The Dems Must Repeal Social Security, Medicare, and All Social(istic) Programs!

In Hopes of Getting the Support of the Republicans! That Would Fulfill Obama's Holy Grail of Bi-partisanship. Middle-of-the-road Politics Today, Roadkill Tomorrow! Everybody Wins (except the country)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Blues Clueless
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

"The Republicans are f@**ng with you! They'll never going to let you in the station wagon." Jon Stewart

I watched the SOTU address (no drinking game this time*) and the Repub response last night. Obviously, in principle, Obama comes much closer to my values and priorities than the conservatives who, at this point, are somewhere in the outer boundaries of the solar system (yeah, that's far out).

But, despite Obama tailoring his speech to appeal to the fluid independents the reality is that he and the Dems have not provided the kind of leadership the country wanted by giving huge majorities to the Dems since 2006. Yes, the lost decade left a heap of troubles and huge deficits before Obama walked through the WH door. No reasonable person would expect a total reversal in just a year, but judging from the way he and his party conducted themselves so far, well, it's pathetic.

I'm afraid they'll take the wrong message from MA and move to the center in hope of getting in the ..car that they own! It's not going to be a successful strategy, for the following reasons:

• They will lose the support of their most energetic base--the grassroots and the progressives
• They will never get the Republicans to support them. Unless the Dems bring back the failed policies of the previous administration or the disastrous conservative policies: freeze spending across the board excluding defense; continue tax breaks and no tax increases for the wealthy class and big business. All these will not benefit Main Street, only Wall Street.
  
• They will lose the independents who are not ideologically attached to a party and don't like weak leaders or nothing good coming out of Washington.
• Did I mention that Republican-lite isn't the flavor of the moment?
• If the Dems give up their mandate for change (yes, change the status quo--when more and more Americans believe that "the fix is in."), then they might as well return to the status of the minority to wail and make noise without having any responsibility to do anything. In short, give up CHANGE, and they'll get a CHANGE of regime in Washington DC come November and again in 2012.

*

“Obama took all his winnings and turned them over to Max Baucus.”

Massachusetts Doesn't Want to Pay for Nebraska's Health Care!

That's right! Massachusetts has a more progressive health care system than what's being floated in Congress, so they voted for Republican Brown who opposed the federal version. Also, Coakley=terrible candidate, deserved to lose--even though I would have voted for her.

Here are a some more facts. MA is a "blue" state that predominately votes for Dems, but the majority of its voters are registered independent. Dems outnumber Repubs 3-1, but even Dems can cross party lines, as they did with Brown, 18+ %. The latter was a great campaigner who rode 2 waves and 1 low tide. One, the anti-Washington/big business/banks sentiment; two, the independent voters; three, Dem voter abstention. Did I mention that Coakley professed ..atheism in the church of Red Sox!

The independents and the Dems who broke for Brown by huge majorities think the health care bill is a bad one because it doesn't have a public option, or a single-payer, and it doesn't do anything to control the costs. Besides, Washington wasn't going to give them anything they didn't have already; if others states want what MA has, they should pay for it themselves...

Some other random thoughts that come to mind: A Democrat who's Republican-lite isn't very successful as voters go for the real thing. Many people would support, stick with a bold leader who's wrong than with a soft leader who's right. Bi-partisanship isn't possible with a party of "no." It doesn't mean much if you waste a year reaching to the other side but ultimately fail to produce anything good. It's good to try to build coalitions when you're a community organizer, but when you're the president you have to make decisions and move Congress and public opinion.

Consequences of the Republican Victories

One year ago, this past January 20th, Barack Obama became the 44th President of the United States, following a tremendous reversal of political fortunes. Within 2006 and 2008, the Republicans lost the Executive and control in both chambers of Congress... and lost them big! Obama had very sizeable majorities in the Congress. Oh, in case you have the impression that those majorities are gone, it's not so! The Dems have a 256-178 advantage in the House, and 57-41-2 in the Senate! Of the 2 independents, Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is good, while J. Lieberman (I-CT) should be told to go to hell. The following should also be sent to purgatory: Lincoln (D-AR), Nelson (D-NB), Baukus (D-MT), and Landrieu (D-LA). As you can see, the mark of 50 is easily met, and with VP Biden much good legislation can take place.... IF there's good leadership.

To the salivating Republicans: You are still in the minority, and even though the Dems are doing a splendid job of screwing up, your party isn't gaining more than the people's frustration with the slow and ineffective Dem leadership. Your party is falling faster. Anti-incumbent sentiment, a bad economy, high unemployment--all predating Obama and current Congress--don't automatically translate into Republican supporters. Don't believe me? Good. Then keep doing what you're doing. Actually, embrace more the tea-baggers, the Sara Palins, the Limbaughs, and their cohorts.

"Let me see if I've got this straight: the only people who have fully recovered from the financial meltdown are the ones who caused the financial meltdown. And by recovered I mean apparently re-dipping their balls in gold."
---Jon Stewart

I think the Dems defeat in MA was like a mild heart attack that got the patient to the emergency room and may have prevented a fatal hearth attack in November. That is, IF the patient understands what needs to be done from now on. Thus, this minor problem can be a warning and not a death sentence. Further, the Dems can realize that they have to govern like other presidents who had fewer Senators and Reps, or even being short of the majority. A good signal now would be to tell Lieberman to get lost by stripping him of his committee chair.

I hear that the progressive Dems want to scrap the current version of the health care bill, simplify it, and offer a public option. Look, the current bill will cover millions of Americans who have no health insurance. BUT, it doesn't control the costs. This is UNSUSTAINABLE. Costs have been rising much, much faster than wages. I have good health insurance. My premiums have gone up and instead of my employer giving me raises, they pay higher and higher premiums too. It's not good for business, and if the US is about being competitive, well, we're aren't as much as we could be.

I hope Obama is a good and fast learner. He hasn't played well in the first quarter and his team is hurting. This year is his second quarter before we go to halftime (midterm elections). He has to pick it up quickly, because in this sport last quarter heroics are usually a sign of desperation and the "hailmarys" don't work.

