One of the prevailing undercurrents of the health care reform debate has been the subtle insinuation that a big part of the problem with the current health care coverage situation is corporate greed. That by simply eliminating the corporate part, you automatically eliminate all greed. It’s that simple. Once again, in Obama’s and the liberals’ world, the private sector is bad, government is good. Now that the public option component of reform is failing to get any traction, attention has turned to co-ops. Now, co-ops come in different shapes and sizes. Some are totally for-profit, some totally not-for-profit, and some are a hybrid. In Kentucky we’ve got one of those hybrids that assists county governments. They pool private companies for local governments. The release I’m referring to isn’t in the news yet that I can find, so I’ll just print the entire thing here:
KACo, League of Cities questioned by state lawmakers
FRANKFORT – Officials from the Kentucky League of Cities and Kentucky Association of Counties told state lawmakers today about changes to their policies in the wake of recent news reports that raised questions about the use of funds by the two organizations.
Both organizations, which offer insurance and other services to their local government members, answered questions from members of the Interim Joint Committee on Local Government about reports in the Lexington Herald-Leader that outlined credit card use by staff, possible conflicts of interest with business partners and other concerns. The State Auditors Office announced last month that it was auditing both KLC and KACo to determine how taxpayer dollars, taken from local governments in the form of dues and payment for other services, have been spent.
“We want to hear about how you got in this situation, how this lax fiscal control situation occurred, what you’re going to do to improve it, as well as what this General Assembly can do to work with you to improve the situation on a going-forward basis, again, for the citizens of Kentucky that all of us as elected leaders serve,” said Local Government Committee Co-Chair Sen. Damon Thayer, R-Georgetown.
“What we want to keep on task is what kind of policy changes in your organization do you see necessary so this kind of fiscal disturbance doesn’t happen again,” said fellow Local Government Committee Co-Chair Rep. Steve Riggs, D-Jeffersontown.
KLC outgoing President and Richmond Mayor Connie Lawson said the KLC board approved new policies on Aug. 19 that address concerns with that organization. New policies include required disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, restricted use of KLC credit cards and implementing a new travel and meeting expense reimbursement policy. Mayor Lawson said new policies will require supervisor authorization for employee in-state and out-of-state travel.
Incoming KLC President and Jackson Mayor Mike Miller commented on recent actions that affect the organization’s insurance sector known as KLCIS (Kentucky League of Cities Insurance Services). Those included, but were not limited to, a vote by the board to more clearly separate KLC’s insurance business from other KLC operations as recommended by the Kentucky Department of Insurance.
“As board members, we acknowledge there is still work to be done,” said Mayor Miller, adding that the organization is undergoing several audits of its operations. “We expect these reports will identify any unresolved weaknesses that may need to be addressed and reveal other processes and procedures that we can improve.”
KACo President and Christian County Attorney Mike Foster said policy changes planned or in place by that organization include new rules for travel and entertainment expenses, better monitoring of internal operations, extensive management review, cooperation with the State Auditor’s review and elimination of staff credit cards.
“By continuing a commitment and recommitment to excellence in accountability, it is the belief of the executive committee and our board that we can take an organization that has done many valuable things over the years…and then transition the association to an even better organization that addresses both programming and an equal amount of attention to internal financial management,” said Foster. He said he sees the current challenges as an opportunity for his organization.
Some lawmakers on the committee had specific questions about the membership of KACo’s 34-member board and KLC’s 53-member board.
Riggs stressed that city and county elected officials who are selected by their peers to run each organization need to be more involved in the decision making. Both organizations have executive directors that are involved in the organizations’ operations, although KLC Executive Director Sylvia Lovely yesterday announced her resignation from KLC effective Jan. 1, 2010.
“I think the challenge is also for the organization to understand that the board runs the organization, is in charge of the organization, makes the policy and procedures,” Riggs told Foster during his testimony.
Rep. Ron Crimm, R-Louisville, also had some board-level concerns.
