Congratulations must go out to Ciro Rodriguez in House District 23 this morning, because he is now Texas' newest member of the U.S. House of Representatives. And he did it convincingly.
I have to admit that I thought this one would be a squeaker, and the Democrats would be lucky to win by a point or two. But Rodriguez had other plans -- like getting over 54% of the total vote! He took Bonilla to the woodshed and gave him an old-fashioned whuppin'. District 23 is no longer red, or even a shade of purple -- it's now a very nice shade of blue.
Thank you South Texas, and congratulations to U.S. Representative Ciro Rodriguez. It was a wonderful night. Let's hope it was a harbinger of many future Democratic victories.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
New Rules For Death Penalty Attorneys
Eleven years ago, a state law was passed requiring that the Appeals Courts make sure that inmates on Death Row receive adequate representation during the appeals process. Recently, the Austin American-Statesman discovered that sub-par attorneys were still being allowed to represent Death Row clients.
According to an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram this morning:
"The newspaper [Austin American-Statesman] found examples of habeas lawyers who copied from previous appeals, regardless of the case's facts, or ignored important case details. In one case, a lawyer submitted a writ with sections copied verbatim from his client's letters from death row."
On Monday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals finally moved to rectify this situation. They adopted new rules that said a majority of the judges on the Court could remove an attorney from the Court's approved list of habeas attorneys. The attorney's could be removed for:
* Exhibiting Substandard proficiency
* Unprofessional or unethical behavior
* Being found to have provided poor representation in any criminal case
There is also a State Bar of Texas task force organized last month. They may well make recommendations for further action. Judge Cathy Cochran said, "We recognize the need to have at least somewhat more specific rules...to remove attorneys who are not fulfilling their obligation to their clients. We're only partway there. We are hoping the task force comes up with more specific recommendations. In the meantime, at least we have something in place."
I am glad the Court finally took some action. Whether a person agrees with the death penalty or not, I think we can all agree that Death Row inmates should have adequate representation. If the state of Texas is going to execute people, then they are obligated to make sure it is done fairly, and that the inmate has decent representation.
This is a good first step.
According to an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram this morning:
"The newspaper [Austin American-Statesman] found examples of habeas lawyers who copied from previous appeals, regardless of the case's facts, or ignored important case details. In one case, a lawyer submitted a writ with sections copied verbatim from his client's letters from death row."
On Monday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals finally moved to rectify this situation. They adopted new rules that said a majority of the judges on the Court could remove an attorney from the Court's approved list of habeas attorneys. The attorney's could be removed for:
* Exhibiting Substandard proficiency
* Unprofessional or unethical behavior
* Being found to have provided poor representation in any criminal case
There is also a State Bar of Texas task force organized last month. They may well make recommendations for further action. Judge Cathy Cochran said, "We recognize the need to have at least somewhat more specific rules...to remove attorneys who are not fulfilling their obligation to their clients. We're only partway there. We are hoping the task force comes up with more specific recommendations. In the meantime, at least we have something in place."
I am glad the Court finally took some action. Whether a person agrees with the death penalty or not, I think we can all agree that Death Row inmates should have adequate representation. If the state of Texas is going to execute people, then they are obligated to make sure it is done fairly, and that the inmate has decent representation.
This is a good first step.
Olmert Admits Israel Has Nuclear Weapons
Most people who keep up with world affairs have believed for years now that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. They are routinely included on lists of countries that have the nuclear bomb. But Israeli officials have always refused to confirm or deny their possession of these weapons.
However, it looks like Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert blundered on Monday during a visit to Germany, and admitted the obvious -- that Israel is a nuclear power.
In an interview on German television, Olmert was asked if Israel's alleged nuclear program weakened the case against Iran's nuclear program. He replied, "Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"
Of course, the Israeli government was quick to deny that Olmert had actually admitted that Israel had nuclear weapons. Olmert's own spokesman said Olmert did not mean to say that Israel had, or aspired to have nuclear weapons. But the cat is now out of the bag.
Olmert may not have intended to admit the fact, but his words are very clear. The world's assumption for the last few years is true -- Israel does have nuclear weapons.
Although I have believed for a while now that Israel does have the nuclear bomb, it does not make me feel any better to have Olmert verify it, especially since Israel is known for its unilateral actions in defiance of U.N. resolutions and world opinion.
It would be better if no country had nuclear weapons in the Middle East, but that time has long since passed. Israel has nuclear weapons, and Iran is not far from having them.
The situation was bad enough when only the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France and China had the nuclear bomb. It got worse when India and Pakistan became nuclear powers. But the doomsday clock moves very close to midnight, when the warring nations of the Middle East become nuclear powers.