PS>What's the matter with those Southern men who have extra-marital affairs and they lie when confronted about them, look us in the eye and deny something that they know will eventually come out. At least here in the Northeast, we have men who admit to their indiscretions! Clinton (D-AR) and Edwards (D-NC) denied their sexual trysts only to be doubly shamed later. At least our own gov. Spitzer admitted it when the allegations came out. Same with current gov Paterson who admitted cheating on his wife. Yeap, the institution of marriage is safer when same-sex couples are denied equal rights.

UPDATE, 1/22: This memo is interesting to read and basically makes many of the same points argued in this post.

UPDATE 1/24: New York Times Frank Rich's editorial is right on point. That's exactly what I've been saying. Here are some excerpts:

It was not a referendum on Barack Obama, who in every poll remains one of the most popular politicians in America. It was not a rejection of universal health care, which Massachusetts mandated (with Scott Brown’s State Senate vote) in 2006. It was not a harbinger of a resurgent G.O.P., whose numbers remain in the toilet. Brown had the good sense not to identify himself as a Republican in either his campaign advertising or his victory speech.

The president is no longer seen as a savior but as a captive of the interests who ginned up the mess and still profit, hugely, from it...

Worse, the master communicator in the White House has still not delivered a coherent message on his signature policy. He not only refused to signal his health care imperatives early on but even now he, like Congressional Democrats, has failed to explain clearly why and how reform relates to economic recovery — or, for that matter, what he wants the final bill to contain. Sure, a president needs political wiggle room as legislative sausage is made, but Scott Brown could and did drive his truck through the wide, wobbly parameters set by Obama....

Ask yourself this: All these months later, do you yet know what the health care plan means for your family’s bottom line, your taxes, your insurance? ...

[Obama] has stepped up the populist rhetoric lately — and markedly after political disaster struck last week — but few find this serene Harvard-trained lawyer credible when slinging populist rhetoric at “fat-cat” bankers. His two principal economic policy makers are useless, if not counterproductive, surrogates....The White House clearly knows this duo is a political albatross. ....

It’s become so easy to pin financial elitism on Democrats that the morning after Brown’s victory the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee had the gall to accuse them of being the “one party who bailed out the automakers and insurance companies.” Never mind that the Bush White House gave us the bank (and A.I.G.) bailouts, or that the G.O.P. is even more in hock than Democrats to corporate patrons. The Obama administration is so overstocked with Goldman Sachs-Robert Rubin alumni and so tainted by its back-room health care deals with pharmaceutical and insurance companies that conservative politicians, Brown included, can masquerade shamelessly as the populist alternative.

...

Can anyone picture Obama exerting such take-no-prisoners leadership to challenge those who threaten our own economic recovery and stability at a time of deep recession and war? That we can’t is a powerful indicator of why what happened in Massachusetts will not stay in Massachusetts if this White House fails to reboot.

...

The smartest thing said as the Massachusetts returns came in Tuesday night was by Howard Fineman on MSNBC: “Obama took all his winnings and turned them over to Max Baucus.”

It Doesn't Feel Like 2010 Ushered a New Decade Yet... Are We Stuck in the Past?

Oh, How Perceptions Change... Like the Definition of Marriage!


It doesn't take me too long to talk about politics, even in ..polite company. Why not, important decisions are being made that affect our lives and the lives of future generations. I have to admit though that my interest is there because I care about the outcome of policy not because I'm satisfied with the process and the results. I consider myself a very progressive liberal, a secular individual--which, at least in this country, puts me in a small minority. I have hope that "my side" is winning and things will turn our way... it's just the pace seems to have the speed of molasses.
Funny test I took online today, based on cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court. I scored 92% in agreement with justice Stephen Breyer!

This new year started with lots of problems for our country. The president and the Dems have managed to produced a health care bill [at least the current one being discussed in Congress] that most Americans don't like or understand. The public and the single-payer options favored by the majority of Americans aren't even on the table! The progressive base and those groups that helped the Dems wind big in the last 2 elections are either disappointed or not very enthusiastic. The GOP registers higher motivation among its faithful and this might be enough to bring it some success this year.

One seat the Dems should not lose next week is Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. Strangely, president Obama isn't going to campaign for Martha Coackley! On the other hand, I think it will be good for the Dems to lose seats in the Senate this November. The "magical" number 60 will be no more, so there will be a true test of leadership to get things done without ridiculous compromises to get votes from Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, Baucus, and Snowe (she never came through despite being declared the unofficial president last summer!).

So, Sarah Palin knew nothing about history or foreign policy or much about anything else--other that "it was God's plan"--when she was drafted as McCain's running mate. I guess now she'll dispense her wisdom working for Fox News. But, considering Fox's audience, she'll fit right in... along with Brit Hume, who urged Tiger Woods to convert to xtianity in order to redeem himself from his sex scandal. Whatever.

What's rather offensive is the conservatives' revision of history--that the Republicans kept the US safe. Even Giulliani forgot that Bush was in office for 9 months (and ignored Islamic terrorists) when the terror of 9-11 happened. When president Bush froze when he was told that "America is under attack." When the neocons started another war on false pretenses and taking the focus away from Afghanistan. When, in essence, the Bush-Cheney-neocons triad managed to divide our friends and uniting our enemies. Conservatives have been bad for national security. I just hope that the American people have better memories.

On the more amusing side of the spectrum, the Vatican condemned the popular movie Avatar as " simplistic....flirting with modern doctrines that promote the worship of nature as a substitute for religion".. OK. I haven't seen the movie, but I kind of like the idea of relating to something that has a physical existence and we can interact with than to imaginary friends and foes. But, that's me. Choose your own poison, as they say.

To recap, 2010 will be an interesting year with ups and downs like any other. Glad to see a Democrat in the White House and Congress not controlled by the crazy wingnuts. Enjoy the ride in good health.



Update: I found this gem. With leaders like these...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Hey, does it mean if these people don't get their way God is not on their side?

Imagine a Better World. May Happy World Become a Reality Soon

First, may we all have a happy new year! I thought I should start this new year with a positive post, so I'm going to talk about pleasure--one of the two masters (the other being pain) according to the utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and J. S. Mill. Most would prefer pleasure to pain and maximizing the former is a moral stance. Should societies try to advance the conditions that make people happy? This is a serious question.

Now, what do you think of freeloaders? Those who want to get something that results not from their own efforts but by the efforts of others? Why should anyone be coerced to give up the fruits of their labor? As long as those fruits/benefits came from legal activity and an open/free marketplace. Right? Besides, who can really determine who needs what and what does a person deserve?

