bringing down unemployment, but its main effect - and I don't know if Obama will ever get credit for this - is that it prevented a far worse economic downturn than what actually happened.
Economics columnist Robert Samuelson, who is hardly an apologist for Barack Obama, has an interesting column on the subject. Most of us, including yours truly, are not old enough to remember the 1930's, so we may sometimes be naive in characterizing a modern recession as being similar to the depression. This is not at all the case. Here is a link to Samuelson's column in today's (10/5/09) Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/?nid=top_opinions
How strange! I have, for sure, entered my Elizabethan Age, in Elizabeth CO (named after the sister-in-law of my ancester, John Evans (Governor of Colorado in the 1880's and founder of Evanston (Ill) and the University of Illinois)) and am still getting used to it, because I've been a Glewoodite for so many years. How many people do you know who have lived in one town for 36 years? feel like such an ancient, yet, I'm moving, to be closer to my grandkids and beloved daughter! Tell you what! It feels good, this oneness with changing, even in my old, unhealthy and poverty-stricken ancient age. Lordy, it is strange to live on half my usual income, but, surprisingly, I can, and am!
Choices!
So miserable about what is happening in the Senate with the public option ! So paid for, by the healthcare industry: so rotten, it makes me want to move to another place where public health is more valued than competition! What happened to the valuing of Human life, above all else, in this country? It's, unfortunately, way too much about money for me: I'm about to give up on all of this nutsy politics and live a happy, unconflicted life again, but I just can't leave my freind Primo Pres alone in what he's chosen to take on. What a great man this Mr. Obama is??!!!
I assure you it is very difficult putting yourself in the shoes of someone with cerebral palsy. fib
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Video about history of the Associaition:
http://www.overstream.net/view.php?oid=ruarngm0uusx
