We Have Socialism and other Repub Things

My definition of Socialism is not too technical. Basically I call socialism the step before communism.
Both of them just have the individual basically working for the good of the whole population. Here is a partial definition of socialism: "Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources" link While here is a short one for Comunism: "Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.[1]" link.

So now we have a Health Care Law. Socialistic Law? Here is an interesting link, video embedded from an investment guide.

I don't think that is how Socialism is supposed to work is it? I don't see the direct worker parts of this new law.
I admit I am not the brightest bulb so maybe I am wrong about this one.

Now let's talk about the grand old party. The Senate is "working on, debating" the next step. Not really.But the Grand Old Party is holding up any "work" the committees and subcommittees can do. John McCain, the brilliant one that gave us the "pox upon your head" Palin, said nothing else would get done this year. You thought he was blowin' hot air didn't you. Aw you know better. These guys are good.
video and text 

"In another move to block action by Democrats, Republicans invoked obscure Senate rules that prevent hearings from taking place without unanimous consent, resulting in the cancellation of a number of routine hearings Tuesday and Wednesday. " quote


Not quite as good as the 1995 shut down but let's not get to complacent. Who knows what else they will do. Don't remember the 1995 Shutdown? Here are a few things the Grand Old Party wanted to cut in the budget:

“That final provision, Mr. Clinton said in his veto message, "obligates the Government, Congress and the President to pass the Republican Congressional budget plan with its huge cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, education and technology, the environment, and its tax increases on working families." “ BATTLE OVER THE BUDGET: THE OVERVIEW;PRESIDENT VETOES STOPGAP BUDGET; SHUTDOWN LOOMS By ADAM CLYMER Published: NY Times, November 14, 1995

I guess the Grand Old Party has changed its collective mind about Medicare. here

Just on Prescription Drug law, Medicare part D:

“And unlike the Democratic bills, which won't add to the deficit, the bill George W. Bush signed was financed entirely through deficit spending. While Grassley and his colleagues accuse Democrats of harming Medicare through cost cuts, it is their bill that has done the most to hasten Medicare's coming insolvency. Between now and 2083, Medicare D's unfunded obligations amount to $7.2 trillion according to the trustees. Numbers like these prompted former Comptroller General David M. Walker to call it "... probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s."
Grassley is not alone in his incoherence. Of 28 current Republican senators who were in the Senate back in 2003, 24 voted for the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. Of 122 Republicans still in the House, 108 voted for it. There is not space here to fully review this hall of shame, which includes Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, and Orrin Hatch of Utah, among many others. Here is Kansas Republican Sam Brownback in 2003: "The passage of the Medicare bill fulfills a promise that we made to my parents' generation and keeps a promise to my kids' generation." Here is Brownback in 2009: "This hugely expensive bill will not lower costs and will not cover all uninsured." Here is Jon Kyl of Arizona: "As a member of the bipartisan team that crafted the Part D legislation, I am committed to ensuring its successful implementation. I will fight attempts to erode Part D coverage."* Kyl now calls Harry Reid's legislation: "a trillion-dollar bill that raises premiums, increases taxes, and raids Medicare." “ Slate

“Michael Steele racheted up the rhetoric in a last minute email urging supporters to help defeat healthcare, calling it a "headlong rush into socialism."
quote

So there we have it Socialism and newly found GOP love of Medicare. Maybe as the grand old party gets older it appreciates the wisdom that comes with old age?


Then we have this http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/24/bush-clinton-wipe/ Sneaky \little devil isn't he.

I was young and foolish then; now I am old an foolisher.
- Mark Twain, a Biography


And see this video: Bloggingheads NY Times

Balanced News? Don't Ask Me

Preface
This started out to be a post on Congress and ineptitude. Then it was about Congress taking over too much power. Then I wanted to write about both parties in Congress saying no to the Exec. Branch. (Rants)
But the more I researched an article I'd read the more I saw another post all together. Then even that changed to what you find below.
Sorry, this is a very long post but I don't want to shorten it. I thought about making it two posts but I don't want to interrupt the flow. I am not really sure how to break it up either. Consequently, the post is extremely long and time consuming. Just what a post should not be. Time is a valuable commodity these days.