Yet, voluntary contributions may be necessary to preserve and enhance a society. Because, everyone benefits from a good, stable, progressive, healthy, educated, happier society! No one operates in the vacuum of space, nor do they make their wealth over there. Now, what's voluntary? Is it a social contract we're part of?

Personally, I think the definition of pleasure should be left to the individual who should be in charge of themselves. However, there's a great value, a higher moral standard, to support conditions that allow individual growth but also a positive social growth. The trick is to find the proper balance. Individualism and a progressive society aren't mutually opposites. On the contrary, this is the essence of liberal democracy.

As for pleasure in the new year, I'd like to see more people pursuing fulfilling activities--as long as they don't impose on the rights of others. For example, they can devote all the energy, money, and time to worshiping god(s) or the sun or whatever else they feel it makes them happy. I'd like to see healthier people--and we know how to do this if we have the political will.

I'd like to see more people thinking rationally because they appreciate the quest for knowledge and understanding, without surperstition and prejudice. I'd like to see more humans cooperating instead of fighting on illusions and pettiness. During the next trip around the sun, on spaceship Earth, let's remind ourselves that, for a long while, we have no where to go except to exist within a narrow band of a small planet in a hostile universe.

Finally, I'd like to image this...




In essence, I support the conditions that make me happy... and, I believe such conditions give opportunity to others to pursue their own bliss. Have a great year ahead!

Progressives to Obama: Mr. President, Please Explain Why You Changed Your Mind on Health Care.... [and, a reminder of what Obama used to say]

We have an obligation to remind the president what he was saying not so long ago. He must explain to us why he's failed to set the agenda on health care reform. Why he has been so accommodating to the likes of Nelson, Baucus, Snowe, Lieberman and the insurance industry? The progressive base gave the impetus to his candidacy. The majority of voters wanted change--which meant anything but Bush, and ultimately, good reforms that would benefit the middle class and the poor. Well, where are those reforms? Those reforms that would come from exercising leadership and spending of political capital, not the easy ones from signing executive orders.


When candidate Obama was campaigning for the presidency, he was rejecting the plans offered by Hillary Clinton and McCain. He stated that he wanted a public option as the best way to control costs and make the broken system competitive. Now, we hear, he's ready to sign on to a reform that does not include a public option.

The current system is unsustainable. Premiums, co-pays, deductibles have risen much, much higher than wages, while the costs of providing health care have skyrocketed. The Senate version of this bill will cover more American but what does this mean? Can you be covered when you can't afford the co-pays or the high deductibles? Further, if you get help to do so, then we're shoveling lots of money to the insurance companies who will keep doing what they've been doing and have more customers with public money!

It's insane that our leaders don't address the following shameful fact: The US is the only advanced democracy where patients (and their families) can go bankrupt because of medical bills! The majority of bankruptcies in this country are due to medical expenses. Of those, 3/4 have had "insurance." It's insane.

Listen to this interview on WNYC public radio. It's a critique of the suggested changes.

A Study Case of Failure in Leadership. Yeah, it's the Democratic President & Congress! [Can They Recover?]

WARNING: The following video is funny. (oh, and it uses ..pedestrian language). Buffer the video if you don't have a fast internet connection.

F the Vote

Should every American have equal access to quality health care? This is the only question that matters in this debate. As for the money a proper universal coverage would cost we can certainly afford it. It all depends how we spend the money. Of course, if we spend 50 cents on the dollar for military purposes, they we won't afford it, but clearly it's an obvious matter of priorities.

Any number floated out there by proponents or opponents to reform sounds good to me. Let's say it's $1 trillion for the next 10 years? So what? It's $100 billion a year to cover 300-310 million Americans. It's probably less than $1 a day for each of us! Meanwhile, we're all charged five times that much for military expenditures. Are we buying so much more security--the kind that saves lives like proper and available medical care? We spend more that the whole world combined on military, yet we are not as secure, and, by the way, we aren't as healthy as other advanced democracies! But, we have a system that's heavily influenced by people who don't share in the burdens. Leaders send the kids of others into battle. They have great health benefits that the rest of us, apparently, don't deserve! And, they set up huge corporations that enjoy the profits in private pockets while the risk is often socialized!


We've tried the private insurance approach it hasn't worked. Like it didn't work when NYC had private fire companies. The health care system has failed 1/3 of the people in this country--either because they don't have insurance or they're under-insured. We all pay for this mess, well except for those few who rake in huge profits. This is the only advanced country where you can go broke (bankruptcy) because of medical bills. It has failed to contain costs and increase meaningful competition.

The health of the community is important. The other truth is, the current system is unsustainable. I work for a big private non-profit organization and we all have medical insurance through a private for-profit company. Our premiums have risen way faster that our wages. This has been the case since the 1970s, thus, the middle class has seen dramatic increases in the cost of housing, education, and health care. Actual wages (adjusted for inflation) have remained stagnant.


If this Congress passes a monstrous bill and president Obama signs, it will be disastrous--not only for the Democratic party but for our country since millions of Americans will be without health care, the costs will not be contained, competition won't improve, and young people (18-29), who are now heavily pro-Dem, will be forced to buy into a bad and expensive system or fined if they don't. Why, do you see a problem with this? Yeah, the future's so bright I got to wear shades..

Oh, wait, there's some good news from this! You can make lots of money by buying insurance stock! Have your noticed that their value has been going up since we got news of this great bill negotiated by our leaders?!!


UPDATE: I like Paul Krugman. He's an unabashed liberal and I usually agree with him. But, this economist and Nobel laureate makes the case for passing the rumored health care bill. I may not agree with him, but here's his piece:


"A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.

But meanwhile, pass the health care bill.

...

At its core, the bill would do two things. First, it would prohibit discrimination by insurance companies on the basis of medical condition or history: Americans could no longer be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or have their insurance canceled when they get sick. Second, the bill would provide substantial financial aid to those who don’t get insurance through their employers, as well as tax breaks for small employers that do provide insurance.

All of this would be paid for in large part with the first serious effort ever to rein in rising health care costs."


There's a split among the progressives on what to do with the bill the Senate wants to pass. Some, like Krugman, say pass it now and amend it later. Others, like Howard Dean, say no!