“I think that after you elect new board members, I don’t care whether it takes a day or half a day or 15 minutes…before they sit, they need to be brought up to snuff about what’s going on and what their responsibilities are so that they don’t feel intimidated when they go to a meeting,” said Crimm. “Intimidation sometimes keeps people from asking some very hard questions and I think that needs to be considered.”
Use of the state retirement system by some organization executives also raised some questions. Sen. Thayer and Rep. Arnold Simpson, D-Covington, questioned KLC about the inclusion of at least some of its top executives in the state retirement system.
Thayer asked Mayor Lawson and Mayor Miller about reports concerning a forgiven loan that allowed KLC executives buy time in the retirement system. He asked whether such loan policy would be continued or discontinued.
Mayor Miller explained that the loan was made, but that “technically, the loan was not forgiven. The salaries were reduced for a period of years to reflect repayment of the loan.”
Simpson said he is “troubled by the fact that individuals with such high salaries are earning a pension.” He said he is unsure if the state pension system was designed for individuals outside of “the ordinary scope of government”, and if so, whether such a policy should apply to those with large salaries. He suggested that KLC consider 401-K products for executive staff with high salaries over the state pension system. Mayor Lawson said she would take that into consideration.
Concerning transparency of organizational finances—another major concern of some state lawmakers–Rep. Charlie Hoffman, D-Georgetown, agreed with those lawmakers that more disclosure is necessary, particularly from insurance service boards.
“I know the sensitivity of some of the information that you use, but I think it would be best to open that committee up and put a few people on there who could scrutinize from the outside,” Hoffman said. “Unlike the private sector, your background and the people you’re dealing with involves the coffers of local and state government moneys. So I think that’s why it needs to be opened up.”
Bottom line here, greed is everywhere. It’s not a solution to simply assert the government is less greedy than the private sector. That’s why the “public option” idea immediately drew instant resistance. In the real world, the real America, people distrust the government more than they do the private sector. So, what Obama, Pelosi and their minions were suggesting was for people to give something they’re not particularly happy with to someone they have no faith in whatsoever. Of course, some people would rather drink the kool-aid than admit otherwise:
In the meantime, Paul, I’ll keep an eye on the greed of the government complex, the lies of the liberal socialists, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies. Which apperantly is a LOT less than the gullibility of voters who think the government is less corrupt than the private sector.
I recently took one of those drive-by polls on Facebook. One of the questions it asked is whether I thought health care was a right or a benefit. My only answer was “depends on who pays for it”. I’m all up for doing everything I can to make sure health careis a benefit for myself and my family. I’m not so up on paying for others who don’t necessarily care enough to do the same for me, or even for themselves. Some people are just fine with running to the emergency room every time they get a runny nose because it’s free for them. I don’t run to the doctor everytime I get a runny nose. It’s not free for me. That folks, is rationing in its purest form. I have a reason to ration. The person who considers it a right doesn’t. They cost a lot more to the system than I do. They cost me a lot of money in the process via ever increasing taxes. Not once in the history of this country has any legislator come to the public and told us we did such a good job of watching our medical expenses they’re going to lower the Medicare withholding rate. Not once. Not ever. Nada. It never has ever happened. Am I clear on this? Entitlement programs in the United States have spiraled out of control since their inception in the 30′s. What was originally a 1% tax is now a combined 7.65% of all wages ( up to certain amounts ), and going broke. It needs to be a lot higher. Then toss in the state taxes. Ours looks something like this:
- 2% of the first $3,000 of net income
- 3% of the next $1,000 of net income
- 4% of the next $1,000 of net income
- 5% of the next $3,000 of net income
- 5.8% of the next $67,000 of net income
- 6% of the net income in excess of $75,000
No telling what percentage of that goes to health care. It’s a big chunk that’s getting bigger tho. A friend of mine pointed out one of the complexities of the overall issue:
This is the place that almost all health care reform plans hit a block. The block is not exactly aided by the fact that the last few weeks or months of a persons life are typically the ones where his medical bills are the greatest. This is, of course, not the case for people who die in accidents and may not be true for those who end up surviving chronic diseases like cancer. But it is sufficiently common that the obvious way to cut the costs of any medical service is to not treat people who are really ill.