We live in very dangerous times.
However, it looks like Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert blundered on Monday during a visit to Germany, and admitted the obvious -- that Israel is a nuclear power.
In an interview on German television, Olmert was asked if Israel's alleged nuclear program weakened the case against Iran's nuclear program. He replied, "Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"
Of course, the Israeli government was quick to deny that Olmert had actually admitted that Israel had nuclear weapons. Olmert's own spokesman said Olmert did not mean to say that Israel had, or aspired to have nuclear weapons. But the cat is now out of the bag.
Olmert may not have intended to admit the fact, but his words are very clear. The world's assumption for the last few years is true -- Israel does have nuclear weapons.
Although I have believed for a while now that Israel does have the nuclear bomb, it does not make me feel any better to have Olmert verify it, especially since Israel is known for its unilateral actions in defiance of U.N. resolutions and world opinion.
It would be better if no country had nuclear weapons in the Middle East, but that time has long since passed. Israel has nuclear weapons, and Iran is not far from having them.
The situation was bad enough when only the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France and China had the nuclear bomb. It got worse when India and Pakistan became nuclear powers. But the doomsday clock moves very close to midnight, when the warring nations of the Middle East become nuclear powers.
We live in very dangerous times.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Louisiana Embarrasses Democrats Everywhere
This last weekend, the citizens of the 2nd Congressional District of Louisiana re-elected Rep. William Jefferson to another term in the U.S. House of Representatives. They did this in spite of allegations of bribery and corruption. After all, the FBI found $90,000 hidden in Jefferson's home freezer -- and he has yet to satisfactorily explain why it was there.
Making matters worse, it was not even a close election. Jefferson was re-elected with 57% of the total vote. Evidently the citizens of the 2nd Congressional District don't care if their congressman is corrupt or not.
Now some Democratic leaders in Louisiana are asking that Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi [D-California] put Jefferson back on the powerful Ways & Means Committee. He was removed when the cash was found in his freezer, and it was learned that federal officials are investigating him for corruption.
This puts the national Democratic party in a quandry. They were given control of the House and Senate by the electorate, largely because the public was sick and tired of the corruption in Washington. Now one of their own, who most people believe is guilty of corruption, has been sent back to Washington. This does not inspire confidence that the Democrats will be able to clean up corruption in Washington.
As for putting him back on the powerful House Ways & Means Committee, I don't see how that could possibly happen. This is the committee that controls the purse-strings in Washington. They might as well put him on the Ethics Committee. It wouldn't look any worse than letting him return to Ways & Means. In fact, I don't see how Pelosi could put him on any committee of any importance.
This is just the kind of thing the Democrats did not need to happen. You can bet the Republicans will use Jefferson as the poster-boy of Democratic corruption from now through the next election. And you couldn't blame the Republicans if they did. They were able to dump their most corrupt politicians, but the Democrats returned theirs to Congress.
Thanks Louisiana! You just may have helped the Republicans return to power.
Making matters worse, it was not even a close election. Jefferson was re-elected with 57% of the total vote. Evidently the citizens of the 2nd Congressional District don't care if their congressman is corrupt or not.
Now some Democratic leaders in Louisiana are asking that Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi [D-California] put Jefferson back on the powerful Ways & Means Committee. He was removed when the cash was found in his freezer, and it was learned that federal officials are investigating him for corruption.
This puts the national Democratic party in a quandry. They were given control of the House and Senate by the electorate, largely because the public was sick and tired of the corruption in Washington. Now one of their own, who most people believe is guilty of corruption, has been sent back to Washington. This does not inspire confidence that the Democrats will be able to clean up corruption in Washington.
As for putting him back on the powerful House Ways & Means Committee, I don't see how that could possibly happen. This is the committee that controls the purse-strings in Washington. They might as well put him on the Ethics Committee. It wouldn't look any worse than letting him return to Ways & Means. In fact, I don't see how Pelosi could put him on any committee of any importance.
This is just the kind of thing the Democrats did not need to happen. You can bet the Republicans will use Jefferson as the poster-boy of Democratic corruption from now through the next election. And you couldn't blame the Republicans if they did. They were able to dump their most corrupt politicians, but the Democrats returned theirs to Congress.
Thanks Louisiana! You just may have helped the Republicans return to power.
Just How Stupid Are La Vega School Administrators ?
In the last few years since the advent of "zero tolerance", we have seen school officials across the state and across the country make some pretty ridiculous decisions. But the decision made last week by the La Vega School District administrators may be the worst yet. The La Vega School District is just outside Waco.
The mentally-challenged administrators of the La Vega district have suspended a four-year-old child for "inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment". They say that while he was hugging a teacher's aide he "rubbed his face in the chest of the female employee".