On more thing. When will the Dems obtain such big majorities in both chambers of Congress plus the White House? Just wondering... I mean, if they can't pass meaningful reforms now, when will they? They'll be blamed for the financial troubles next year, especially if the unemployment figures don't improve. This is a great chance in a long while to pass good reforms that will benefit most of the people for generations to come. There were the same reactions and vapid opposition to new progressive programs like Social Security, Medicare, consumer protection, civil rights acts, and even electrification. This new president and Congressional Dems must rise to the occasion and do what's best for the country, now and in the future.

Is the Near Future as Good as the Present?

Maybe New Models Are Needed

As students, we didn't think all that far ahead; of course we were concerned about the future but we firmly believed in the American dream--the world was there for us to take. It's been quite some time since I graduated college, and many things have changed, but also many haven't. The middle class hasn't advanced all that much, if at all. I went to a public university so I managed to get my degrees while accumulating little debt. However, most students today graduate with a huge amount of debt--a figure that's rising about 6% a year. Project Student Debt has the numbers for graduating seniors. [pdf] The most debt-laden students are in the Northeast!

The employment prospects for graduates reflect the overall state of the US economy. Yet, US workers' productivity has increased while wages haven't followed the trend. Since 1973, real wages have remained stagnant! Read Elizabeth Warren's America Without a Middle Class to find out more. The presence of a strong middle class is very important in a stable, progressive, and fair commonwealth. Unfortunately, most of the wealth is amassed and held by the very small elite that has been using the political system to its advantage. The corporate media hardly talks about the distribution of wealth and usually distracts the audience with cheap, mindless entertainment.

I don't know whether the American people have begun to re-evaluate the conditions in our country, but there's a sense at present that the "fix is in." They believe that Wall Street is more important that Main Street, and that the government primarily serves the wealthy and powerful. On the other hand, there are too many of us who prefer myths and distractions to reality. For the life of me, I don't understand how voters elect most of the Republicans in Congress today--such a conservative bunch that has no intention to do anything good for the common folk, from consumer protection to equality of opportunity conditions. Or, that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and so many others, have tens of millions of listeners! This does have a tremendous effect on our national dialogue and on public policy.

Now, on to education. Did you read Bob Herbert's editorial in the NY Times? He argues that the greatest national security issue in the US is the crisis in education. This isn't too far fetched, you know. Within the span of one or two generations, the effects of a largely uneducated public, the lack of real opportunities, and the lack of economic growth that matters to most people can be explosive. An empire that's losing power can also be a very dangerous thing. I could see how demagogues can convince the American public that our woes are not our fault by the fault of others, and that we must act unilaterally against our enemies! Always confusing the issues and transfer blame.

In the end, we'll collectively get what we deserve. What do you think we deserve in the near future?


Here's a popular American explaining American history and providing a solution for a better country:

Celebrating Charles Darwin and the Human Thirst for Knowledge

This year is a special one when it comes to celebrating our quest for knowledge by marking the 200th year of Charles Darwin's birthday and the 150th year of his seminal work on evolution--the theory that explains the mechanism by which we are here today. Most of the world in 1859 was not very scientific, which makes Darwin's discovery even more remarkable. His theory of evolution has been ferociously attacked since the day Origins was published. I could understand those who didn't have the benefit of an education in science or anything else, but to deny one of the strongest scientific theories we have today is rather incredulous.

Once, briefly, I accepted biologist Stephen Jay Gould's notion of "non overlapping magisteria," that is, science and religion address different domains, and, therefore, claims made by these magisteria cannot be reconciled nor should they be compared. Not so, I contend today. Denying evolution, for example, is based on religious claims--a priori statements that cannot be subject to evidence or reason. This is crazy! Claims about reality must be evaluated. Religion and science both make such claims.

Think about it. They want to subject scientific theories to scrutiny by throwing some verses from ancient books at them. Darwin investigated, observed, collected evidence, established a theory that could predict, and as scientific theories go, there's a way to disprove it. Yet, disproving a strong theory must be done with evidence and reason. Darwin's basic theory of evolution has been confirmed by several other branches of science--unknown to the humans in the 19th century. Now, we have religious fanatics who refute this because they believe a book that was written a few thousand years ago is the absolute truth. They want to believe what ever suits their needs--and placing humans at the center of creation (of the whole universe) must feel good. What an arrogance!

The worst part of this is that they want to spread their ignorance through the public education system! Oh, and they have this expensive but utterly stupendous creation museum... where they show the Biblical version of evolution. This version has vegetarian dinos strolling around with humans. Since the courts have declared that creationism is not science, they try to label their religious doctrine as "intelligent design." Fortunately their trick hasn't worked... in most states. In some state schools, creationism is considered as an alternative theory to evolution--you know, for balance. Or, as our former president GW Bush said, "the jury is still out"...so, teach both sides to a story. Like, teach alchemy to balance chemistry, astrology to astronomy, magic crystals to medicine.

I don't remember when I had my epiphany of reason and how I escaped with my curiosity intact, but I realized early on that education was how to better understand my own self, the human condition, and the cosmos. Alas, the more you know, the more you realize there more unknowns. Yet, the journey continues. Actually, reality is far more exciting, like the hidden colors in the visible light that are revealed by refraction! Why should there be a supernatural realm?

There's got to be a need of some sort that makes so many humans disregard reason and science. If they don't know any better, they may have a good excuse, but if they live in an advanced society they have no excuse. The powerful dictates of a culture inculcated by religion make strong shackles of the mind. By looking at US politics, one might say that ..devolution is also possible. On the other hand, our knowledge is increasing at an accelerated pace--much like the galaxies are speeding apart at an increasing rate.. ..well, except that the bigger Andromeda galaxy is heading our way on a collision course with the Milkyway.

On a more positive note, the average life of a species is about 2 million years, so by the law of probabilities, the human species may have a few more years of life left. You wouldn't know it by looking at the abundant life around us, but the Earth is a deadly place--indeed many forces in the universe are hostile to life. Some 98% of all species that ever appeared on this blue planet have been extinct. Most life is brutish, painful, fearful, anxious, poor, and short. Pain and suffering has been a constant. Some design, heh? And, if this was a laboratory to do testing on live specimens, it would have been shut down in any self-respecting society or under a moral entity.