Since, eventually, we all die the medical cost of our final weeks of life is something that someone is going to have to pay for and, since we’re dead at the end of it, it isn’t going to be us unless we made suitable savings. So that means someone else has to pay.
And that is the probem.
So, I did a little research. Now, Dingus’s assumption is that all people experience some end of life struggle. I’m not quite that pessimistic. In 2006, in the US:
| All causes | 810.4 | |
| Diseases of heart (I00-I09,I11,I13,I20-I51) | 211 | 26.04% |
| Malignant neoplasms (C00-C97) | 187 | 23.08% |
| Cerebrovascular diseases (I60-I69) | 45.8 | 5.65% |
| Chronic lower respiratory diseases (J40-J47) | 41.6 | 5.13% |
| Accidents (unintentional injuries) (V01-X59,Y85-Y86) | 40.6 | 5.01% |
| Diabetes mellitus (E10-E14) | 24.2 | 2.99% |
| Alzheimer’s disease (G30) | 24.2 | 2.99% |
| Influenza and pneumonia (J10-J18) | 18.8 | 2.32% |
| Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis | 15.1 | 1.86% |
| Septicemia (A40-A41) | 11.4 | 1.41% |
| Intentional self-harm (suicide) (*U03,X60-X84,Y87.0) | 11.1 | 1.37% |
| Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis (K70,K73-K74) | 9.2 | 1.14% |
| Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal | 8 | 0.99% |
| Parkinson’s disease (G20-G21) | 6.5 | 0.80% |
| Assault (homicide) (*U01-*U02,X85-Y09,Y87.1) | 6.2 | 0.77% |
Currently a cool 7% of the population dies rather suddenly of non-health related issues. Now, #1 is heart failure. But, I don’t know how many of those are sudden heart attacks, or lingering heart diseases. Big difference in price. I can see very quickly how logical it would be for Health and Human Services to have public information podcasts and such encouraging people who are terminal, depressed, or just ready to end it all because their boyfriend ditched them to go ahead and do it. Intentional self-harm is not a drain on the health care system if done correctly. I can see a very sudden backlash to Obama’s anti-gun policies as people suddenly realize that if a couple of druggies in off each other, it lowers the cost of medical services for those of us who are, well, not criminals. Give em all a gun. The pro-life supporters will vanish in shame, realizing suddenly how selfish they are in expecting productive people to sacrifice their health coverage just so some crack-mother can crank out another brain damaged accident. Corporal punishment? You betcha! Shock tv will be taken to all time lows rivaling anything Heidi Montag’s done. Remember Logan’s Run
So, this whole non-issue of end-of-life-care will resolve itself as we eliminate the things that drag life on in it’s final stage, and encourage those things that speed it up. It can be fun stuff too, doesn’t have to be all dismal and dreary. David Bowie sang about The Supermen
So, whenever some astroturfer tries to disrupt your argument for the health care system no one has defined yet by yelling you want to kill their grandmother, just tell them you’ve already got that covered. It’s what to do with the living we haven’t dealt with yet.
25
Aug
A fellow had this to say, among other things:
….we had already seen two tax cuts sold on massively, easily documented false pretenses; a war launched with constant innuendo about a Saddam-Osama link that was clearly false, and with claims about WMDs that were clearly shaky from the beginning and had proved to be entirely without foundation. We’d also seen vast, well-documented dishonesty and politicization on environmental policy. Oh, and Abu Ghraib was already public knowledge.
And to hammer home his point:
Bloggers like Atrios or Kos? Again, if you read their archives what’s striking is how sane they come off compared with the “serious” voices of the time.
