Health Care vs. Death Care

It seems that every discussion I hear, or read, on the subject of "HEALTH CARE" seems to degenerate into a discussion of "DEATH CARE", with suggestions on how we can obtain "end of life counseling", draw up the "when to terminate" papers, etc.

Sorry, folks, I've been financially supporting this pyramid scheme called the Federal Goverment my entire life, and if you think I'll be "eased out" gracefully now, think again. Boomers never did anything gracefully and we're not about to start now.

With an aging population in this country, and Boomers (such as me) in their late 50s, 60s and 70s, it's clear that some people are very worried about the major impact that WE WILL have on the health care system as a whole (not to mention Social Security, etc.) I'm sorry if we are about to become a "strain" on the system, but excuse me if I won't "get out of the way" in the interest of financial viability.

It sounds remarkably like a "reduction of liabilities" strategy in trying to save a failing business. The fact is, though, in this case the LIABILITIES are PEOPLE and, as one of those people, all of this talk is unsettling.

While I'm not arguing that brain-dead individuals be put on machines to keep oxygen in their blood, I AM arguing that "quality of life" cannot necessarily be pre-determined and it certainly cannot be determined by another.

I'm HERE, I'm AGING and I'll be damned if I'll forfeit so much as a day of my life in the interest of the "system" or the "needs of the many". We were in the streets 40+ years ago and, if need be, we'll be back out there, albeit on walkers and wheelchairs - and this time it will be personal.

Question: What if Bush had done this?

Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet

Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a "kill switch" to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks, a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties.

Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 emerged late Thursday, months after an initial version authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., was blasted in Silicon Valley as dangerous government intrusion.

"In the original bill they empowered the president to essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a 'cyber-emergency,' which they didn't define," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents the telecommunications industry.

"We think it's a very bad idea ... to put in legislation," he told FOXNews.com.

Clinton said the new version of the bill that surfaced this week is improved from its first draft, but troubling language that was removed was replaced by vague language that could still offer the same powers to the president in case of an emergency.

Well, at least they replaced that "troubling" language by "vague" language.....feeling better now?

Well, she's a moron, but at least she's consistent...

....on the other hand, maybe she's just a media whore.

Sheehan returns to rebuke Obama

After spending weeks dogging George W. Bush's presidential vacations, anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan is now trying to make life uncomfortable for President Barack Obama.

Sheehan used to pitch a peace camp near Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, becoming a symbol of the anti-war movement after her son Casey died in action in Iraq.

On Thursday, she and a band of anti-war protesters turned up outside the media center used by journalists covering Obama's vacation on the well-heeled east coast resort island of Martha's Vineyard.

Suckers!

Some Surprised By 'Clunker' Tax

Obama giveth, and Obama taketh away:

But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable.

"They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out," Nelson said.

ABC's John Stossel vs. Obamacare

Once again, Stossel hits it out of the park.

Health Care and the Boomers

The big group that has not yet been discussed in this Heath Care debate is not “Grandma and Grandpa”; it’s the Baby Boomers, of which I am one.

My generation, this big lump of humanity flowing through the body politic, has transformed American society for the last half-century, or more, and we will continue to do so until we die – and when we die, we will transform the mortician industry.

Well, let me tell you something, since the Clinton era, I’ve been hearing about “Big Insurance” and Big Pharma” being spoken about as they were the dragons to be slain in search of “Health Care reform”. I have to say, I’m not so sure about that and never was.

I’m 56. In the last year, I’ve had some pretty serious health issues; I was treated by a “Big Hospital” corporation and “Big Insurance” picked up the tab - and the tab was enormous. I now take a myriad of medications that, keep me alive and productive. All of these medications were developed by “Big Pharma” and are being subsidized by “Big Insurance”. During this debate on Health Care, I have to ask myself how I would have fared under a government-run system.

In short, where would I be now, under the care of “Big Government”, better off or worse off?

Now, let’s take this one step further. We Boomers are aging and all of these health issues will only get worse. Sure, we’ve had our fun with the “Death Panels”, but seriously, when Boomers are in their 80s or 90s and are subject to a government system, how will the scarce resources be distributed?

By then, we will have likely bankrupted the Social Security system and we will likely come close to bankrupting a national health care system. So, will finite resources be expended to keep us alive, or will those resources be funneled to the “more productive”?

If you are younger, don’t contemplate that fate of the Boomers, contemplate your own fate; you’re next on the list.

It's All About Priorities

The Obama Administration: Making America safe from...........inflated invoices?

Lebanese man is target of first rendition under Obama

Contractor Raymond Azar is arrested in Afghanistan, hooded, stripped and flown to the U.S. His alleged crime? Bribery. A human rights activist calls the case 'bizarre.'