What has elevated humanity is our ability to think, to reason, to be creative--more so than other species. We have choices to make; we can even create our own choices including our destination. But, perhaps the most amazing thing is the journey itself and the process by which we move through spacetime.

Sarah Palin Should Run for US President in 2012, and 2016

I thought of giving you my review of Sarah's book, Going Rogue, but I opted for this video of her admirers instead.

The Meaning of Education and the Timidity of Certain Minds

What is that You Want to Know?

It doesn't happen that often--maybe because students don't care to say anything about it--but occasionally someone in class would argue that some comments/discussions about certain belief systems are offensive and disrespectful. The other day, a student said, "I don't pay thousands of dollars to have my beliefs insulted." Presumably she meant that certain topics should be off limits because she's uncomfortable with anything that may undermine her sacred beliefs. She pays thousands of dollars to get an education--in my opinion, education means more than vocational skills--but is she interested in paying for an education that sharpens critical skills? How about, the value of arriving at a conclusion after examining the facts and weighing the validity of the arguments?

The piece of paper a university awards should mean that the title holder has critical skills, can analyze, can amend, construct reasonable arguments, connect the relevant dots, and, yes, maintain a curious mind. How about learning something that may be outside one's comfort zone? Is this valuable?

Now, on the question of respect. As a principle it's a good one: respect every individual's human dignity; respect their rights; respect their claims to own conscience and opinion. But, why should their beliefs be granted automatic respect? Yet, denying automatic respect to a point of view does not mean people don't have the right to have whatever opinion they deem appropriate or their right to express it. Simply put, I do not recognize any right of de facto respect. Opinions, theories, belief systems should be evaluated on their merits. How can anyone demand that such be afforded sacred status? What's sacred for me may be laughable to you, and I'm OK with that! So, should you!

To take it a step further, if you claim sanctity for your beliefs, it may be an indication of weakness. Instead of having the force of arguments to defend your views, you rely on censorship for protection. I realize that many people don't want to be challenged so they seek supporting views only. Of course, this is their right. Of course, it's their right to feel any way they want. They can create filters and avoid places that present challenges. However, they should be prepared to have their views tested when they enter an institution where intellectual pursuits involve critical examination of ideas and beliefs.

How do we know things? Seriously, how do we know if something is true & valid? Maybe I should ask instead, do we care to know?

If we do, then the scientific method is the best tool we have to understand and accumulate precious knowledge! This involves open discussion, challenges, reason, evidence, review, and a way to amend.

I'm naturally suspicious of claims of divine revelation. I don't think profound knowledge or truths should be revealed only in secret and to a very few people. Especially when such statements can't be put to a test or subject it to an intellectual challenge. As someone claims the right not to be offended, I claim the right to free speech and rational thought. Above all, I claim the right to be human!

And, that's my theory!

Teabaggers, Faux News, Loons, and Republicans Who Promote Lies & Ignorance

Today (Nov. 12, 2009), several members of Congress, including this loon Michele Bachmann, and conservatives from all necks of the woods are descending on Washington DC to "scare Congress" into scrapping the health care reform. I think this video will give you an idea of what those "teabaggers" are and what they want. Sadly, this is the kind of crap promoted by Fox Network and other conservatives--who have taken control of the Republican party.

Sometimes, the best way to debunk stupid arguments is to give more publicity to those who make them!

Some Thoughts on this Off-year Election of 2009

I spent last night following the election results. The most interesting outcomes were the 23rd Congressional District in upstate New York, and the referendum in Maine about same-sex marriage. Obviously, I kept checking the numbers from New Jersey; they looked bad for Corzine the moment the polls closed. So, now the Garden State has a Republican for governor. It's been a very tough year for executives, regardless of their political stripes. The Dems had more seats to defend, therefore more to lose--and they did.

I don't think this off-year election can be used as a barometer for the 2010 midterm elections, when the whole House (435) and 1/3 of the US Senate are up for re-election. There will be more serious messages then about Obama's performance, the Dem leadership in Congress, and the shape of the Republican party.

In Washington State, the voters re-affirmed the legal protections & rights the legislature had given to same-sex couples. They don't call it "marriage" but it's close. I don't think it's far when most blue states will move more aggressively in a progressive direction, and it won't be long before we look back and wonder why the hell we didn't move faster--as we look back today and shake our heads in disbelief that states prohibited cross-racial marriages.

However, I think two results from this election have lots to tell us. First, the repealing of the same-sex marriage law in Maine by a small margin. I'm disappointed but there's good news here. The northeast is moving in a progressive direction. Almost half of those who voted are OK with giving same legal rights to homosexuals. In a few years, there will be a solid majority (at least on this progressive issue) in Maine. Students at the University of ME voted overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the same-sex law. One campus registered 81% support! As older generations expire, the country moves in a more progressive direction. And, this is the problem the Republican party is having nowadays. They're purging the moderates in their midst. When one GOP moderate (through his/her own devices) manages to win public office in the Northeast, the party claims victory. But, it's not the victory that comes out of the conservative ideology and the Republican party's platform.

The GOP seems to be trapped in the southern strategy--which worked for a generation or two, but not anymore. The Republican party is not a national party any more. A governor and a mayor here and there don't make a national party. If, for example, the blue state of NJ wanted the Republicans in charge, they would have thrown out the big Dem majority in the state legislature. They did not. In addition, those Republicans who manage to get elected in the Northeast are rather moderate. The Dem incumbent screws up (especially in a very tough economic environment of today) and the voters replace him with a moderate Republican.

The 23rd CD in NY showed us that the moderate Republicans are the most endangered species. When president Obama chose an upstate moderate Republican to be the Secretary of the Army, the NYS GOP picked another moderate Republican to run in the special election. But, wait, the conservative movement is controlled today by the most extreme, most conservative elements. Thus, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin [do I need to mention more names?] went out of their way to promote one of their own in the 23rd CD. The result was a Dem winning the district. He is the first Dem to represent the district since the 1800s!

Now, I'm not saying the Dem will hold this CD, but this race shows who's in control of the Republican party. It shows the direction is going into. I like it. They think that their ideology or policies [what policies besides "NO" have they proposed since they lost power?!!] aren't the problem. It's the party and the moderates who are responsible for the big defeats in the span of 2 elections, 2006-2008.

