Friday, August 28, 2009


I grew up with my dad always telling me that as long as Ted Kennedy was around, everything was safe,” she said as she waited in line at the library to sign a condolence book.

With the death of Senator E. Kennedy, I, like some others, recall growing up. No, not just since I became politically aware. I mean childhood. A time when I was innocent and happy. Happy partly because I felt cared-for. I didn't have to think about health care, my parents did. I didn't have to think about feeding people, my parents did. I didn't have to think about the jobless rate, my parents did. I didn't have to think much about education, my parents did. All I had to think about was doing the chores they required of me and doing the work of children, play. I hope you are getting the point here.

Perhaps many of us, at this time, are in a quandary. We are like many teens. We want the protection of someone else to take our causes on their shoulders yet we want our independence. I call it the “push-me-pull-you” state. Perhaps we feel we are inadequate to take on the tasks at hand. For a short time we are back in Maslow's Safety Needs level, but we struggle to get back to the Self Actualization level. Or if you prefer the Growth Level of Alderfer.

Whatever the reasons, I am torn between looking backwards to the happy days of childhood and looking at the present of the hill here. The apple trees we planted that now produce fruit for the picking, the many flower gardens planted, and the natural areas are the here and now. Then my thoughts fly outward to the rest of the world and contemplate the future for those of the next generations. Sometimes knowing, as I do think of the future, much of that future will be the same past, it cannot be avoided. Future generations will have to go through their stages, or levels also. But, can those of us, my generation, now leave those of the next generations at the least the first 3 levels? The first 3 levels are physiological, safety, and belonging. Maybe not to the individual scale of life but maybe for the larger scale. Maybe we can leave the opportunity to achieve at least those first 3 levels on Maslow's scale.

So good-byes to the Senator and stories to tell for a few days then on to being the ones that keep trying.

The Challenges Are There

Wishing for past childhood blissful ignorance,
Wishing to stay in pleasant present ignorance,
Just leave me alone.

Offer me no challenges.

Knowing I cannot stay,
Knowing there is more,
You will not leave me alone.

The challenges are there.

Some I caused,
Some you caused,
Does it matter?
I will not leave you alone.

The challenges are there.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Ted Kennedy: Family Senator, Patriarch, Dead at 77 - ABC News

A final lesson that's never been more relevant: "Generations of aides recall Kennedy telling them the biggest mistake of his career was turning down a deal that President Richard M. Nixon offered for universal health care. It seemed not generous enough at the time. Having missed the opportunity then, Kennedy spent the rest of his career hoping for an elusive second chance,"

Ted Kennedy: Family Senator, Patriarch, Dead at 77 - ABC News

Shared via AddThis

I add this as a post script to the July 13th blog post Health Care Plans again.

On Senator Edward Kennedy and Other Things

Sad moment for us liberals sure needed him for pushing the health care. now what will we get stuck with.

The above quotation is from a family member upon reading about Sen. Kennedy's death. Maybe he should have said; sad moment for all who are below the poverty level, without health care, those of us who, for many reasons need a champion.

Sen. Kennedy was human. No doubt about that. But politically, he was a champion for those in need.
During the coverage of the Senator yesterday someone said the Senator quoted from the new testament. “But of everyone to whom much as been given, much will be required;...”( Luke 12: 48) to explain his political causes.

I am sure we will be thoroughly exploring the life of this man, the terrible and the wonderful for the next few days. To some of us the Senator's death is the end of an era. I was just taking note of politics and government when his elder brother was elected President. I cannot say whether it was the speeches of the man or my age that was responsible for the change in my attitude. And I will say Senator Kennedy was not the best example of a champion, in his personal life, until we both got older. I believe when he decided to stay in the Senate he may have been much disappointed in himself for not being able to live up to the perceived heights of his older brothers nor what he knew to be the requirements of his father. But with time and with settling down he became the champion needed.

There will be many who will keep reminding us of the Senator's failures and his awful behaviors, but that is to be expected. The far right blogs will attack on many levels. I used to say we need both extremes for balance and Senator Kennedy was one side of the political teeter-totter while Senator John Warner was perhaps the other. (I didn't agree with Senator Warner's policies but I enjoyed watching him give speeches on the floor of the Senate.)

Senator Warner, retired, was an old style legislator. These two Senators knew how to give great floor speeches, perhaps in different styles, but both knew how without attacking the opposition on a personal level. Both knew how to work behind the scenes. Both knew how to compromise and wait. My concern now is that we are left with a Senate that at least in public is at odds with itself and the most of the Senators are using the same argumentative, nasty, style that some of us do when “discussing” important issues.