The first question that popped into my mind was how many four-year-olds even know what "sexual harassment and/or sexual contact" means? I think the answer is probably NONE.
So we are left with the fact that these brain-dead administrators have punished a four-year-old for something he doesn't have the sophistication to understand, and didn't know was inappropriate [if it even was inappropriate for a child that age]. This black mark on the child's "permanent record" was certainly undeserved.
The child's father was upset and said his child doesn't understand why he was punished. [Neither do I!] The father filed a complaint with the district. How did the district answer his complaint? They changed the offense to "inappropriate physical contact". Give me a break! This answer is clearly inadequate.
Ever since the right-wing fundamentalists started taking over school boards across the country, we have seen more and more ridiculous actions of this nature. It's time to hit them where it hurts -- in the pocketbook. This father needs to get the greediest lawyer he can find and turn him loose.
The mentally-challenged administrators of the La Vega district have suspended a four-year-old child for "inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment". They say that while he was hugging a teacher's aide he "rubbed his face in the chest of the female employee".
The first question that popped into my mind was how many four-year-olds even know what "sexual harassment and/or sexual contact" means? I think the answer is probably NONE.
So we are left with the fact that these brain-dead administrators have punished a four-year-old for something he doesn't have the sophistication to understand, and didn't know was inappropriate [if it even was inappropriate for a child that age]. This black mark on the child's "permanent record" was certainly undeserved.
The child's father was upset and said his child doesn't understand why he was punished. [Neither do I!] The father filed a complaint with the district. How did the district answer his complaint? They changed the offense to "inappropriate physical contact". Give me a break! This answer is clearly inadequate.
Ever since the right-wing fundamentalists started taking over school boards across the country, we have seen more and more ridiculous actions of this nature. It's time to hit them where it hurts -- in the pocketbook. This father needs to get the greediest lawyer he can find and turn him loose.
Cowboys Take A Beating From The Saints
Well, this game was just awful. The New Orleans Saints gave the Cowboys a 42-17 beating, and it could have been even worse if Coach Payton hadn't shown a little mercy and had his quarterback "take the knee" instead of trying to score on the last drive.
The Saints racked up 535 offensive yards. This is the third most numbers of yards given up by a Cowboys defense in their entire history as a franchise in the NFL.
Quite frankly, it looked like the Cowboys just gave up in the fourth quarter. Every now and then in the NFL, a good team has one of those days when they just can't seem to do anything right [kind of an out-of-control anamoly]. I hope that's what this was.
The Cowboys are still 8-5, and in good position to make the playoffs. But they need to bear down and make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again. They have three very winnable games left on the schedule. Now they just need to make sure they win all three. Failure to do that will make what was looking like a great season into a very disappointing one.
The Atlanta Falcons are next. It is truly a "must win" game now.
The Saints racked up 535 offensive yards. This is the third most numbers of yards given up by a Cowboys defense in their entire history as a franchise in the NFL.
Quite frankly, it looked like the Cowboys just gave up in the fourth quarter. Every now and then in the NFL, a good team has one of those days when they just can't seem to do anything right [kind of an out-of-control anamoly]. I hope that's what this was.
The Cowboys are still 8-5, and in good position to make the playoffs. But they need to bear down and make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again. They have three very winnable games left on the schedule. Now they just need to make sure they win all three. Failure to do that will make what was looking like a great season into a very disappointing one.
The Atlanta Falcons are next. It is truly a "must win" game now.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Should The "N-Word" Be Banned ?
A couple of weeks ago, comedian Michael Richards lashed out at some Black customers of the Laugh Factory by repeatedly using the work "nigger" to demean them. The incident justifiably caused an uproar across the nation.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, both of whom I respect and support, have called for everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, to cease using the word. Since Richard's outburst in his club, Laugh Factory owner Jamie Masada has banned use of the word by comedians appearing in his club.
But the Black owner of the Comedy Union, also in Los Angeles, has stepped forward to defend free speech. Enss Mitchell is welcoming comics who use the word. He says, "Someone had to stand up for comics and freedom of speech has to rule the day. No matter if you agree or disagree with what someone says, you have to allow them the opportunity to say it....I just wanted to make the point that it's a slippery slope when anyone wants to start banning a word."
Personally, I don't like the word and don't use it in my daily life. It has racist connotations and it would please me if no one ever chose to use the word again. But Mr. Mitchell is right. It must be a personal choice whether to use any word such as this or not. Banning the word does put us on the slippery slope of possibly losing our most important freedom -- the freedom of speech.