OK, so now six months in to a liberal’s panacea, we’ve seen at least two tax increases, with more promised via allowing those tax cuts he complains about to expire. The current President, who echoed the exact sentiments of Paul Krugman, Atrios, and Kos, is now doing exactly what Bush did in both Iraq and Afghanistan that Krugman, Atrios, and Kos have complained about. If it was so wrong and they were not a threat, why is he staying there “indefinitely”? This same president is also getting hammered on the issues of WMD’s in, you guessed it, the Axis of Evil Bush complained about that Atrios and Kos assured us were just political scare tactics. We’ve also seen, in six months, no doubt, vast, well-documented dishonesty and politicization on environmental policy as Obama has had numerous appointments withdrawn due to legal issues, and has already reneged on several environmental promises he made while campaigning. It’s gotten the point where even Greenpeace is panning Obama. He has also expanded Bush’s wiretapping policy, set up a White House tip line, moved investigations into the domestic enforcement agency, requested expanded internet surveillance, cozied up to Cuba while distancing Israel, totally undermined our international surveillance capabilities ala Jamie Gorelick, proposed a socialized health care model apparently no one wants, completely sold out to unions, and, his first budget will have more deficit than all eight of Bush’s combined. I mean, look at this again:
I’m sure I’ve overlooked other issues.
And, what makes it even more remarkable, he’s done all that in six months. Krugman had to list all eight Bush years to get a much smaller list.
Given all that, it makes complete sense to distrust anything the Obama administration says. That’s not reflexive, it’s rational. I resent Krugman’s insinuation because in order to believe that a completely biased opinion is rational is to assume all other opinions are irrational. To pick only certain issues to justify a rational conclusion is, well, not rational. That’s biased. Let’s look closer, shall we? First, the definition of bias:
a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
Now, reflexive:
reflex; responsive
Now, rational:
endowed with the faculty of reason:
Now, if a person only allows one set of evidence to be presented to make the argument they’re rational, is that using reason, or, is that showing a particular tendency or inclination?
Now, the difference between me claiming I’m rational and using the same argument to show Krugman is reflexive is because I told people Obama would do these things last year. I’m not reflexive. I am rational in that I am simply re-iterating a reasoned assumption I made in the past and commenting on issues as they happen. Krugman just bitches and whines about everything Bush, even well after Bush is gone. That’s just not rational. He’s got bigger problems to deal with than prosecuting people long gone. But, he can’t do that. He’s too reflexive. Probably because the present sucks so bad.
25
Aug
Over and over and over, President Obama has reminded us that he inherited this economic mess we’ve got now.
The two chief architects of his “fiscal disaster” would be the person who decides which budgets come out of Congres on the federal side. And, on the public side, it is largely determined by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. With Congressional spending plans, it is determined whether money is infused into the economy, or, in the case of Clinton’s latter years, money is pulled out of the economy. It is the Chairman’s decisions that determine whether credit is easier to get with lower interest rates, or harder to get with higher interest rates. It has been the balance of these two factors that have driven our economy for a long time.
Those two powers that be at this time would be Nancy Pelosi, who’s Congressional spending bills have determined the money flow since 2008, and Ben Bernanke, who was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 2006. Upon taking office in 2009, Obama did not challenge Pelosi’s leadership role. That meant a continuation of the economic policies since 2008. As of today, Obama is re-appointing Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. That means a continuation of the policies of the Federal Reserve since 2006.
Which is it? If he inherited a fiscal mess, then he should be doing something about getting the people who created the mess he inherited out of the way, I would think.
That’s right, he’s blaming it all on Bush. The person who can suggest a budget, but can not vote on it.
Folks, this is pure BS. The next time he complains about the economy he inherited, ask him why he didn’t do one single thing about the people that created that mess.
25
Aug
It’s telling me that the policies of Jamie Gorelick and Bill Clinton/Janet Reno are back.
That was my opinion January 5 of this year when Obama put Leon Panetta in charge of the Central Intelligence Agency. As of now, the Central Intelligence Agency will not be allowed to glean intelligence from war prisoners. The Federal Bureau of Investigations will be doing that under a very strict set of guidelines. Those are the guys that investigate things. Now, what’s the big deal you ask? Think about these incidents and who was in charge:
- Waco
- Ruby Ridge
- Zaccarius Mussaoui, the 12th 911 terrorist.