The fulcrum of the teeter-totter Senate now appears to be moved. Many so-called centrists are moving to the so-called center just to say they are above the fray, making them somehow superior.

My hope is that as a few more Senators get comfortable with themselves and their constituents, they will become the great legislators we don't now have. And, the center will really be the center. The balance will return at least to the Senate. We need the right and we need the left to take turns and therefore, keep us balanced but we need great orators and legislators who do their jobs because they really believe in what they are doing.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

A Good Article on Why the Status Quo Must Go.

Dying for affordable healthcare — the uninsured speak

In a week of claim and counter-claim about the merits of healthcare provision in the US and UK, Ed Pilkington travelled to Quindaro, Kansas, to see how the poorest survive

Here is another reason the status quo must go. Guardian

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Health Care, The Status Quo Needs to Go.

Here is a personal story for you about health insurance coverage.
This is not one of those terrible stories but this is one of the more common ones that goes on everyday for people who have health insurance.

I must give you a little medical background first. My husband had an allergic reaction about 30 years ago. He is a frugal man and a person who tries to avoid hospitals at all costs. But after turning blue and other good things like that, he finally allowed someone to drive him to an emergency room-no ambulances for him either. Anyway he got there just in time. They gave him one of the “your heart is stopping shots”, you know, straight into the heart. Then he spent quite a while in ICU. So that is the early part of the tale. We never found out what caused it. He got the carry-these-pills-with-you-at-all times, take-one-and-call-an-ambulance-if-it-happens-again sermons as he was leaving. He did keep the pills with him for quite a while.

One evening recently he woke up with itching and burning, spreading fast, huge blisters forming etc. The pills would be no good after 30 years even if we did still have them. So, we go to emergency. You know this only happens when the Dr.'s office is closed. He got treated in short order. This time we were quicker the heavy doses of medicines worked and he didn't have to stay. Given another set of don't-take-a chance instructions again, we left. Things are fine thus far and we feel getting there more quickly this time saved a lot of fun for him and money too. We also are pretty sure this was a true emergency so that argument shouldn't come up.

So now last week we got the usual notices from the insurance company, Cigna, that they had received the bills and guess what-not paying one red cent. We have high deductible, $5000 family, but family does not include our son because he is 24 even though he is back in school full time, so family in our case is 2. We have high-patient-pays-about-everything-all-the-time deductible, but-we-will-negotiate- for-you insurance. Kind aren't they. The more they can negotiate for me the lower the chances I will ever see the $2500 deductible. Duh.

So I just sent the med center over $800 and the Dr's part will be over $300 when that bill comes. (I do not begrudge our med clinic, a good one, nor the ER Dr. one cent.)

We are retired and not quite old enough for Medicare. We are not wealthy. But we feel we are in fair financial shape. Yes, we saved and we invested for 30 some odd years. But $1100 to $1200 is a tad more than pocket change to us. Guess what. Once we reach the $2500 per person deductible they will start to pay 80% maybe. We always figure we will just pay most of any medical bills, so what do you do? We are not terribly unhealthy so just figure we will pay it and lump it.

In a short time we will be Medicare people. Guess what else. My husband worked for a company that had retiree insurance, one big reason he stayed with them when he didn't want to do so and when they were trying to figure out how to get him out. He hung in there because we knew we needed the insurance. They called it then, “the golden handcuffs”. Now when I say retiree insurance I don't mean it is all paid for; we pay some, and the company pays some. We were informed, several years ago, that when we hit Medicare we will no longer have much coverage, just call it basically gone, from the company insurance. We will no longer have the opportunity to get the drug coverage, we will no longer have dental insurance. The company does not pay for dental they get us a good deal and we pay that ourselves. And on it goes. The options we have had through the last 5 years have slowly disappeared anyway.

We have been a thorn in the side for quite awhile anyway. We live in small, rural area, with a great county med clinic and a good doctor but we cost the insurance company more because we can't be forced into an HMO-too far away.

Now I want you to know my family and I are lucky, well maybe not just luck, but some is luck. We are lucky that our health is fair-to-middlin; we are lucky we have any insurance still. We know these things. We are better off than most of the people we know.