It is easy to protect speech that we like. It is much harder to protect speech that offends us. But if we ban speech that offends us, soon we'll be banning ideas that offend us -- then we'll no longer be free. It is an absolute must for a free country to have free speech.
I agree with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton that we as citizens should each choose not to use this word, but it would be wrong to ban the word.
After all, if you are never offended by the speech of another, then you don't live in a free country.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, both of whom I respect and support, have called for everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, to cease using the word. Since Richard's outburst in his club, Laugh Factory owner Jamie Masada has banned use of the word by comedians appearing in his club.
But the Black owner of the Comedy Union, also in Los Angeles, has stepped forward to defend free speech. Enss Mitchell is welcoming comics who use the word. He says, "Someone had to stand up for comics and freedom of speech has to rule the day. No matter if you agree or disagree with what someone says, you have to allow them the opportunity to say it....I just wanted to make the point that it's a slippery slope when anyone wants to start banning a word."
Personally, I don't like the word and don't use it in my daily life. It has racist connotations and it would please me if no one ever chose to use the word again. But Mr. Mitchell is right. It must be a personal choice whether to use any word such as this or not. Banning the word does put us on the slippery slope of possibly losing our most important freedom -- the freedom of speech.
It is easy to protect speech that we like. It is much harder to protect speech that offends us. But if we ban speech that offends us, soon we'll be banning ideas that offend us -- then we'll no longer be free. It is an absolute must for a free country to have free speech.
I agree with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton that we as citizens should each choose not to use this word, but it would be wrong to ban the word.
After all, if you are never offended by the speech of another, then you don't live in a free country.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Laura's Red Dress & A missed Opportunity
.At last Sunday night's Kennedy Center Honors, Laura Bush wore the red dress pictured above. The dress is an $8500 Oscar de la Renta creation picked especially for the occasion. Everything was fine until three other women showed up wearing the exact same dress
Mrs. Bush must have been horrified, because according to accounts, she unobtrusively left the occasion and returned later wearing a different dress. Of course, she had every right to react as she did, but it did show that she's as poor a politician as her husband.
By changing the dress, she made it seem as if she thought herself too important to be seen in the same dress as others. This has made her a laughingstock in much of the media and many blogs. I have to wonder how someone more politically astute would have handled the situation.
Couldn't she have presented herself [and therefore her husband] in a little better light, if she had done something different? Let's say that instead of changing the dress, she got together with the other three women, and the four posed together for the media. Then she could have made some joke about it such as "I'm really glad these ladies got my memo about the uniform of the day."
It would have removed the embarrassment of the other three ladies, and shown Americans that she can take a joke -- even about herself. It would have given the impression that she's one of the people, rather than appearing to be above the common people. Most importantly, it would have had people laughing with her instead of at her. It would have created a bit more good will for both Bushs.
The really good politicians know that an embarrassing situation is also an opportunity to show their humanity and garner some good will. That could have been done in this situation, but it wasn't.
Saudi Arabia Sending Millions To Iraqi Insurgents
Have we already chosen a side in the Iraqi civil war? It certainly looks like it, when you consider our government's different treatment for those countries funding the factions fighting in Iraq.
The Bush administration is coming down hard on countries like Iran and Syria, saying they are funding the Iraqi Shiite factions. Bush accuses these countries of trying to foment violence between Shiites and Sunnis, in the hope of helping to establish a Shiite government in Iraq.
But are we coming down as hard on the countries that fund the Sunni insurgents in Iraq? Not at all.
The Iraq Study Group tells us that millions of dollars are being given to Sunni insurgents by sources in Saudi Arabia. The money is given to Sunni clerics, who then funnel the money to the Iraqi insurgents. The Study Group says large boxes of money are being smuggled into Iraq by truckers and bus drivers from Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi government denies that this is happening, but isn't that what we would expect them to say? Just last week, Nawaf Obaid, who headed a security group close to the Saudi government, said Saudi Arabia would use its money and oil to support Sunnis and thwart Iranian efforts to dominate Iraq. Obaid was fired for letting the cat out of the bag, but that doesn't alter the truth of his statement.
But the Bush administration is doing nothing to punish the Saudis for supporting the insurgents who are killing our American soldiers. That is because the Bush family has many friends and business associates in the Saudi royal family. Remember, the Saudis were allowed to fly out of America immediately after the 9/11 disaster. The Bush administration allowed them to fly even though everyone else, including American citizens, were grounded.
If Bush is going to allow the Saudis to fund one side in the Iraqi civil war, and cannot keep the Iranians from funding the other side, he needs to immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq. They are stuck in the middle with no friends on either side.
But Bush will not withdraw our troops, because it would involve his having to admit he made a mistake [something his personality will not allow him to do]. Bush started this whole mess, but don't hold your breath waiting for him to fix it.