Reporting from Alexandria, Va. - A Lebanese citizen being held in a detention center here was hooded, stripped naked for photographs and bundled onto an executive jet by FBI agents in Afghanistan in April, making him the first known target of a rendition during the Obama administration.

Unlike terrorism suspects who were secretly snatched by the CIA and harshly interrogated and imprisoned overseas during the George W. Bush administration, Raymond Azar was flown to this Washington suburb for a case involving inflated invoices.

Azar, 45, pleaded guilty Tuesday to conspiracy to commit bribery, the only charge against him. He faces a maximum of five years in prison, but a sentence of 2 1/2 years or less is likely under federal guidelines.

Defense lawyers and prosecutors declined to comment on the case Friday.

But Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counter-terrorism director at Human Rights Watch, called the case "bizarre."

"He was treated like a high-security terrorist instead of someone accused of a relatively minor white-collar crime," she said.

No "rendition" of actual terrorists and certainly no waterboarding, but inflate invoices, and you get stripped naked, hooded, photographed and spirited half way across the world.

Notice the somewhat passive reaction to this situation adopted by Human Rights Watch and imagine if this has been done by the Bush administration.

"Bizarre' doesn't even begin to describe it.

A Reciprocating Saw Would Be REALLY Scary

Report: CIA Conducted Mock Executions of Detainees

WASHINGTON -- The CIA's internal investigator found that interrogators conducted mock executions of terror suspects and in one case threatened a detainee suspected in the USS Cole bombing with a gun and power drill, congressional officials said late Friday.

The disclosure is contained in a 2004 report by the CIA's inspector general, which has keep secret and is to be released next week, two officials told The Associated Press. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not yet been cleared for release.

The report's findings were first reported by Newsweek on its Web site Friday night.

In one case, interrogators brought a gun and power drill into a session with suspected Cole bomber Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, the report says. The homicide bombing of the warship USS Cole killed 17 U.S. sailors in Yemen in 2000.

In another episode, a gunshot was fired in a room next to a detainee to make the prisoner believe another suspect had been killed, according to the report, which a federal judge has ordered to be made public Monday in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

I have to say that I have no problem with scaring the piss out of terrorists. As for the ACLU, enemy combatants have no "civil liberties", so perhaps they should confine their efforts to people who do.

Obama's Hemorrhagic Spending Continues Apace

Obama to raise 10-year deficit to $9 trillion

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.

That's an increase of 26.6%, but who's counting? Certainly not the President. And remember, he's only been there for 7 months.




Graphic courtesy of gunzip.weebly.com

I DO Want to See This Movie!

Jews killing Nazis, with extreme prejudice What's not to like?

Do Muslims Celebrate Terrorism? Well, Yes.

I would like to say this is stunning, but it's not really stunning at all. This is the video of Libyan Bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, responsible for the murder of 270 innocent people in the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland, after his "Humanitarian" release.

Reportedly he's dying of cancer; may his trek toward death be long and agonizing.

Met by throngs of Libyans, he's a national hero. No shame and no regret, just celebration for this monster.

When can we say that Islam is an impediment to human progress and no more than a means to satisfy primal blood lust? NOW?

Domestic Air Travel, Afghan Style

Those who know me know that I travel a lot by air; generally 4 days a week. I take a very early flight out in the morning and usually a late flight out in the evening. This amounts to 10 hours working and another 3 commuting.

Needless to say, I spend a a great deal of time in airports and I often observe the American public - let's fact it, an airport is a fairly representative microcosm of America- and I'm often depressed by what I see.

I came across this posting about domestic air travel in Afghanistan by an American blogger reporting from that sad corner of the world. Needless to say, I'm feeling much better about my lot now, and that of America.

The following pictures are from Herat, Afghanistan, of the domestic Airport, provided by said blogger, JD Johannes. hit his tip jar, he's doing good work there!

The Afghan "Jet Set"(where's the Starbucks?):

The airport and tower:

Baggage Claim:

It makes O'Hare look like Oz!

Test Post

Sitting in the airport in CLT and just thought that I would do a test post with my Palm Pre.  I've had this gizmo for about a month now, and I have to say I like it!  The only problem I've had with it is the cover over the USB jack broke off, but my BlackBerry didn't have a cover over its USB jack so who cares?

I'm on the road so much that this seems to be a good option.  Why didn't I think of this before?

The Missing Two Words (Still Missing)

President Obama's opening remarks at today's press conference are below. Basically, they're a rehash of Saturday's remarks and, once again he fails to even utter the two words; FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.

Why is it so difficult for the President to enunciate the principles for which we stand?

The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they – and only they – will
choose.

The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing.

This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion. That is what Iran’s own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.

The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they – and only they – will
choose.

The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing.

This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion. That is what Iran’s own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.