What started me thinking about all this? The Med. Clinic just called because they realized we had a large bill and wanted to know if we needed help or wanted to set up a payment plan. I thanked the lady and said no. I told her we didn't figure on much ever from insurance we just keep hanging on to the insurance for the big catastrophes. Well, the catastrophes that the insurance company won't drop us over. I told the nice lady that called that these things are partly why the insurance company can figure I will do what I can, in my little way, to get “HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM”.

Now that I told you this little story go to a PBS station find the Bill Moyer's Journal, kind of a rerun but needed, on why we need “health care reform”. It will definitely remind you of why as President Obama says, maintaining the status quo is not an option.

link to PBS is; here.

Washington Week in Review was just excellent this week also here is the link to that show. here

Sunday, August 16, 2009

To Frank Rich August 16

Frank Rich wrote a very interesting column in the NY Times.
Here is a quotation from it.
It’s through this prism we might re-examine the raucous town hall eruptions this month. Even if they are inflated by activist organizations and cable-TV overexposure, they still cannot be dismissed entirely as made-for-media phenomena made-to-measure to fill the August news vacuum. Nor are they necessarily about health care. The twisted distortions about “death panels” and federal conspiracies “to pull the plug on grandma” are just too unhinged from the reality of any actual legislation. These bogus fears are psychological proxies for bigger traumas.

The column was about Mad Men, the 60's and 2009. I was too late to post a comment on the column so I post my thoughts here.

Wrong on bogus fears.
Yet right on bogus fears.

My husband and I sent links to a very funny blog, answers to health care questions, to many people we know. It was an extremely funny blog post. It was sarcastic irony at its best.
To our surprise, though why we were surprised I do not know, several people took it seriously. What has been and is wrong with our educational system? Or is it as a friend reminded me. “Just remember the average IQ is 100. Therefore about half the people are below the average.” (He was being sarcastic)

Many people do believe the “bogus fears” about pulling the plug on grandma and some government panel deciding who can have treatments for ailments. They already live with insurance companies doing some of this so the fear of government doing it is easy to accept. Grandma is told that she is sapping the younger generation, “your kids or grandkids”, by taking Social Security and Medicare. By the way, Grandma probably paid into the system for years and is helping support those "kids and grandkids". So Grandma may believe it is possible that some may well want to pull the plug. (Why is it Grandma and not Grandpa we talk about in this context?)

We have lived as if addicted to consumerism. Many of us who could afford it have not paid attention to our own health and expect a drug to “take care” of any problem that arises from it. More consumerism because of the constant barrage of drug ads. We are told over and over that our educational system is failing. Yet, there are no real answers forthcoming and most of us don't take time to demand real answers. And the kids in school hear that their schools are no good-so why stay in the system. We talk about our kids as products-consumerism mentality. Some of us buy things to learn how we too can be among the wealthy classes. We frantically purchase anything and everything. We now see programming on how to save money, yet keep spending, by purchasing things we don't need at discount stores or flea markets. We purchase goods from many of these discount stores that are made in China to undercut our own economy. At the same time we are told saving and investing is great, but then told by saving now we hurt the economy.

Yes, there are so many anxieties. Many of us are watching as the economy is in a mess. We fear, maybe it is a fear well-grounded in reality, the government is not paying attention to “we the people”. There is no government watching or regulating much of anything. It seems corporations and various industry coalitions have purchased control. Is anyone going to really do anything about “too big too fail”. Really do anything. The very air we breathe is in question. Yet, some of our government is saying we can't change now the economy can't take it. The debt to China is concerning at the least. The deficit and the debt are in numbers we cannot even picture or read. The TV media, and much of the print media, jumps quickly from “hard news” to the latest scandal from any sector-cultural or business or … Why? Because we, the consumers, want to forget all the anxieties we cannot control. And business wants us to keep watching and reading so they can advertise at us; therefore to keep us spending.

We do feel “Don Draper's disorientation”.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Getting Money Out of "OUR" Government, maybe

When you look at what is happening with the so-called health care reform maybe you are like me thinking why. Answer:There is a huge problem--the monies the lobbies and the corps spend. This problem seems to rear its ugly head issue after issue.

So what to do???
Maybe the answer lies in campaign reform.
Meanwhile, the states have been plagued by the same problems afflicting campaigns for federal office. As the costs of campaigning for statewide office and state legislative seats skyrocketed over the last few decades, legislators have begun to place greater emphasis on fundraising. PACs, ,
and large donors have played an increasing role as sources of campaign revenue, and incumbents have been outspending challengers by larger and larger sums.