The Bush administration is coming down hard on countries like Iran and Syria, saying they are funding the Iraqi Shiite factions. Bush accuses these countries of trying to foment violence between Shiites and Sunnis, in the hope of helping to establish a Shiite government in Iraq.
But are we coming down as hard on the countries that fund the Sunni insurgents in Iraq? Not at all.
The Iraq Study Group tells us that millions of dollars are being given to Sunni insurgents by sources in Saudi Arabia. The money is given to Sunni clerics, who then funnel the money to the Iraqi insurgents. The Study Group says large boxes of money are being smuggled into Iraq by truckers and bus drivers from Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi government denies that this is happening, but isn't that what we would expect them to say? Just last week, Nawaf Obaid, who headed a security group close to the Saudi government, said Saudi Arabia would use its money and oil to support Sunnis and thwart Iranian efforts to dominate Iraq. Obaid was fired for letting the cat out of the bag, but that doesn't alter the truth of his statement.
But the Bush administration is doing nothing to punish the Saudis for supporting the insurgents who are killing our American soldiers. That is because the Bush family has many friends and business associates in the Saudi royal family. Remember, the Saudis were allowed to fly out of America immediately after the 9/11 disaster. The Bush administration allowed them to fly even though everyone else, including American citizens, were grounded.
If Bush is going to allow the Saudis to fund one side in the Iraqi civil war, and cannot keep the Iranians from funding the other side, he needs to immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq. They are stuck in the middle with no friends on either side.
But Bush will not withdraw our troops, because it would involve his having to admit he made a mistake [something his personality will not allow him to do]. Bush started this whole mess, but don't hold your breath waiting for him to fix it.
Texas Leads The Nation In Uninsured People
* Texas has highest percentage of uninsured at 25.1% of its population [5.6 million people].
* Seventy-nine percent of uninsured Texans work or have a working family member.
* Between 76 percent and 82 percent of the uninsured in Texas are U.S. citizens.
* Sixty-eight percent of nonpoor uninsured Texans are white, non-Hispanic individuals.
* Some 2,500 uninsured Texans die prematurely each year.
* One million uninsured Texans do not receive adequate care for chronic diseases.
The figures above were taken from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and they don't paint a very pretty picture of Texas. To put it bluntly, Texas ranks LAST in healthcare coverage among the 50 states. This is not only ridiculous, but it's created a huge burden on our existing healthcare network, especially emergency rooms.
Last week, University of Texas System Regents met in Dallas to discuss the healthcare problem and possible solutions. Dr. Kenneth Shine, UT System's executive vice chancellor for health affairs, said, "Simply throwing more money at the problem is not going to solve it. We have to change the way we provide care."
On Friday, they released their recommendations. They believe Texas should add more community-based outpatient centers to relieve the burden on overcrowded emergency rooms. They say this would also reduce the cost of caring for non-emergency patients.
They also want the state to provide more wellness care. They said it is cheaper to keep a patient healthy, than to treat him/her once they are sick. But our current system pays doctors for procedures to treat the sick, not for care to keep them well.
They recommend imposing a 3% quality-assurance fee on all hospitals and free-standing surgery centers, to pay for this additional healthcare. Currently, 35 other states are levying these kind of fees.
I don't doubt that these recommendations would be an improvement to our current abysmal system of healthcare, but I still have the feeling that this would be like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. It simply doesn't go far enough.
Why don't we bite the bullet and create a single-payer universal healthcare system that would cover all our citizens with healthcare insurance. We could pay for this coverage by:
* Levy the 3% fee on all hospitals and surgery centers, but also extend to fee to doctors visits and other healthcare procedures.
* Put a 3% fee on all worker's salaries. The current medicare tax could be eliminated, since everyone would be covered under the new system.
* Lower capital gains taxes to 3-5% and put all the funds raised into healthcare.
* Charge all businesses a 3-5% healthcare fee. This would not only bring in funds from businesses not currently offering healthcare insurance, but it would lower healthcare costs for the businesses that currently offer coverage for their employees.
I believe this would provide the funds neccessary to cover all citizens with healthcare insurance. Maybe there's a better way to fund it -- that could be debated. But however we pay for it, we must institute universal healthcare coverage here. It is long overdue.
* Seventy-nine percent of uninsured Texans work or have a working family member.
* Between 76 percent and 82 percent of the uninsured in Texas are U.S. citizens.
* Sixty-eight percent of nonpoor uninsured Texans are white, non-Hispanic individuals.
* Some 2,500 uninsured Texans die prematurely each year.
* One million uninsured Texans do not receive adequate care for chronic diseases.