The Missing Two Words

After a week of inexplicable silence on the subject of Iran, President Obama finally issues a statement. Note that the tone of the statement is rather tepid, and that neither the words FREEDOM or DEMOCRACY appear once. Not even once.

The situation in Iran is all about freedom and democracy! The Leader of the Free World, after waiting a week, makes a flaccid statement that doesn't even include the words that define us, as Americans, and that represent the concept for which the Iranian people are risking their lives?

The excusion is disgraceful.

His remarks of today:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it mustrespect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

A Week Later, Obama Still Mum on Iran. Why?

A full week after Iran's clearly fraudulent "election", President Obama remains conspicuously reticent on the subject; no forceful denunciation of the Mullahs and no verbal support for the protesters.

As I wrote below, the President famously campaigned on the slogan "Hope and Change", yet as the Iranian people flood the streets, literally risking their lives in a bid for "Hope and Change", the President does not even feel compelled to pay them lip service.

If the President of the United States will not champion democracy, who will?

Yesterday, Iran's "Supreme Leader", Ayatollah Ali Khamenei clearly stated what is to come:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's supreme leader sought Friday to end the deepening crisis over disputed elections with one decisive speech—declaring the vote will almost certainly stand and sternly warning opposition leaders to end street protests or be held responsible for any "bloodshed and chaos" to come.

But a first sign of possible resistance came shortly after nightfall in Tehran. Cries of "Death to the dictator!" and "Allahu akbar"—"God is great"—rang from rooftops in what's become a nightly ritual of opposition unity.

The sharp line drawn by Iran's most powerful figure, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is a gambit that pushes Iran's opposition to a pivotal moment: either back down or risk a crushing response from police and the forces at Khamenei's disposal—the powerful Revolutionary Guard and their volunteer citizen militia, the Basiji.

Also yesterday, the President reiterated his "position":

WASHINGTON — With Iran on a razor’s edge after a week of swelling protests, the Obama administration has fended off pressure from both parties to respond more forcefully to the disputed election there. But if Iranian authorities carry out their latest threat of a more sweeping crackdown, the White House would reconsider its carefully calibrated tone, officials said Friday.

Administration officials said events this weekend in Tehran — when demonstrators plan to rally in defiance of the authorities — would be a telling indicator of whether President Obama would join European leaders and lawmakers on Capitol Hill in more harshly condemning the tactics of the Iranian government.

Congressional Republicans and conservative foreign-policy experts stepped up their pressure on the White House to take a firmer stand in support of the demonstrators, even as Mr. Obama worked to keep Democrats from breaking openly with him on Iran.

For now, administration officials said they had not been swayed by criticism that Mr. Obama’s refusal to speak out more had broken faith with democracy advocates in Tehran, or by the fact that European leaders and even members of his own party in Congress had responded more assertively than he had.

In an interview with CBS News on Friday, Mr. Obama spoke cautiously about warnings by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, of bloodshed if the protests go on. “I’m very concerned, based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made, that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching,” Mr. Obama said.

First, when European leaders, such as Germany and France and the U.S. Congress are out in front of the President in a foreign policy crisis such as this, denouncing the Iranian thugs and defending democracy, does this not signal a lack of leadership?

Secondly, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is already whining about foreign "interference" :

TEHRAN, June 19 (Reuters) - Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned on Friday what he said was interference by "some foreign powers" in
this month's election in the country.

"After street protests, some foreign powers ... started to interfere in Iran's state matters by questioning the result of the vote. They do not know the Iranian nation. I strongly condemn such interference," Khamenei said.

"American officials' remarks about human rights and limitations on people are not acceptable because they have no idea about human rights after what they have done in Afghanistan and Iraq and other parts of the world. We do not need advice over human rights from them," he added.

In view of this, why won't the President, at the very least, issue statements of condemnation of Iran's thuggish tactics and verbally support the protesters who are risking their lives? After all, since we're already being blamed for meddling, the President should at least state the traditional American position in favor of democracy. Is he trying to position himself to "deal" with Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, once the uprising has been quelled?

If that is the case, it would represent an unspeakable level of cynicism and wanton disregard for the lives of the Iranian people who simply want their freedom.

Alas, it's already too late; the die has been cast. Waiting to see "if Iranian authorities carry out their latest threat of a more sweeping crackdown", in the words of the White House, to "reconsider its carefully calibrated tone" is unacceptable and vacuous. The "bully pulpit" from which presidents once spoke in support of the oppressed, from which presidents once spoke in favor of the American values of liberty and democracy, stands vacant at a pivotal time in history.

President Obama's silence is deafening, and those Iranians who may well die in their struggle for "Hope and Change" deserved more from the Leader of the Free World. They deserved, at least, his moral support, and all they received was equivocation.

What Will Obama Do, or Fail to Do, Next?