There are no Republicans represented in the House of Congress from the six states that comprise New England! Throw in New York state's 29 seats and you get only 2 Repubs. Actually, the Congressional Dems added 2 more seats in yesterday's special election.

On the other hand, I don't have the illusion the country is truly as progressive as some of us would prefer--even though the majority holds progressive ideas on many social issues. These days, we collectively are re-evaluating the role of the government. What is it that the government can do for us? Isn't, after all, our government? Did you see the recently released Prosperity Index? It's very interesting.

Here are the indexes:

• Economic Fundamentals – a growing, sound economy that provides opportunities for wealth creation
• Entrepreneurship and Innovation – an environment friendly to new enterprises and the commercialization of new ideas
• Democratic Institutions – transparent and accountable governing institutions that promote economic growth
• Education – an accessible, high-quality educational system that fosters human development
• Health – the physical well-being of the populace
• Safety and Security – a safe environment in which people can pursue opportunity
• Governance – an honest and effective government that preserves order and encourages productive citizenship
• Personal Freedom – the degree to which individuals can choose the course of their lives
• Social Capital – trustworthiness in relationships and strong communities.

The US ranks 9th.

Myths and Folklore Can be Fun in a Reality-Based World. Escape from Reality Shouldn't be a Constant!

Halloweeeeeen! Oh, I love a good old myth. Jac-O-Lantern is such a ridiculous story that's is amusing. I wish I could say the same about some other--many official--holidays, but I won't go into that today. There are many pagan elements to this fun holiday, and, of course, witchcraft. All in good fun, but not according to the CBN (Pat Robertson's tube). The fundies are afraid that "demonic influences" may be lurking in the candy, because most of the candy "sold this year has been dedicated and prayed over by witches"! This story would be funny if it weren't for the fact millions of Americans believe such things. For an advanced society, this is appalling; the lunatic fringe is too big to be on the fringes of our society--with practical implications in our culture and politics.

I think most people don't spend much time thinking about their belief systems. Obviously, Halloween is a fun holiday and nothing more than that to most people, including myself. But, it's big business in the US. In this recession times, Americans are expected to spend more this year on costumes, candy and parties than ever before. Escape from reality. I mean, it's OK to do this once in a while, but being in a alternate-reality universe can be a problem.

Religious rituals have been with humanity ever since thunder was observed. Fear and ignorance was the guiding forces behind inventing rituals to appease the gods and cope with the harsh life. It wasn't long after that the elites used religion to further entrench their privileged status and further keep people in a state of few and ignorance. I suppose if a person has no education, no access to information--other than what culture and the authorities allow--and is indoctrinated into a rigid belief system (absolutism), then it's rather impossible to escape this reality.

It's not accident that change in human societies (including certain ideas), took thousands of years to take hold. Even when there was change, including new belief systems, usually it was one absolute idea/practice replaced by another. Pagan practices gave rise to Christian ones. Actually all three Abrahamic religions have common views of human nature, morality, society, and of a god who capriciously suspends his own physical laws.

Although most of our human history has been an exercise for survival in a very difficult environment (state of nature, and man-made conditions), human have chosen the convenient whenever it was possible. Of course, primitive societies had taboos against change; change was not borne by forthought or encouragement. Some change came because of unintented consequences and/or by some brave individuals who went against the current. But, nowadays, I'd prefer a bit more of an effort to understand the world around us. A bit of an inquiry into long-held beliefs that have a direct effect on our lives. Times have changed indeed, I just wish there was a bit more rational thinking going on.

Leave it to the Republicans to Distort the Meaning of Freedom

I think we need to have a discussion on what freedom is. Freedom doesn't reside in the vacuum of space. It's about meaningful choices and actions. The system we have, the government we elect should make sure that the people have access to opportunity and that the whole thingy we have here is for the benefit of the commonwealth not the elites.

The Republicans say they're concerned about freedom and are afraid of big government. First, they have their priorities wrong. You don't get freedom by eliminating choice or, get this, by allowing predatory practices. Of course, they want to pay lip service to freedom--as to many authoritarian regimes--because freedom means something to many of us. So, Senator McCain introduces the "Internet Freedom Act" to destroy net neutrality and affect the people's access to information or whatever else they desire when they get on the internet.

Access to internet is becoming increasingly important in so many ways, so there should be no speed restrictions. A century ago, the railways (monopolies) tried to do the same--transport certain cargo faster while delaying others--and that was a bad thing and we remedied it through the law. It's like the electric company striking deals with appliance manufacturers so some work better in household. Why should Faux news load faster than the Liberal Citizen blog? If you have the same connection to the internet, you should be the one to decide where to go and that you have the same speed throughout your journey.

I tried, I really did, to find some redeeming features in what policies the conservatives have been pushing, but it's quite appalling. Consumer protection: Against. Environment-friendly: Against. Science: Against. Education: Against. Freedom of conscience: Against. Equal rights under the law: Against. Social safety net: Against. Health care for all: Against. Access to equal opportunity: Against. Civil liberties: Against. Civil Rights:...(you guessed it).

Arguments for a Balanced View? ..Or, a Balancing Act on the Edge of the Abyss?

Does this make sense to you? After all, don't you want your kids to get the best education by exposing them to different points of view and alternative theories? [tricky question]...

Watch this video and laugh or weep, or both.





There is a big problem when too many people can't figure out the logical fallacies presented by such arguments.

Because of circumstance and certain conditions prevailing in the US, our country managed to do great compared to others, but either I missed the memo or I'm reading the current trajectory of our country, we're fading fast from the self-assured "number 1" position.

A note to our leaders: don't be wimps* and narrow-minded [which doesn't mean accept any point of view as valid] and let's forge a progressive path to a more enlightened society. Stop playing stupid politics and appealing to the lowest common denominator.



.

..
...

*Memo to the Democrats in charge of Congress and the White House: This past election was about change. Very specific promises were made during the campaign; the people expect progressive change through bold leadership. The Republicans will not help--not when they're moving closer to the Dark Ages. Oh, and health care reform shouldn't be left on the graces of president Olympia Snowe or the DINOS [Democrats in Name Only].

How Morons Succeed in Politics

Appropriate for another era?