- For that matter, 911.
- Terrorist Watch List
- Expanded wiretaps under Clinton ( and you thought Bush was bad. )
- Filegate
- Deep Throat ( when the FBI decides it needs a new president. )
- McCarthyism
On and on and on it goes. The FBI has had a history of lying, targeting people, political meddling, totally inept interventions, and most importantly, not having a clue how to deal with critical intelligence that led to the death of 2,000 people. So, when Obama appointed Panetta as the CIA Director, I stated then that we were returning to the days of Jamie Gorelick, Janet Reno, and the Wall. Today’s announcements seal it.
This is your better national security Obama promised. We’re back to 1993 again. Instead of worrying about foreign entities attacking the US, which is what the CIA does, you’re the target. If you claim to be a conservative, you’re the terrorist. If your neighbor thinks you’re a conservative, all they have to do is call the White House tip line. All that was missing was putting the federal enforcement agency in charge of gathering intelligence. Why bother seperating intelligence from enforcement? It worked so well for Clinton it got us into two wars and the worst terrorist attack in the history of our country. They did however, wipe out quite a few US citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Think about it.
24
Aug
Quick question, how many people think the cash for clunkers program fixed the auto industry’s problems?
Well, for those that think it did, be happy. For those that think it didn’t, read this:
A $300 million cash-for-clunkers-type federal program to boost sales of energy-efficient home appliances provides a glimmer of hope for beleaguered makers of washing machines and dishwashers, but it’s probably not enough to lift companies such as Whirlpool (WHR) and Electrolux out of the worst down cycle in the sector’s history.
To date, I haven’t seen what they’re going to do with all the clunkers. Better make room for a lot more garbage with the appliances. And, for what it’s worth, I don’t think discounting the value of things to sell makes the economy look any better. If anyone has any idea how that benefits the nation, please fill me in. In my own opinion, the federal government borrowing money to discount the value of items that otherwise are not selling is not fixing any problems. To fix the problems we need to be creating jobs. Those jobs will buy the cars and appliances the government is now subsidizing. That in turn puts 100% of the investment back in the US GDP. The cash for clunkers program did as much to stimulate the Japanese GDP as it did ours. 100% debt for 53% return is horrid. Now, they want to do the same for the appliance industry. Now, Whirlpool’s pretty happy. But, so is Electrolux. Sweden stands to benefit almost as much from this program as Whirlpool. Again, a 100% debt is financing hopefully a 50% return. In both cases, these are intended to lower our demand for imported fuel ( very, very, good ), and hopefully prop up these companies until the market stabilizes ( very, very, dangerous ). In both of these cases, we’re not getting our money’s worth dollar for dollar. Once things settle down, we’ll be that much deeper in debt and basically no better off than if we had just hunkered down and waited for the world markets to stabilize.
19
Aug
I love Snopes.com. No telling what you’ll find there. Humor, movies, sports, paranormal, extra-terrestrial, politics, you name it, it’s there. One of today’s stories involve an opinion piece written by Charley Reese in 1985.
Politicians, as I have often said, are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Everything on the Republican contract is a problem created by Congress. Too much bureaucracy? Blame Congress. Too many rules?
Blame Congress. Unjust tax laws? Congress wrote them.
Out-of-control bureaucracy? Congress authorizes everything bureaucracies do. Americans dying in Third World rat holes on stupid U.N. missions? Congress allows it. The annual deficits?
Congress votes for them. The $4 trillion plus debt? Congress created it.
To put it into perspective just remember that 100 percent of the power of the federal government comes from the U.S. Constitution. If it’s not in the Constitution, it’s not authorized.
Then read your Constitution. All 100 percent of the power of the federal government is invested solely in 545 individual human beings. That’s all. Of 260 million Americans, only 545 of them wield 100 percent of the power of the federal government.
That’s 435 members of the U.S. House, 100 senators, one president and nine Supreme Court justices. Anything involving government that is wrong is 100 percent their fault.