Well, you can't say that, domestically, President Obama doesn't have ambition; in less than five months, he's sought to heavily regulate or take over the financial sector and two of three of the country's automobile manufacturers and he's largely succeeded. The Speaker of the House seems to be no more than a botoxed lapdog and the Senate Majority Leader a lobotomized Obamadrone. The President and the Democrat Members of Congress resemble the Borg, all but muttering "resistance is futile" and urging voluntary absorption.

The Obamanation has truly eclipsed Orwellianism. Even FDR would blush at his naked power grabs.

On the other hand, his foreign policy seems to consist of "speak apologetically for ever having used the Big Stick" with pledges to reduce the the size of said stick. Teddy Roosevelt he certainly isn't.

In short, the Obama administration's answer to domestic problems is "control it". Their answer to foreign problems (such as the sham "election" in Iran) seems to be to "ignore it"- they can't even bring themselves to denounce, in no uncertain terms, the Iranian Thugocracy's threats of violence against Iranian protesters or to forcefully and vociferously support the Iranian people's quest for the very ideals on which Obama ran for President - "Hope and Change". If there is a better example of blatant hypocrisy, I'd like to see it, and from the way things are going, I probably will.

Had someone told me 12-18 months ago that we would be at this place at this time, I would have called them paranoid, or worse.

I feel like I'm living in the "Twilight Zone".

John McCain to Intercept North Korean Ship

Sorry, I just couldn't resist that headline. Actually, the US Navy is putting the USS John McCain, a Navy destroyer, in position for a possible intercept of a North Korean ship suspected of proliferating nukes and missiles.

I wonder if President Obama, upon hearing the news, asked "don't we have any other destroyer in the area?"

The irony is priceless.

North Korea: 'Hey, look at me, look at me!'

Meanwhile, not to be outdone in the "Crazy Nuclear Despotism Department" by Ahmadinejad; North Korea - its people starved for food and its leadership starved for attention - actually make Iran look moderate, by comparison.

NKorea says it will 'weaponize' its plutonium

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea vowed Saturday to step up its atomic bomb-making program and threatened war if its ships are stopped as part of new U.N. sanctions aimed at punishing the nation for its latest nuclear test.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry also acknowledged for the first time that the country has a uranium enrichment program, and insisted it will never abandon its nuclear ambitions. Uranium and plutonium can be used to make atomic bombs.

The threats, in a statement issued through the official Korean Central News Agency, came a day after the Security Council approved new sanctions aimed at depriving the North of the financing used to build its rogue nuclear program.

The resolution also authorized searches of North Korean ships suspected of transporting illicit ballistic missile and nuclear materials.

The sanctions are "yet another vile product of the U.S.-led offensive of international pressure aimed at undermining ... disarming DPRK and suffocating its economy," the North Korean statement said.

Pyongyang blamed Washington for the nuclear tensions, saying it was "compelled to go nuclear in the face of the U.S. hostile policy and its nuclear threats."

Carter's wish: "US and Israel on collision course"

From my perspective, this what Carter has been working toward for decades and may be a little wishful thinking on his part. At what point can we just start calling Carter "Jew Hater"? He has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for Islamic radicals and with each statement he makes, it becomes increasingly clear that, in his view, the Israelis are the only stumbling block on the road to Middle East peace.

In an environment where Israel is continually pressured by her "allies" to make more and more concessions in the interest of peace, surrounded by countries that cannot even agree on her right to exist and continually attacked by them, how is it that Israel is the problem?

Carter warns US and Israel on collision course

Israel is headed for a clash with main ally the United States over the issue of Jewish settlements, former US president Jimmy Carter said in an interview on Sunday.

Asked by the liberal Haaretz newspaper whether the Jewish state was looking at a "head-on collision" with the United States if it doesn't comply with Washington's demands, Carter said "Yes."

The former president, who brokered the historic peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979, said Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank were the biggest hurdle in the hobbled Middle East peace process, saying they were "illegal and (an) obstacle to peace."

The administration of US President Barack Obama has repeatedly called on Israel to halt all settlement activity in the occupied West Bank, which is viewed as one of the key obstacles in the stalled Middle East peace process.

This "obstacle to peace" canard is tiring, unfair and dangerous as it fuels the anti-Israeli sentiment in the Middle East which is doing quite nicely on it's own.

Where are the concessions from the Arabs or the Iranians who continually call for the destruction of Israel? Did it ever occur to this old fool that maybe, just maybe that the blood curdling hatred that many in the "Islamic community" have for all things Israeli might be an obstacle as well? Did it ever occur to Mr. Carter that Israel may be becoming weary of making sacrifices, in the blood of her own citizens as well as the relinquishment of even more land and getting nothing but more war in return?

Carter was a failure as a president and is an unqualified disgrace as a man. Israel should block his entry as an "undesirable".