Even when you try to get truly balanced news, you end up in a conundrum. (More Circles of Confusion) How does one tell which coverage is balanced? Don't ask me. I don't know. I am actually asking you.

Let's agree for purposes of this post that over-the-air TV and the 24-hour, cable or satellite, coverage is generally short and sweet. But they may give you enough information to seek out more in other news venues. The morning talk shows, the cable, satellite, “news” shows, will sometimes give another little piece of information whether right, center, or left. Now you are on your own. So you read papers or you go on-line and you take a time to check a little more for yourself. Yet, how do you know which article or writing is even trying to be balanced? You may find as I did you'll end up reading an article, trying to find more by and about the author of the article, trying to figure out who his/her real boss is, trying to find out for what the boss really stands(mission statements, other outlets, etc.). Too there are the weekly news magazines and “news” shows but I don't think you want me to get into that.

You could well spend a day or more doing all that investigation and determine you cannot find one person, place or thing that does not have an agenda, thereby a slant when covering the same news item. Of course I remember about psychological testing having, can't help but have, some subjective bias. With the use of statistics, use of large samples, and use of tests that can be replicated, the bias is lessened. However in reporting, writing, and editing, I figure there is bias-No matter how hard the people involved try to give balanced reporting. The reasons are many and the bias not always intended. The reader too comes to each article with a certain bias.

Now on with my search on a story about the Senate passing a bill on Iran Sanctions. The House had passed their version earlier. The two bills must be reconciled in the House-Senate Conference before going to the President.

While reading the NY Times on-line the other day, I saw this coverage: Senate OK's Sanctions on Iran's Fuel Suppliers. link Here is the first paragraph to get you started:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate on Thursday approved legislation that would let President Barack Obama impose sanctions on Iran's gasoline suppliers and penalize some of Teheran's elites, a move aimed at pressuring Tehran to give up its nuclear program.
(Note the use of the words “let President Barack Obama...”)
Please read the article further. At least read the other restrictions section near the end of the article.

I will give you one restriction as it pertains to some of the other articles I found:
Require the Obama administration to freeze the assets of Iranians, including Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, who are active in weapons proliferation or terrorism;
(Note the use of the words “Require the Obama administration...)

Remember these two quotations were found in the same news item.

Now look at this one from Baptist Press: Senate OKs tougher sanctions on Iran.
Here is the first paragraph:
The U.S. Senate approved increased sanctions on Iran's oil-related imports Jan 28 in a move intended to help prevent the extremist Islamic regime from developing nuclear weapons.

Further into the article :
The Senate's action came two days after Land and 45 other Christian leaders wrote to members of the body asking them to follow the example of the House.
(Land is Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. For further on the letter and those 45 others go here

From an articleYESHIVA WORLD NEWS: Schumer Announces Passage of Iran Sanction Legislation that Strengthens Efforts To Stop Iran From Getting Nukes
first paragraph:
Today, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer announced that the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009 has unanimously passed the Senate. The Iranian regime has engaged in serious human rights abuses against its own citizens, funded terrorist activity throughout the Middle East, pursued illicit nuclear activities posing a serious threat to the security of the United States, the Middle East Region, and our allies. The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act strengthens sanctions and supports the President as he pursues a dual track of engagements and sanctions. Schumer, in his role as a Banking Committee member, was instrumental in seeing the bill come to the floor for a vote. The House passed a much narrower sanctions package in December while the two bills now have to be conferenced, Schumer is vowing to fight to ensure the stronger Senate Language prevails.
(Note these words “strengthens sanctions and supports the President...”)

The article mentions a Sense of Congress on human rights and the like.

Turns out Sen. Schumer signs letters to the President also.
Two weeks ago, Schumer signed onto a letter from Senator Even Bayh urging President Obama to consider using sanctions on the books. (I think they meant to consider using the sanctions he had at hand)

You can read the whole letter at the end of the article.