I exclude the vice president because constitutionally he has no power except to preside over the Senate and to vote only in the case of a tie. I exclude the Federal Reserve because Congress created it and all its power is power Congress delegated to it and could withdraw anytime it chooses to do so. In fact, all the power exercised by the 3 million or so other federal employees is power delegated from the 545.
All bureaucracies are created by Congress or by executive order of the president. All are financed and staffed by Congress. All enforce laws passed by Congress.
All operate under procedures authorized by Congress. That’s why all complaints and protests should be properly directed at Congress, not at the individual agencies.
You don’t like the IRS? Go see Congress. You think the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agency is running amok? Go see Congress.
Congress is the originator of all government problems and is also the only remedy available. That’s why, of course, politicians go to such extraordinary lengths and employ world-class sophistry to make you think they are not responsible. Anytime a congressman pretends to be outraged by something a federal bureaucrat does, he is in fact engaging in one big massive con job. No federal employee can act at all except to enforce laws passed by Congress and to employ procedures authorized by Congress either explicitly or implicitly.
Partisans on both sides like to blame presidents for deficits, but all deficits are congressional deficits. The president may, by custom, recommend a budget, but it carries no legal weight. Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to authorize and appropriate and to levy taxes. That’s what the federal budget consists of: expenditures authorized, funds appropriated and taxes levied.
Both Democrats and Republicans mislead the public. For 40 years Democrats had majorities and could have at any time balanced the budget if they had chosen to do so. Republicans now have majorities and could, if they choose, pass a balanced budget this year. Every president, Democrat or Republican, could have vetoed appropriations bills that did not make up a balanced budget. Every president could have recommended a balanced budget. None has done either.
We have annual deficits and a huge federal debt because that’s what majorities in Congress and presidents in the White House wanted. We have troops in various Third World rat holes because Congress and the president want them there.
Don’t be conned. Don’t let them escape responsibility. We simply have to sort through 260 million people until we find 545 who will act responsibly.
It has now been updated and is being circulated substituting Nancy Pelosi and President Obama. Big whup.
Charley Reese is an idiot.
I say that because he’s falling into the most common cop-out there is in politics and he’s been around long enough to know better. Blame everyone else but yourself. None of those 545 people are annointed. None of them are born to their position. Not one single person is a demi-god or super-power. Not one came from another planet with divine guidance. Every single one of them asked you to send them there. And once you do, it’s generally for a long time if not for lifetime. The last two Congress’s seniority make-ups looked something like this:
| 110 | 111 | |||
| 50+ | 1 | 0.23% | 1 | 0.23% |
| 40-49 | 2 | 0.45% | 3 | 0.68% |
| 30-39 | 18 | 4.08% | 16 | 3.64% |
| 20-29 | 59 | 13.38% | 47 | 10.71% |
| 10-19 | 183 | 41.50% | 143 | 32.57% |
| 0-9 | 178 | 40.36% | 229 | 52.16% |
| 441 | 439 | |||
| Average | 12.47 | 11.17 |
In the 110th Congress, nearly 60% of the members have been there more than ten years. Once the Obama revolution of 2009 was over, 48% of Congress has been there more than ten years. The average seniority dropped one year on average. Two hundred and ten of those members of Congress have served more than a decade. That’s forty percent of Charley Reese’s 545. And you know what, that’s not even counting the Senate. The Senate’s a little different animal, they are there for six years a shot. Congress gives people a chance to decide if they like their Congress or not every other year. Now, you think I’m being harsh on Charley? It gets even worse. A big part of the Obama “revolution” is the fact that seven members died in office. That took out 105 years of seniority. If they hadn’t died, the numbers for the 111th would have mirrored the 110th. John Dingell, the most senior, is now 83 years old. He has been in office for 54 years. That wouldn’t be so bad in my opinion but his district is Detroit, Michigan. Are those people happy with how things have progressed since 1955? Must be, they keep electing him. Bob Byrd is now 92 years old. He has represented West Virginia since 1959. In 1959, West Virginia had one of the worst economies in the country. Fifty years later, it still is with the fifth highest poverty rate in the country. Are West Virginians happy with that? They must be, they keep electing him.