About the only way I can think of to change the balance is to challenge the way “our” elected officials get money for campaigns. But, what about the free speech issue and freedom of the press? And See:

Basically the courts say that candidates' must be given the right to opt in or out of any system of campaign finance. Maine is one state where the court upheld their version because it is voluntary.
The Maine law is a little different though:

Maine's campaign finance law, known as the Clean Elections Act is different from those in other states because those who agree to accept public funding must forgo any private contributions (beyond a small amount of "seed money" and qualifying contributions) and run an entirely "clean" campaign.
The law was passed by Maine voters in a referendum in 1996 and came into effect in 2000. Candidates who demonstrate citizen support by collecting a set number of $5 qualifying contributions from voters within their districts (50 contributions for a State House race, 150 for the state Senate, and 2,500 for a gubernatorial race) are eligible for fixed and equal campaign funding from the Clean Election Fund. To receive their money, candidates must agree to forgo all private contributions (including self-financing), and limit their spending to the amount from the fund.

Other states have “clean election” laws.

A Supreme Court decision in January 2000, Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, was the court's first ruling on campaign contributions and free speech since Buckley v. Vale. In it the court essentially reaffirmed Buckley vs. Valeo, by allowing state limits to campaign contributions, but not spending, so long as the contribution limit was not "so the sound of a candidate's voice below the level of notice, and render contributions pointless." However, the decision did counter a trend whereby federal courts have recently been striking down contribution limits even above the $1,000 (per individual) permitted in Buckley v. Valeo.
As of 2008, five states have passed "clean election" laws, laws that provide public money for state election campaigns if a candidate agrees to strict spending limits.
Maine was the first state to enact such a law, by voter referendum, in 1996.
In June 1997, Vermont became the first state to pass a bill modeled after the Maine law through its legislature. Both laws served as models for the clean election initiatives passed by Arizona and Massachusetts voters in November, 1998. The Massachusetts law, however, was repealed by the legislature in 2003. Connecticut's legislature passed a clean election bill in 2005, and it was amended in 2006 to remove an unnecessary step for third party candidates.
New Mexico expanded the program to include candidates for judgeships on the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of New Mexico in 2007.
New Jersey's legislature passed a clean elections pilot project in 2004, which put into place two legislative districts for the November 2005 election. Following its success, three more districts have been selected to be part of the 2007 Fair and Clean Elections Pilot Project.
Out of State Contributions
Out-of-state or out-of-district campaign contributions corrupt the political process because an elected official may become more beholden to these contributors than to the community she represents. Alaska and Oregon have adopted limits on out-of-state or out-of-district contributors. Both have been overruled by federal courts as violations of the First Amendment. While the Oregon law has been repealed, the Alaska law has been suspended and is on appeal in the Alaska Supreme Court.
Because these laws so well embody the principles of localism and republicanism, the New Rules Project offers them here as models that should be reinstated.

All this is really great but as long as it is voluntary, in the name of free speech, I am not sure what good it all is. (By the way another thought just occurred to me. Note the Out of State restriction on Alaska's law. Maybe this is why Palin left office early? Why wait for the Alaska Supreme Court to decide. Maybe you just run from another state?)

I really do hate“Out of State Contributions”. It lets any big group, or its lobby, to select even your state and local candidates for you. Suppose you are big Energy and there is a reliable Energy candidate in some state-you will put your money where their mouth is. Now I realize too that the reverse may be true, Green Energy may like a candidate in your state or local government so they can back them.
But shouldn't each state's population be deciding their own government therefore their own laws and taxes spent. Maybe that wouldn't work either. Some would just move from a red state to a liberal blue state somewhere. Or the conservative would move to a nice red state. Actually this is happening on a small scale already. Well, one thing about it when the media draws its election forecast maps it would be easier. Or would some pay somebody else to move into the opposite view state. Hey this has the makings of a great movie or short story.
So just as the health care laws are difficult and hard to write, I can imagine the nightmare of election reform. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy and laws are, or at least should be, difficult to write. But, it may be the only chance we have to get at least some money out of the system.

For those who love charts and statistics here is an interesting site.

Here is a link to a “working paper”, for a forthcoming book, on campaign finance “after Obama”. The beginning sentence is an attention grabber about the total collapse of public funding for Presidential campaigns.

I highly recommend you visit Vote Smart to take a look information on Congresspersons. It is an excellent site. I thought about volunteering to work for them years ago. Very fair-minded site. I couldn't get their widget added but will try again. Also this group may be one to consider a donation if you can.

Then too maybe we just need to redefine corporations as entities when it comes to the Constitution. This will be the next post.