To be fair, intelligence hasn't been the golden standard for admission into US politics, and I suspect that some elected politicians aren't that dumb--they just appeal to their base! Nevertheless, stupidity and ignorance is a commodity that has a lasting quality in our system. There's a critical mass of Americans [I'm not talking about obesity, even though it is a problem on its own] who confuse opinion with facts, and personal preferences with reality.

Human brains are quite capable of holding many contradictory ideas at the same time. For example, some say life is sacred but not if it's not attached to a piece of paper that confirms eligibility to health care--and, thus, survival.

It's no wonder why more than 1/3 of Americans seriously entertain the thought that 9-11 was the result of a government conspiracy--that is, our government's. Never mind the ludicrous and unproven claims strewn out there to support such claim. That's the problem with talking to an unreasonable person: They are not bound by logic, facts, or anything else. You talk to them while you limit yourself to logical arguments and evidence. And, invariably, they'll say, you can't prove that there was no conspiracy.... It's the same as saying, you can't prove there's no tooth fairy!

Just the other day, the House voted “to expand the definition of violent federal hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual orientation” by passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. What's wrong with that? Ah, the moral police [a.k.a. The Republican party] is against it. As they're against repealing the DODT [Don't Ask Don't Tell ridiculous policy in our armed forces], because the social conservatives are obsessed with "unnatural" sex! Sex or sexual orientation should be left to the individual and no one should be forced to pretend or legally penalized based on their sexual orientation or the sex they practice in private. I know, this progressive view offends the fundies.

Isn't it embarrassing to have so many elected representatives [like those GOPers who were running for president last year and actually said they didn't believe in evolution (science)?!!] that spew such nonsense? Have you heard the arguments that when we loosen up our morality it leads to ..necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, and to fascism?

I don't think I'll ever be a Republican, but I'd like to see a vibrant, mature, and, yes, progressive Republican party, because it will be good for our country. Unfortunately, this GOP now represents the most extreme, vile, and ignorant segments of American society. OK, they represent big business too, as well as the notion that government should be so small as to be ineffective in regulating big business and providing any social services to its people. Funny thing, the GOP would not dispute this statement of mine today!

How about climate change? Or, science and science education in the US? The environment? Consumer protection? Equality of opportunity? Safety net? [yes, safety means more than "fighting them over there"], Wealth distribution and the diminishing of the middle class? Access to information & education? Promoting tolerance and talent? Intellectual development?.... etc... I'm sure you can add to this list of the Republicans' vision and plans for America.

Explaining Political Science to Morons

Forget it! As an educator I don't give up easily in trying to explain a concept, but if someone doesn't want to absorb anything through their filters of ignorance and prejudice, then it's pointless to persist. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is such a moron! He's introduced legislation in the US Senate [embarrassingly, he's in the top echelons of US power along with several other ignorant politicians who are elected by millions of our compatriots] to ..bar the National Science Foundation (NSF) from “wasting federal research funding on political science.” Coburn argues that these political sciences issues “have little, if anything, to do with science.” He believes that by turning to Fox News, CNN, etc, a person can get all the political science he desires. Simple, heh? Likewise, I'd suppose, series like House, Grey's Anatomy, can sub for an education in medicine. The series Lost can replace political philosophy on how to organize a human society in a deserted island. While at it, Sabrina The Teenage Witch can be sufficient for understanding the laws of nature.

I'm fond of science--it's very interesting as it expands our understanding, and it has made human life better and longer. Political Science is a discipline and even though it doesn't deal with physical laws, it's scientific. There are things to be observed and measured. There are theories that explain and predict. There is an ongoing research and amendment. There are variables that once identified help explain trends and conditions. For example, without knowing anything about a country, if you ask, what is the status of women in that society? The answer to this question will tell you a great deal. We know that the status of women is directly linked to the political and economic development, and to a myriad of other ways we use to measure a society.

The scientific method is the best tool of understanding we have. It's amazing and worrisome that the US has achieved such great achievements while so many Americans are really ignorant about the world they live in. Obviously, moronic beliefs influence our policy. We elect leaders more fit for the Dark Ages. Do you know that 2/3 of our fellow citizens can't find Iraq on the map or even name the three branches of our government? That 1 in 5 adults believes the ..sun revolves around the earth?! That only 26% know natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, let alone that most don't accept the theory of evolution as valid?!! The theory of evolution--one of the strongest scientific theories we've got!

Now, what kind of public policy an ignoramus would support? Guess. Keep in mind that close to a majority Americans believe Jesus will return to earth in their lifetime! That the earth is only between 6 and 10 thousand years old! That there's a divine plan... That the end of times is a good thing....

I'm going out to see the autumn leaves... If you are in the Northeast don't miss this spectacular show of nature.

Big Stakes for Obama and the Democrats.... [and, let's not forget those Americans who suffer & die unnecessarily]

I just hope that president Obama is a fast learner and changes tactics soon...

What's a Fulfilling Life In a Desirable Society?

When the only form of government known was one of either absolute or authoritarian flavor, then it was natural to think of it as a threat to liberty. Even in liberal democracies today, the government can reach too far--as we saw under the 8 years of the Bush administration. They've been advances in thinking and in practice when it comes to organizing a civil society, but the question remains: what is the purpose of government? Different people in different times have given different answers to this. Assuming that our government exists for the benefit of most citizens, then the question is: how much power to give government and what is it that we are trying to achieve when you say "for the benefit of many"?

Certain ideological rigidity prevents some of our bright fellows from seeing the necessity for reforming a broken system--like broken laws or an operating system that's full of viruses. We have the greatest percentage of educated people ever; much of it is the result of public education. In the last 100 years, we've doubled human longevity. Advances in medicine and technology have transformed our society. Yet, some of us seem to be clinging to old ways that don't serve us well in this 21st century. Understandably, modernity may be perceived as a threat to the "old, tried & true," and it's poses great challenges to traditions and ancient belief systems. I'm not arguing for replacing everything old, but let's not be conservatives because of disposition.

We have to revisit old beliefs and re-examine our ways of life. Building a sense of self-confidence--a requirement for unforced change--takes time, effort and a keen understanding of what's going on around us. We have to give up our collective illusions and scrap the myths that were meant for traditional societies where the notion of commnonwealth didn't really exist.

Let's start by thinking the notions of liberty and equality. What do they mean to you? How do they fit in your idea of a good society? Do you have a definition of a good life?