My opinion is, people just don’t want to spend the time to examine candidates. That folks, is laziness. That is why most of the Congressmen, the Senators, and sometimes the President, don’t have to worry so much about what you think. The Democrat Party ran against the 109th Congress and the Republicans who controlled it purely on the irresponsible spending, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, out of control budgets, an economy that wasn’t up to their expectations, and corruption. Since that group took over, they’re throwing money wildly at everyone, still fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, budgets that are unfathomable, a collapsing economy, and several corruption scandals.
And you people keep voting the same ones back in office.
And Charley blames them.
If the public forfeits its right to choose, that’s not Congress’s fault. And, that is what allows all of Charley’s gripes to occur. Power corrupts when it’s absolute. In our case, it’s absolute through laziness.
19
Aug
Recently about six peeps decided to go hang out in the forests of Santa Barbara County, California. For most of us, that’s not much of a big deal. However, for these peeps, the story is a little different:
For some reason I do see some irony in the fact these guys apparently can’t control burning their weed. I’m sure they feel differently:
About 30,000 marijuana plants and an AK-47 assault rifle were found near the origin of the blaze in a remote canyon in Los Padres National Forest, authorities said at a news conference.
So far this year, California has busted about 220,000 plants in Santa Barbara County alone.
Besides the obvious gripe I have about these drug dealers burning down our forests, this is what their camp looks like now:
I mean, that’s a horrid mess. Even if they hadn’t burned 137 square miles down, I seriously doubt they would have gone to a lot of trouble to clean it up. However, oddly enough, groups such as The Sierra Club, are still working themselves to death attacking things such as coal mining. If you check out their discussion, they’re all for legalizing marijuana so people will quit burning down the forests. This logic defies me. If anyone on the planet had less of a reason for that Le Brea fire, it was the guys protecting 30,000 plants of income. If anyone had less of a regard for the forest, it was the guys hauling in propane tanks, clearing out the natural growth to plant their stuff, and littering the hell out of the forest for no other reason than laziness and total disregard for nature. Now, I would think a natural line of logic would be to do more to protect our forests from anyone intending to use it for purposes other than it being a forest. That’s the way I see it. Everyone’s the same when it comes to destroying a forest. However, people like The Sierra Club thinks it’s bad for loggers to clear out brush, but perfectly OK for drug dealers to burn it. Go figure that one huh? Now, I just wonder what The Sierra Club and other environmental groups think about the government going into a forest and clearing out drug dealers’ illegal crops that were never indigenous to that forest? How much ya wanna bet they’d be all for it?
18
Aug
This is kinda funny. And, kinda possible.
Not sure I trust the ACLU to stop it from happening tho.
Are you thinking twice before you order your next pizza?
We may not live in a society where government and private corporations collude to track your every move — not yet anyways. But, we are fast approaching a surveillance society where every move, transaction and communication is recorded, compiled, and stored away to be examined and used by the authorities — and even private corporations –whenever they want.
In 2005, Congress passed the Real ID Act, a federal effort to create a national identity card and a database to support it. It would force all states to connect their DMV databases to one interlinked system — facilitating government tracking of Americans.
You can help the Real ID card and database from becoming a national nightmare. Sign the petition to elected officials now, calling on them to halt this dangerous program.
Right now on their front page, they think we should let terrorist prisoners go free, and warn us of the perils of President Bush.
Clue here, George Bush has no impact on the National ID card or any other national issue at this time. All things evil can not be pinned on the ex-president. The current president seems to think those same evils are necessary as well. Bitch at him for a while.
Second clue, ACLU stands for “American” Civil Liberties Union. Let’s keep focus, shall we?
Third clue, terrorists not only have abdicated any rights afforded by our Constitution, they have have abdicated their protections under the Geneva Conference, and in most cases, their own countries as well. That is why they are stuck at Guantanamo. No one wants them. So, why should we bother to try them if there is nowhere for them to go? If they are found innocent, where do they go?