Catholic press 
A very short one paragraph coverage by one of the Catholic press. Mainly it refers to Catholic leaders Bill Hudson and Bill Donahue, members of the above mentioned Christian Leaders for a Nuclear-Free Iran, and they supported and will continue to work for a nuclear free Iran. They do get two links to articles they wrote on the subject.

At this point I looked for world-view items. HereAl Jazeera English had an older article.
First Paragraph:
The US lower house of congress has approved legislation to levy sanctions on foreign companies that help supply fuel to Iran, as part of efforts to punish Tehran over its nuclear programme.

Further on there are interviews with Congresspeople about the bill. Issues are raised about the “concerns” of “U.S. Trading partners and allies...” And an interview with “Afshin Rattansi, a journalist based in Iran, told Al Jazeera: "I think what is happening in the House of Representatives demonstrates yet again a complete lack of comprehension of what is happening in the Middle East.”

There are more interviews with “supporters” and more reporting on the world views as well as a little of the Iranian views of its “nuclear programme”. The article ends by naming some of the companies involved and how they are reacting.

IPS, Inter Press Service News Agency,-The Story Underneath, had a lengthy article.
US: Obama Losing Control of Iran Policy
Here is the opening paragraph:
In a surprisingly swift move on Thursday night that could have wide-ranging implications, the U.S. Senate passed a bill containing broad unilateral sanctions to punish foreign companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand its domestic refiner capabilities.

These paragraphs relate back to the words “let” and “require” as mentioned in the NY Times article:
The contents of the bill require the president to impose the wide-ranging sanctions, restraining the traditional presidential foreign policy waiver to a line-by-line exemption that forces Obama to spend political capital. ... Another aspect of the Dodd bill raising eyebrows is the codification into law of an embargo against Iran by Pres. Bill Clinton in the 1990's. The Dodd bill requires Congress to approve the lifting of the embargo.

This writer, reporter, goes into more on the “human rights” debates. (I recommend you hunt that part.)
The article has much explanation of the maneuvering and has quotations from both Democratic and Republican Senators along with “neoconservative independent Joe Lieberman”. There are interviews with a member of the National Iranian American Council and other groups that support engagement with Iran.

So there you have it 6 articles from 6 different news agencies. Now you tell me which one we should declare as “fair and balanced”. (speaking of “fair and balanced”, I couldn't find much on the Senate passage subject on FOX news I found the AP item and so far 3 anti-Obama comments. If you find more feel free to comment.) I did not search the British news for this post. I am sure it would be interesting, but I really do have a little daily life.



(For a fun look at reporting from the BBC go to sobeale blog and watch the video posted on January 31.)

Hereis a serious look at the state of journalism.

Just as I Thought. They Did It

Me finding a hiding place


They Did IT

It is official a corporation is more of a person than you would think.
Sad but true.
All I can say is, I am not surprised.

Justice John Paul Stevens read a long dissent from the bench. He said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings. His decision was joined by the other three members of the court’s liberal wing.

(from the NY Times article)

I can see that the story says unions too. Oh joy. What about Lobbies? What about "citizens' groups"? Small and really small businesses? Let's all have at it! If you have lots and lots of money, have a good time. If you don't, well, sorry. (Not really, no one is sorry for the lack of power for the poor. They might actually have something to say.)
Well maybe the unions will pay attention to their members' wishes. That will be some balance to corporate spending. But, I fear with the loss of power and membership Unions won't be enough.
Maybe, just maybe, Congress will get busy and try again? Nah, they need all the money and future jobs they can get.
As you can probably tell, I don't like this one at all.

Sweet Lemons and Cold Weather

Politically speaking things just go along. As a liberal liberal I am not alone in feeling this way.
Hope for real health care reform is low. (People like me always try to find a sweet lemon somewhere. Though, I am having a hard time finding one.)
We got pretty much “Insurance Reform”-sort of. The insurance companies are getting more to cover and with little change on their part. And money flows like water still. Yes, I know previous conditions will supposedly go out the window. (Ah, that slice of sweet lemon, maybe.) That really is a great thing. I don't trust them though. I can't wait to see how insurance companies get around this one.