The figures above were taken from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and they don't paint a very pretty picture of Texas. To put it bluntly, Texas ranks LAST in healthcare coverage among the 50 states. This is not only ridiculous, but it's created a huge burden on our existing healthcare network, especially emergency rooms.
Last week, University of Texas System Regents met in Dallas to discuss the healthcare problem and possible solutions. Dr. Kenneth Shine, UT System's executive vice chancellor for health affairs, said, "Simply throwing more money at the problem is not going to solve it. We have to change the way we provide care."
On Friday, they released their recommendations. They believe Texas should add more community-based outpatient centers to relieve the burden on overcrowded emergency rooms. They say this would also reduce the cost of caring for non-emergency patients.
They also want the state to provide more wellness care. They said it is cheaper to keep a patient healthy, than to treat him/her once they are sick. But our current system pays doctors for procedures to treat the sick, not for care to keep them well.
They recommend imposing a 3% quality-assurance fee on all hospitals and free-standing surgery centers, to pay for this additional healthcare. Currently, 35 other states are levying these kind of fees.
I don't doubt that these recommendations would be an improvement to our current abysmal system of healthcare, but I still have the feeling that this would be like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. It simply doesn't go far enough.
Why don't we bite the bullet and create a single-payer universal healthcare system that would cover all our citizens with healthcare insurance. We could pay for this coverage by:
* Levy the 3% fee on all hospitals and surgery centers, but also extend to fee to doctors visits and other healthcare procedures.
* Put a 3% fee on all worker's salaries. The current medicare tax could be eliminated, since everyone would be covered under the new system.
* Lower capital gains taxes to 3-5% and put all the funds raised into healthcare.
* Charge all businesses a 3-5% healthcare fee. This would not only bring in funds from businesses not currently offering healthcare insurance, but it would lower healthcare costs for the businesses that currently offer coverage for their employees.
I believe this would provide the funds neccessary to cover all citizens with healthcare insurance. Maybe there's a better way to fund it -- that could be debated. But however we pay for it, we must institute universal healthcare coverage here. It is long overdue.
Friday, December 08, 2006
A Stupid Bumper Sticker
This post is not about some earth-shattering political event. It's about a bumper sticker I saw on the way to work yesterday morning. Now I'm not usually upset about this kind of thing. I've seen hundreds of stupid bumper stickers and they usually just cause me to shake my head and forget about them ten minutes later.
For some unknown reason this one really incensed me. Here is what the offending sticker said:
IRRITATE A LIBERAL
Work Hard - Succeed - Be Happy
Since when would someone working hard, succeeding, and being happy irritate anyone, especially a liberal. Isn't this a pretty good description of the American Dream? Far from irritating any liberal [or leftist], most liberals I know would be happy to see anyone do this.
In fact, liberals would like to see everyone in America be able to do this, and not just Georgie's rich friends, as we have had for the last few years.
Obviously, this bumper sticker is the result of the Bill O'Reilly/Rush Limbaugh mindset. This mindset dictates that a "conservative" should never agree with a liberal on anything. If a liberal believes something, then it must be evil and must be opposed by conservatives. And if there's something that a conservative really believes in, then the lie must be advanced that no liberal could possibly agree with it. It is this kind of thinking that has so sharply divided our country.
There are many things that liberals and conservatives disagree on, but there are also many things that both sides can agree on. I can't believe that any American would not want people to work hard, succeed, and be happy -- no matter what their political persuasion!
We used to have the ability to disagree in this country, and still be able to work out a compromise that the majority of people could accept. But the O'Reilly/Limbaugh mindset, accepted by many right-wingers, is destroying the ability to compromise with the opposition. Anything not done their way is evil and must be stopped.
Don't get me wrong, I love my left-wing beliefs and I'm willing to fight for them. But that doesn't mean that conservatives are evil and can never have a good idea. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them un-American -- it just means we still live in a free country.
For some unknown reason this one really incensed me. Here is what the offending sticker said:
IRRITATE A LIBERAL
Work Hard - Succeed - Be Happy
Since when would someone working hard, succeeding, and being happy irritate anyone, especially a liberal. Isn't this a pretty good description of the American Dream? Far from irritating any liberal [or leftist], most liberals I know would be happy to see anyone do this.
In fact, liberals would like to see everyone in America be able to do this, and not just Georgie's rich friends, as we have had for the last few years.
Obviously, this bumper sticker is the result of the Bill O'Reilly/Rush Limbaugh mindset. This mindset dictates that a "conservative" should never agree with a liberal on anything. If a liberal believes something, then it must be evil and must be opposed by conservatives. And if there's something that a conservative really believes in, then the lie must be advanced that no liberal could possibly agree with it. It is this kind of thinking that has so sharply divided our country.