P.S. Note the italics on the section about the "Oregon law". I stand corrected by Dan(please see comments section). He states it is not a law it is an amendment to the Oregon Constitution and has not been repealed. Also see where they were working to change

Project Vote Smart - Member Internships

Project Vote Smart - Member Internships

Shared via AddThis

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Stories on both Medicare and Private Insurers

Many nurses are "single-payer" supporters. Here are some anecdotal stories to show why. companies already decided who deserves to live and who deserves to die and if you want the real truth about what our healthcare industry does to it's people work in the industry for 33 years. Hope and pray you don't need a specialty mattress to prevent bed sores because you won't get it until you have a stage IV bed sore and that is one that goes through muscle, soft tissue and to the bone because insurance won't approve the fee for the rental even in the hospital and I could go on for days. I do not trust our government to initiate any plan of any kind that benefits the patient because it might impact the insurance companies,pharmaceuticals and big paying lobbyist in a negative manner and after all they can afford to pay, if they are charged which many times they aren't, for the best of the best. I have worked home health, ER, ICU, case management and have seen first hand the tragedies that follow private insurance decisions , etc , etc, etc. I am ready to leave this country for good and regret not taking that job in Canada that I was offered 3 years ago.

...if you are crippled and need a lift chair to get from a sitting to standing position or visa versa Medicare will pay for the motor and you have to purchase the chair or maybe you could just sit on the motor.

1- Medicare denied payment for replacing a bone plate in a woman's skull because not having the bone replaced after brain surgery was not life threatening (she could wear a helmet to protect the soft spot left by removal of the bone 2- Private insurance refused to allow a patient with a rare muscle cancer to be transferred to an out of network hospital because her prognosis was too grave and the treatment that was only available at an out of network hospital only promised her 24 mos to live , now she will die in 3 or less and die in agony. So what are they really proposing to change. The last lady was 37 and had 2 young children, but she had no say so in the matter, unless she wanted to foot 100% of the bill and she could not afford that.

Friday, August 7, 2009

What a mess.

As I read this morning; liberals- President Obama's supporters, are not fighting back against the mobs threatening the town-hall meetings of Congresspeople. I read there are even death threats received by some Congressmen. How do you fight that kind of mentality? I am too old and too little to brawl.

What Can Be Done?
It's time that this whole shabby (and insane) business be exposed, vilified in run out of town on a rail by whatever responsible Republicans -- if any -- that are still in the party and who want to see the fortunes of their party revived. Republican leaders taking insurance industry money via lobbying firms and using it to organize what amounts to roving bands of thugs not only need to be exposed but thrown out of the public debate forever.  They should become absolute pariahs.  

It's time to give this garbage in name: insurance industry funded fascism.
Right-Wing Turncoat Gives the Inside Scoop on Why Conservatives Are Rampaging Town Halls

By Frank Schaeffer, AlterNet. Posted August 7, 2009.

Of course Republicans aren't the only ones getting monies from the health-care big boys. But they are the ones behind most of the mobs.

Then too there are the brilliant ones at FOX news. Here is a fine example of the brilliant bulbs' work. (Be sure to read what the real story is on the great conspiracy.)
Beck conspiracy theory: "Cash for clunkers" site lets Feds control your PC, by Jed Lewison Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:32:03 AM PDT

So all an older lazy person like me is try to put out the REAL word as best they can find anyway.

Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform
By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, August 7, 2009

Here is another interesting viewpoint to read. You Do Not Have Health Insurance
Wednesday 05 August 2009by: James Kwak as posted on

And now in defense of President Obama in general. Let's have a little list of unimportant accomplishments for which this President is responsible.
Unemployment is slowing earlier than expected. (We know how we got the high numbers in the first place now, don't we. I don't think the present Administration caused it.)
We have a new Supreme Court Justice. (Not a right-winger either.)
The Cash for Clunkers program is working better than expected. (Now, why is it we needed it? Oh, previous administration again.)
Soldiers are leaving Iraq. (Don't blame this President if Iraq becomes a mess either. We all know how we got there.)
There are more soldiers and equipment in Afghanistan. (If you are going to have war, at least put some effort into it. Previous Administration again.)
As of yesterday the DOW was up 17% since President Obama took office. (Can we remember how we got this mess in the first place?)

So when this President is losing poll numbers, I think we have very short memories and expectations were very high when he won the election. But, read Vanity Fair, February, 2009 and you will think this guy is a gift from above.