I will say I have a new appreciation for Sen. Reid. I didn't think he had it in him to push and shove and keep our Senators at it until he got some sort of agreement. As far as the deals cut. Most of them are not terribly consequential at least not in the long term. I may not like it but what interesting meetings and “discussions” were held for the past week. Of course now the two houses must come together and reconcile the bills. Just for learning sake I would love to hear the out of the public deals. This stuff would all be so interesting if it wasn't about the lives of people.

Now I wait to see if there are any real regulations for the investment banking industry. Doubtful.
Too Big to Fail will probably stay that way. However, they may find that the taxpayers won't be there for them anymore. Hey where are we supposed to get money to pay taxes anyway.

Let's see. What about the nation's borrowing, the government in our name. I agree there are times we just have to urge the economy by printing and borrowing but thanks to previous happenings, don't forget the previous administration, we were already in debt up to our eyeballs. Unemployment is high and not much happening to help. A December 26th article from the NY Times, you will not enjoy reading Recession Hovers as Winter Halts Construction Work. We are going through another dramatic change in the ways we can earn income-buggy whips anyone?
I was hopeful for a green economy but people are slow to move and Congress has to argue. More money flowing. Then, what about those who cannot restart. We are not all young and flexible. Will it take a generation or just a few years? Read the article in the Dec. 26th, NYTimes about the Earth-Friendly Elements we use. We just can't learn can we.

I get so much information from progressive groups but I don't get many answers. I get calls for, you ready, sign our petition and contribute. So many petitions I wonder if Congress pays attention to any of them anymore. Who gets the money contributed and why? Progressives need to pool their resources for a little while. That would make for a bigger lobby. But who will hold them together and for how long.

Here some slices of that sweet lemon. We can relax a little now about torturing people in our name; our civil rights at home are not in as much jeopardy; a few more people admit global warming; the present administration did take a little time to decide to send more troops into war; the President didn't say God told him to do send them. Oh, our V.P. hasn't shot anybody. The Republican party suddenly loves Medicare and seniors. The Republican party tried to hold up that awful defense spending-we shouldn't question the why of it. The Republican party that spent so much of our money is now worried about our spending. So see there are sweet lemons to be found.

Now there is the weather. We didn't get hit as badly as many. Most people made it through Christmas safely here. But, why is it there are certain folks who just can't stand staying home for more than a day? It is boring for many but the rest of us would like to relax for a short spell. No, not if you belong to a family of “macho” folks. Does this sound bright to you? Driving when you don't really need to do so; getting stuck so you have to have someone else come to your rescue. Or worse.

Oh, these are actually the kind of people that pay no heed to things like a health-care crisis until there is no such thing as health care except for the wealthy; let banks get too big too fail; depend on the mid-east for energy, destroy the planet; depend on other countries for loans, not countries that exactly care either. Why think ahead we are too busy thinking in the moment.

P.S. Now we are having tougher security at airports. Uh after the fact. Well, at least we try to learn. (sweet lemon)

Now, don't you wish I had stayed quiet.

Find the NY Times HERE.

Another Post Script

Now a Post Script to the Cannibalizing post:
''Taking money from a program already in financial trouble is not responsible,'' LeMieux said. ''It's not fair to our seniors who paid into the program, and it's not fair to our children and grandchildren who will be burdened with massive debt obligations.'' Sen. George LeMieux of Florida as quoted in the NY Times here
The Senator is speaking of Medicare but also now worries about people being forced onto Medicaid.

These guys are good.

Cannibalizing or Cannibalized, Which Is It?

As mentioned in a previous post, see the September 30th post While Watching the Senate.., the Republicans are now taking care of Seniors and Medicare. Interesting how the same words get used by the same party but in different contexts.

In an exchange and surprisingly adult conversation on ABC Sunday Morning, Sen. Schumer (D of NY) and Sen. Cornyn (R. of TX)discussed and agreed on much. Then it came. Sen. Cornyn must have realized he hadn't used any Republican talking points. Someone flipped a switch and the Seniors on Medicare became the victims of... are you ready...hold on...here it comes; "cannibalization". here is the link watch all of it.