There are many things that liberals and conservatives disagree on, but there are also many things that both sides can agree on. I can't believe that any American would not want people to work hard, succeed, and be happy -- no matter what their political persuasion!
We used to have the ability to disagree in this country, and still be able to work out a compromise that the majority of people could accept. But the O'Reilly/Limbaugh mindset, accepted by many right-wingers, is destroying the ability to compromise with the opposition. Anything not done their way is evil and must be stopped.
Don't get me wrong, I love my left-wing beliefs and I'm willing to fight for them. But that doesn't mean that conservatives are evil and can never have a good idea. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them un-American -- it just means we still live in a free country.
71% Unhappy With Bush's Handling Of Iraq War
For the last few days, all the news media have been talking about is the new report from the Iraq Study Group. The Group, made up of both Democrats and Republicans, made a bipartisan finding that we are not winning in Iraq and cannot win using current tactics. They have recommended a change in the way we're fighting the war, and want to start withdrawing trrops by Spring of 2008.
Now there is a new AP-Ipsos poll, that shows the huge majority of the American people agree with them. According to the poll, a whopping 71% of the population are dissatisfied with the way Bush is handling the war. This is the highest percentage to date that believe this. Only 27% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of the war [down from 31% in November].
Even more telling, only 9% of Americans believe a clear-cut victory can be achieved in Iraq. 87% believe there will have to be some sort of compromise settlement.
Obviously, this cuts the legs out from under Bush's declaration that we will stay in Iraq until we achieve victory. With his own Iraq Study Group and the huge majority of the American people unhappy with his handling of the war, a person might think that Bush would change direction on Iraq.
But anyone who believes that just doesn't know much about Bush. This is not a man who can admit he made a mistake. His messianic zeal will compel him to "stay the course". Of course, he will no longer call it that, but that is what he will do.
The only way the troops will be withdrawn before a new president is installed, is if Bush is impeached. Bush is convinced it is his god-given mission to force an American-style democracy on Iraq, whether they want it or not. I don't think he would change if 99% of Americans wanted him to do so.
Come on Democrats, let's get this impeachment started -- the sooner the better.
Now there is a new AP-Ipsos poll, that shows the huge majority of the American people agree with them. According to the poll, a whopping 71% of the population are dissatisfied with the way Bush is handling the war. This is the highest percentage to date that believe this. Only 27% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of the war [down from 31% in November].
Even more telling, only 9% of Americans believe a clear-cut victory can be achieved in Iraq. 87% believe there will have to be some sort of compromise settlement.
Obviously, this cuts the legs out from under Bush's declaration that we will stay in Iraq until we achieve victory. With his own Iraq Study Group and the huge majority of the American people unhappy with his handling of the war, a person might think that Bush would change direction on Iraq.
But anyone who believes that just doesn't know much about Bush. This is not a man who can admit he made a mistake. His messianic zeal will compel him to "stay the course". Of course, he will no longer call it that, but that is what he will do.
The only way the troops will be withdrawn before a new president is installed, is if Bush is impeached. Bush is convinced it is his god-given mission to force an American-style democracy on Iraq, whether they want it or not. I don't think he would change if 99% of Americans wanted him to do so.
Come on Democrats, let's get this impeachment started -- the sooner the better.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Bush Tells Iran/Syria: Surrender, Then We'll Talk
It looks like Bush is posturing again -- saying something he really doesn't mean so he'll look good to the media. That's all I can figure after looking at his preconditions for involving Iran and Syria in regional peace talks.
For Iran, Bush says he will be willing to talk to them if they just give up all of their nuclear ambitions. This is an impossible condition for the Iranians. It is tantamount to saying that if they surrender to all our demands, we'll be happy to talk with them. This is not a willingness to negotiate -- it's a demand for unconditional surrender.
If we actually sit down with the Iranians and really negotiate with no preconditions, we might actually get what we want. But to demand they meet our conditions before we'll even talk with them will accomplish nothing.
Our demands for Syria are similar. Bush is demanding that Syria stop involving itself in Lebanon [that is stop supporting Hamas]. That is the same as Syria demanding we stop supporting Israel before they'll talk to us. Both are ridiculous demands. But once again, if we sit down and talk with no preconditions, we might actually get what we want. However, demands will do nothing but continue the hard feelings.
We need Iran and Syria to help us disengage from Iraq. They don't want an unstable Iraq, because it borders their own countries. As for us, we just want cheap oil. If we really want out of Iraq without looking like we lost, we must sit down with the Iranians and Syrians and talk. But these talks will never take place with Bush's preconditions.