The right and corporate America use tactics learned from Bush's great one, Karl Rove. What a guy!
From the Vanity Fair article this quote: “I remember that Rove was out there talking at some events about how we'd use 9/11, run on 9/11 in the midterms and that it was important to do so.” (Scott McClellan) And: “Karl wasn't receptive to ideas that would've called the country to certain things and brought them to a common purpose...Karl came from a perspective of you defeat people in politics by calling one side bad and one side good.” (Matthew Dowd)

There is an article too in the issue Fannie Mae's Last Stand. . “...But, for decades, Fannie Mae had been under siege from powerful enemies, who resented its privileged status, its hard-driving C. E. O.'s, and its huge profits.”

And please don't give me the old stuff like: “That's right bring up Bush.” I will and I shall.
He is responsible for the messes with which this President is dealing. Future Presidents will be dealing with them too for a long time to come. We all will! Eight years of disasters leaving a legacy for years and years to come. I still wonder if that was the plan all along.

Saturday, August 1, 2009

A Moth to a Flame, Drawn in by the Media.

Well I have many thoughts about many things going on right now. For what that is worth.

Let's see the military-industrial complex is cooking right along. Read this one entitled Earmarks Fill Up Defense Spending Bill by Stephanie Condon.:

Here is another: House approves defense spending bill, cuts funding for F-22 fighter amid Obama veto threat by Ben Pershing/ Washington Post

Then there is Health Care Reform. Or some mild form of regulation, some tweaking of the present system but not really health care reform. (Well unless you are an insurance company who will get to add lots of folks you probably threw out of the system back into the system with someone else paying for it.) According to the media “we the people” are torn between wanting something done and fearing to have something done. Now how could that be so? Maybe it is the monies being spent to stop any real reform?

Michael Winship, Truthout: "This week, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that in the second quarter of this year alone, the pharmaceuticals and health product industries spent $67,959,095 on lobbying, and the insurance industry $39,760,477. Another $25,552,088 was spent by lobbyists for hospitals and nursing homes. That's a total of $133,271,660 in just three months, and that's not even counting the lobbying money spent to fight health care reform by professional associations like the US Chamber of Commerce."

And to those who were so concerned about the rush to get something done this ought to be a fun month ahead for TV advertising budgets. I am sure the ads will be very informative and educational. You really don't need to attend any town hall meetings by your so-called representatives. Save gas. Look up their records and their donors and you will get the answers to your questions.

Also I ask you to remember the history of Health Care Reforms since who knows when. Always the same arguments. The only thing that may be different this time is the big boys such as Pharma and Insurance Companies are saying they are all for health care reform while sneaking around on The Hill. See Wendell Potter's blog for more much more on this one.

Or read about Mr. Potter here.

Then let us think of the “media”. They seem to be thrilled that the President's poll numbers are dropping a bit. I guess anything to get excited about instead of trying to explain any of the above to us poor unfortunates. Let US Argue again.

If that won't get the arguments started maybe race?

Let's see President Obama said the police acted “stupidly”. Probably right here. Dr. Gates probably was upset too. So now take a step back. If you are any color other than white in this country, you are very noticeable. Seriously think about it. If you drive a visually sporty car on a crowded highway, you are probably going to get watched harder and pulled over more often whether you speed or not. Now you have the police officer probably very proud of his work on racial profiling-professor Gates gets a little in his face. Dr Gates is preset to react. Can't say as I blame him. The officer now is indignant.-how could he, of all police officers, be accused of racial profiling.

But the point is really the media. I will grant that this is a terrible societal situation and I will say I am extremely glad I wasn't handcuffed and taken “downtown”. But the media enjoyed the leap from health care reform to racial profiling just a little too much. It had more argument appeal.

Seems as though I also recall the media coverage of the stimulus isn't working blah, blah, blah. The President polls are down, blah, blah, blah. Now note the media coverage of the stimulus may be having some effect after all. Some but not much. I did note someone mention Bernanke's name in a positive way but pragmatic President Obama got something about him trying to once again control expectations. I do love the media. Oh and the “Cash for Clunkers” success gets coverage about how it was running out of money then got more money but not much about it actually was working to stimulate the economy. I say again: I love the media. If there is a way to downplay successes and keep arguments going they will find it since Bush duped them and they find more money and audience in hype and “star-power”.

So there you are my many thoughts on many things. Twisted-maybe, angry-some, but they are my thoughts and that is the name of the blog after all. Now it is your turn, have at it.