How do they do it with a straight face? One minute seniors are cannibalizing; the next minute they are being cannibalized. Law of the Jungle-eat or be eaten? Do you remember Judge Janice R. Brown? I do.

I remember she said that today's seniors were cannibals and wanted all the free stuff they could get. quote here Now I am sure we were aware she was speaking figuratively but my point is the use of the word cannibalize. Judge Brown has a very interesting history both life story and words spoken. More about the 2004 appointments and the arguments here
and see for a speech listing more of the Judges statements

Why did Sen. Cornyn use that particular word? Did someone in the Repub. party do a poll back in 2000 to see if it got significant reaction? Did they decide that seniors did react in disgust so let's use it again but to another advantage?
One more way to scare seniors away from health care reform?

Who knows. I do know I reacted in both cases. I really got incensed when the Judge used it and Sunday I was first surprised then angered by the way it was brought out of mothballs.

By the way if you want some real laughs about words and the way they are used and the way things change check out Pres. G.W. Bush's acceptance speech at the 2004 Republican Convention.here

Of particular interest to me:

...This changed world can be a time of great opportunity for all Americans to earn a better living, support your family, and have a rewarding career. And government must take your side....

Thanks to our policies, homeownership in America is at an all-time high. Tonight we set a new goal: seven million more affordable home in the next 10 years so more American families will be able to open the door and say welcome to my home.

(Laughter here is allowed. Are we talking about tents? Actually the homes did get more affordable, or rather the "loans" did.)

Sorry, back to the speech:

...Because we acted to defend our country, the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are history...

"Mission Accomplished"

So yes, Politicians play with words. But, me thinks the Repubs. are the best at it.

While Watching the Senate on Cspan-2 one day...

While watching two Republican Senators on the floor of the Senate I just shake my head.
They are holding what is called a colloquy on the health care issues. A colloquy is a discussion. In the Senate, one Senator has the floor and is holding it, another Senator asks for a colloquy with the first and away they go. A colloquy is used while waiting on someone else to come to the floor or when the two involved have a scripted conversation and one has the floor time assigned to him or her.

These two just brought up a "fact". Seniors are against the health care bill thus far by 2 to 1 because they will lose some coverage under Medicare. These two, Republicans remember, are for the Seniors. Isn't the Republican party the one that not too many years ago was yelling about Seniors cannibalizing their children and grandchildren? Wasn't this the party that was wanting to do away with, fought against forever, Medicare? Isn't this the party that has had Medicare on their hit list since its inception?

But then there is this: These two are saying because the bill and the President want to cut the government subsidies to Medicare Advantage companies that is cutting Medicare. HUH? Please read this article from the Washington Posthere We, the taxpayers are subsidizing these companies.
Free enterprise? Capitalism at its finest? I think not? Government helping big business? I think.

My take on other articles I could find along with a little history of the Medicare Advantage program is that it started off saving then as with all these ideas to promote "outsourcing" the government to private contractors it now costs more than the government version. That too, is one of my concerns about a so-called "trigger" option for health care. The private sector insurers will keep costs down only as long as they have to do so.

Yes, and the two Senators want to put the bill up on the internet for 72 hours for the public to review and then 2 or so weeks for the public to comment back to them.
Isn't this the party that for the last 8 years did away with most of the Sunshine Law? Besides that little "fact", I really hope you will think about trying to read one of these bills. I often say I don't know how the Congresspeople do it. How does the staff for them do it? How does anyone do it? Well in the case of the Congresspeople they expect the staff to do it for them and fill them in on the fine print. The staff knows what the Congressperson, or the Party, wants to find or not find so that is what they get in their reports. Well, maybe not all staffers do it but my guess is most do-if they want the job for long.

More later, I must go check out the Senate,Circus Maximus, so-called debate now.
Later today I believe they will be debating Defense Spending.

Just found this