Bush would like for the media and the public to think he is now willing to negotiate, but that is just not true. He is actually demanding the same things he has been demanding for quite a while. He doesn't really want to talk -- he just wants us to think he wants to. The only thing he really wants to do is "stay the course", and that's what he'll do as long as he's in office, regardless of how many U.S. soldiers are killed in the Iraqi civil war.
If he's not really willing to negotiate, then we need to get out of Iraq immediately. Any chance of victory was lost long ago.
For Iran, Bush says he will be willing to talk to them if they just give up all of their nuclear ambitions. This is an impossible condition for the Iranians. It is tantamount to saying that if they surrender to all our demands, we'll be happy to talk with them. This is not a willingness to negotiate -- it's a demand for unconditional surrender.
If we actually sit down with the Iranians and really negotiate with no preconditions, we might actually get what we want. But to demand they meet our conditions before we'll even talk with them will accomplish nothing.
Our demands for Syria are similar. Bush is demanding that Syria stop involving itself in Lebanon [that is stop supporting Hamas]. That is the same as Syria demanding we stop supporting Israel before they'll talk to us. Both are ridiculous demands. But once again, if we sit down and talk with no preconditions, we might actually get what we want. However, demands will do nothing but continue the hard feelings.
We need Iran and Syria to help us disengage from Iraq. They don't want an unstable Iraq, because it borders their own countries. As for us, we just want cheap oil. If we really want out of Iraq without looking like we lost, we must sit down with the Iranians and Syrians and talk. But these talks will never take place with Bush's preconditions.
Bush would like for the media and the public to think he is now willing to negotiate, but that is just not true. He is actually demanding the same things he has been demanding for quite a while. He doesn't really want to talk -- he just wants us to think he wants to. The only thing he really wants to do is "stay the course", and that's what he'll do as long as he's in office, regardless of how many U.S. soldiers are killed in the Iraqi civil war.
If he's not really willing to negotiate, then we need to get out of Iraq immediately. Any chance of victory was lost long ago.
Wal-Mart Settles Lawsuit Over Insurance
Is there any bottom to the depths to which Wal-Mart will go to squeeze another dollar out of its employees and customers? There doesn't seem to be. We now learn that Wal-Mart was buying life insurance policies on many of its employees without their knowledge -- of course, the beneficiary of all the policies was Wal-Mart.
The families of 73 deceased former employees in Oklahoma discovered this, and they were not happy about it. They sued to recover the insurance benefits they believed that Wal-Mart had wrongfully received. The lawsuit claimed that Wal-Mart did not have an "insurable interest in the lives of its rank-and-file employees".
Wal-Mart tried to get the case dismissed by saying that corporate-owned life insurance policies were a common and well-intentioned product in the corporate world. U.S. Chief District Judge Claire Eagan in Tulsa, disagreed and refused to dismiss the lawsuit. Wal-Mart has now settled the case, and will pay the entire $5.1 million it received from the policies of the Oklahoma employees, to their families and lawyers.
Wal-Mart is claiming that it has discontinued the practice of insuring employees without their knowlege. Oklahoma families have taken care of the practice in their state, but how much money has Wal-Mart collected by doing the same thing in the other 49 states. I suspect that the $5.1 million was just a drop in the bucket. If they collected $5.1 million in Oklahoma, you can imagine how much they collected in larger states like Texas, California, and New York.
Maybe it's time for some smart and greedy lawyers to look into this thing in the other states. Wal-Mart may not think anything is wrong with this practice, but I do. I suspect a jury would also.
The families of 73 deceased former employees in Oklahoma discovered this, and they were not happy about it. They sued to recover the insurance benefits they believed that Wal-Mart had wrongfully received. The lawsuit claimed that Wal-Mart did not have an "insurable interest in the lives of its rank-and-file employees".
Wal-Mart tried to get the case dismissed by saying that corporate-owned life insurance policies were a common and well-intentioned product in the corporate world. U.S. Chief District Judge Claire Eagan in Tulsa, disagreed and refused to dismiss the lawsuit. Wal-Mart has now settled the case, and will pay the entire $5.1 million it received from the policies of the Oklahoma employees, to their families and lawyers.
Wal-Mart is claiming that it has discontinued the practice of insuring employees without their knowlege. Oklahoma families have taken care of the practice in their state, but how much money has Wal-Mart collected by doing the same thing in the other 49 states. I suspect that the $5.1 million was just a drop in the bucket. If they collected $5.1 million in Oklahoma, you can imagine how much they collected in larger states like Texas, California, and New York.
Maybe it's time for some smart and greedy lawyers to look into this thing in the other states. Wal-Mart may not think anything is wrong with this practice, but I do. I suspect a jury would also.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)