17
Aug
Bernie Sanders had this to offer to the health care debate:
There’s a back story to the town meeting protests. The health care industry in America is doing everything it can tostop reform. Incredibly, it has spent $130 million just in the last quarter trying to influence Congress. The Washington Post has reported that $1.4 million a day is being spent by well-paid lobbyists to do everything they can do to stop health care reform. There is a reason for that intense opposition. Private insurance companies in America are reaping huge profits. Drug companies in America are charging the American people, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Of course, they don’t want health care reform. Of course, they’ll do everything to try to stop us.
I look forward to discussing those issues at town meetings in Vermont this month and, when I return to Washington after the August break, with Americans across the country.
OK, so according to Bernie, the healthcare industry is now the ones trying to stifle healthcare debate by paying these un-American astroturfers to disrupt town hall meetings.
Let’s see how that stacks in the face of evidence.
First of all, Bernie is sort of correct. The health care industry has invested millions in this debate. But, he’s a little off in who’s getting it. Let’s look at the healthcare industry’s spending pattern:
What used to be an organization that donated heavily to Republicans is now donating heavily to the Democrats.
Same goes for the insurance industry.
Ditto the pharmas. Every industry that’s affected most directly by this debate is suddenly giving a lot more to Democrats than Republicans. Some for the first time in modern history. The Democrats are feeding well at the industries in the middle of this debate.
Who’s getting that money?
| Nancy Pelosi | |
| Health Professionals | $104,000 |
| Building Trade Unions | $46,000 |
| Industrial Unions | $37,500 |
| Transportation Unions | $34,500 |
| Insurance | $33,500 |
Nancy Pelosi for one.
| Steny Hoyer | |
| Lawyers/Law Firms | $79,568 |
| Electric Utilities | $76,000 |
| Health Professionals | $69,210 |
| Hospitals/Nursing Homes | $60,200 |
| Lobbyists | $50,150 |
Steny Hoyer is another.
| Jim Clyburn | |
| Electric Utilities | $46,250 |
| Pharmaceuticals/Health Products | $37,500 |
| Building Trade Unions | $37,500 |
| Lobbyists | $31,094 |
| Health Professionals | $31,000 |
Jim Clyburn as well.
| John Larson | |
| Lawyers/Law Firms | $67,816 |
| Insurance | $38,200 |
| Health Professionals | $31,800 |
| Building Trade Unions | $21,000 |
| Defense Aerospace | $17,250 |
John Larson’s really doing well for someone most people have never heard of. It goes on and on:
| George Miller | |
| American Health Care Assn | $10,000 |
| Carpenters & Joiners Union | $10,000 |
| International Assn of Fire Fighters | $10,000 |
| Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers | $10,000 |
| Laborers Union | $10,000 |
| Chris Van Hollen | |
| Lawyers/Law Firms | $88,825 |
| Retired | $46,205 |
| Real Estate | $44,050 |
| Misc Business | $29,225 |
| Health Professionals | $23,050 |
| Patty Murray | |
| Lawyers/Law Firms | $371,546 |
| Lobbyists | $346,619 |
| Retired | $260,305 |
| Pharmaceuticals/Health Products | $156,050 |
| Computers/Internet | $150,760 |
| Chuck Schumer | |
| Securities & Investment | $637,800 |
| Lawyers/Law Firms | $548,966 |
| Real Estate | $387,500 |
| Misc Finance | $202,400 |
| Insurance | $130,800 |
So, I think Bernie needs to re-examine exactly what’s going on here. This debate has these industries by the balls. So, they give to the Democrats pushing this reform in large numbers to put themselves out of business? Doesn’t make much sense does it? Well, it might if you look at today’s headlines. The White House is dropping the public option. They’re doing this of course, due to the public outcry that they claim is orchestrated by conservatives ( read Republicans ).
Read into that what you want. I know what I think.