Jon Stewart: Obama Promises to Take Action....

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
One Year Anniversary of Lehman Brothers Collapse
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Also, on September 17th, 1787, our constitution was adopted, creating a new federal country, and a great political experiment at that. The United States of America were [did you notice the plural form?] a loose collection of states that would suffer a bloody civil war to settle a few important issues. Since 1864 these states became known in the singular--one country. Of course, there are some among us who haven't accepted that the South lost the war, while others want to secede, like Palin's Independence Party in Alaska, along with those kooks in Texas and a few other red states.

In other news, DINO [Dem in Name Only] Sen. Max Baucus came out with his "bipartisan" bill on health care reform without a single Republican supporting it. What a surprise! I thought that the long delay since last Spring was for the "moderates" of both parties to forge a good bill. All this delay for nothing? I do hope that president Obama is a fast learner, and that he changes strategy soon. He's correct in saying that he will own the health care bill--let's hope it's a meaningful one and not just re-arranging the chairs on the Titanic. Thus far, Obama is all fluff and no substance regarding his campaign promises! We are watching Mr. President.... and, we have noticed those embarrassing Bush policies you've chosen to continue.

On the positive side, the Jets surprised me last Sunday. If they beat the Patriots too, they may be for real this year. Remaining on positive territory, September is going very well and I can't wait to see some glorious colors as the Northeast puts a wonderful display this autumn.

If you happen to be in NYC this weekend, you might want to visit Governor's Island for the New Island Festival. The Dutch have returned and taken over this little island in the NY harbor! 400 years ago, an Englishman, Henry Hudson, working for the Dutch arrived at the island and sailed up ..his river. Manhattan was named New Amsterdam; this was changed to New York when the Brits took over, but we still have many Dutch names present. The festival has many venues of Dutch theater, music, art, food, and all sorts of performances. [I'll soon post on my casual cafe more about it]

Update, 9/18/09
In the last several months, I've been devoting most posts to the need for sensible health care reform. It's a very urgent matter for our country and IF we want to reduce unnecessary suffering and deaths, there's NO another greater national priority right now. Safety, security don't always come from having a strong military at the border and overseas!

I'm healthy and I now have a good insurance plan, but I can't accept that this wealthy country leaves 50+ million people with no health insurance and up to 100 million Americans who are way under-insured, that is, likely to be financially destroyed [#1 cause of personal bankruptcies] if they get a serious illness.

A new study released by researchers at Harvard Medical School has calculated that 45,000 Americans a year die because they lack health insurance — nearly one every twelve minutes. “We’re losing more Americans every day because of inaction…drunk driving and homicide combined,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study.

PS. Socialized medicine in France has hit a snag! There's a deficit, so in order to save money the government announced that the cost of an overnight stay in the hospital (the patient has to pay) will rise by 25%! Also, over-the-counter drugs subsidies to the French consumer will drop from 35% to 15! .....

Those Fenchies will have to grow up (be like Americans!) and do more for themselves (ah, the freedom!) than having the government give them all those health care goodies! So, they'll now have to pay $29.40 instead of $23.50 for their overnight hospital stay, and they'll only get 15% subsidy for the non-prescriptions drugs (like Aspirin) they buy! Horrors! Let them drown themselves in wine and cheese!

Obama's Speech to Congress: Late but Good. However, the Democrats' Capitulation Isn't Stopped!

Who knew?!!

I watched the President's speech to Congress and he was good for what he wanted to achieve: talk to the public and dispel some of the misconceptions the conservatives and narrow special interest have created. I don't think he changed anyone's mind in Congress, but at least now we know what he wants to do to reform an ailing health care system, and the public's support is important to push it through.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why Obama and the Dem leadership in Congress want to deal with the petulant and obstructionist Republicans. They won't support any plan under consideration. That GOP clown who shouted, "You lie," to the president, along with many other similar jerks in the conservative camp, do represent a political coalition that all wants is for Obama to fail. At any cost, even if it means worsening the conditions for the majority of Americans. The conservative political base is regional; their ideology is fit for another era, and the GOP's only hope is for Obama and the Dems to screw up.... Unfortunately, they're getting what they want--which is amazing to see given the big majorities the Dems have in Congress while also controlling the White House.

I understand that US politics is a strange animal. The political parties are state-based and they tend to represent local public sentiment. There's much less party discipline in Congress than in its equivalent parliaments in other democracies. And, the executive is separate from the legislative branch. Our political system is responsive to public pressure but also to lobbyists who represent big pockets. Information is the key here. There are many Americans who would not change their views no matter what; they assume a point of view and make it like their favorite team--together for ever. The hard-line conservative ideologues despise Obama, as they did Bill Clinton. If Jesus came back wearing jeans, I bet they'd oppose him too!

The Democratic caving didn't stop with Obama's speech the other night. The conservatives oppose any meaningful reform that includes a public option. They want Obama to fail, but since the majority (up to 70%+) of Americans do want a public option, they're trying to find faults--real or imaginary. One such a "fault" is that ..illegal aliens will get health care coverage under Obama's plan. The prez & Dem leaders already had conceded this point.

My goodness, why should we give medical care to those illegals? The audacity of those "people" to expect to be treated as human beings! We only wanted a labor force not human beings. Those bastards drain our national resources. Once I work out the logistics (including costs) of deporting some 12 million aliens, I'll get back to you. By that time, it'll be time for the immigration debate. Meanwhile, we will continue to provide medical care to those illegals and the uninsured via the emergency room instead of selling an affordable plan to them! That's the kind of sense we're all familiar with, right? The same impeccable arguments will surface during the immigration debate soon.

You know, it's my religious (and hence, moral) belief that God has a plan. I believe that all diseases can be cured by prayer.... only if the patient and his family really believe. I guess they don't have a strong enough faith that's why miracles don't happen more often. I'll make sure that my children will not be exposed to the corrupt effects of modern medicine. No vaccines, no drugs whatsoever! Further, as a pharmacist, I will not sell or otherwise provide any birth control methods to anyone. That's my moral stance! Obviously, abortions are wrong under any condition. I'm glad to hear the president saying that his plan will not provide funding for abortions! Hurray! So what if a woman's life depends on having an medically-necessary abortion? No money for that! Are you happy, Republicans? ... ["In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic." Homer Simpson]