Go forth and fill your libraries with media.
Seriously, thanks to everyone for being so amazing and patient. You are the reason I love Vox.
I was just told that the Amazon Conduit will be fixed by tomorrow. I will post here as soon as I get word that it's back up and running.
I know this has been frustrating and I am sorry there wasn't more I could do to make it less so. I really appreciate your patience though.
Cheers,
Bad news. As many of you have probably noticed, the Amazon Conduit was not fixed in the last week's release. Unfortunately, there was an undetected bug that is preventing the conduit from working.
We are working on this bug fix and hope to have the Conduit back up and running this week.
I will keep you posted.
Thank you for being so patient.
Blog Action Day is every October 15th, when blogger are asked to post something about a single issue to show our strength and conviction as an online community. It's a great way to feel connected to the greater good, and the participation of so many bloggers to support the world's leading non-profit organizations is something you can do to help, right now. By blogging today, you're supporting some of the world's leading non-profits and sharing your voice for change.
This year's topic is climate change, and we'd love to read your thoughts on the topic. If you participate, leave us a link to your post in the comments, so we know to check out your post!
Go to www.blogactionday.org to learn more, get a badge for your blog showing your participation, and see some ideas for your post on climate change.
Can't wait to read your posts!
~ daisy
For tyranny is: Of a king or dictator; a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only, monarchy exercising the rule of a master over the political society; Of lawyers and/or corporate owners: oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; oligarchy is when men of property have the government in their hands Of the indigent or needy: democracy, the opposite, when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers." none of them for the common good of all.Tea and Salt[T]he citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices. He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state; and, speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life.
...Aristotle...The debates have raged in our Congress from its inception whether we will write and enforce laws which move us toward any of those three forms of government and every generation provides a further slip into one of those three directions. All of the forces of politics are actively centralizing power to Washington for their own ends.Men of property; What is now called a Constitutional Republic makes everyone, including those in all three branches of government accountable to the people through the rule of law as stated in that founding document. After 233 years in operation, we can now see that the lawyers and corporate heads are buying politicians who are no longer accountable to that profound document unless and until 'WE the PEOPLE' hold them accountable. For your information, the constitution does cover EVERYTHING! It says those powers not mentioned in the constitution are to be left to the states and the PEOPLE!The poor; America is unique in that it was designed to be for the common good of ALL Seems these days that some don't qualify to be included in that ALL, at least not according to popular opinion. Aristotle's 'men of property' are evil, greedy, crooks in the modern estimation and thus are not part of the 'common good.' Most of the founding fathers would find themselves excluded from 'the common good. The indigent are using their vote power to rob and steal from the men of property through 'tax the rich' and 'government handouts' policies. (the price of winning the seats of power for politicians) We are very close to that definition of a true democracy, ie. MOB RULE.The king succession; No one generation has seen a dramatic change but there have been some big leaps away from the Constitutional Republic the founding fathers handed us at great cost to their blood and wealth. Among these leaps of change, loss of states' rights in 1864 which greatly centralized power to Washington. There was a trade off, though. While the power shifted to Washington, the individual's guarantee of human rights emphasis was legislated into the Constitution to free the slaves, again at great cost in blood and wealth. Another was the 'New Deal' in the 1930's which greatly increased our expectation of government to fix our ills and gave the government a credit card without limits. Today, we are witnessing another one of these leaps with the Obama administration greatly expanding presidential powers with the appointment of an indeterminant number of czars with an indeterminant amount of power and an indeterminant budget, answerable only to the president and without congressional oversight. (36 czars so far) Other incidents include centralizing the bank system with the initiation of the Federal Reserve Bank and going off the gold standard.Aristotle had a name for the government who now serves us... Or should I say, "Who we serve?"He would have called it a Foolocrasy.------------------------------------------------------------------------------Examples offered by a DC airport ticket agent
Photo Credit:http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/350816052_0a392a0d28_o1.jpg
Why Our Country Is in Trouble
1. I had a New Hampshire congresswoman ask for an aisle seat so that her hair wouldn't get messed up by being near the window (on an airplane!).
2. I got a call from a candidate's staffer who wanted to go to Capetown. I started to explain the length of the flight and the passport information, and then she interrupted me with, ''I'm not trying to make you look stupid, but Capetown is in Massachusetts.''
Without trying to make her look stupid, I calmly explained, ''Cape Cod is in Massachusetts. Capetown is in Africa.''
Her response, click.
3. A senior Vermont congressman called, furious about a Florida package we did. I asked what was wrong with the vacation in Orlando.
He said he was expecting an ocean-view room. I tried to explain that's not possible since Orlando is in the middle of the state.
He replied, "Don't lie to me, I looked on the map and Florida is a very thin state!''
4. I got a call from a lawmaker's wife who asked, ''Is it possible to see England from Canada?''
I answered, ''No.''
She said, ''But they look so close on the map.''
5. An aide for a cabinet member once called and asked if he could rent a car in Dallas.
I pulled up the reservation and noticed he had only a 1-hour layover in Dallas. When I asked him why he wanted to rent a car, he said, ''I heard Dallas was a big airport, and we will need a car to drive between gates to save time.'' (Aghhhh!)
6. An Illinois congresswoman called last week. She needed to know how it was possible that her flight from Detroit left at 8:30 a.m., and got to Chicago at 8:33 a.m. I explained that Michigan was an hour ahead of Illinois, but she couldn't understand the concept of time zones. Finally, I told her the plane went fast, and she bought that.
7. A New York lawmaker called and asked, ''Do airlines put your physical description on your bag so they know whose luggage belongs to whom?''
I said, 'No, why do you ask?'
She replied, ''Well, when I checked in with the airline, they put a tag on my luggage that said (FAT), and I'm overweight. I think that's very rude!''
After putting her on hold for a minute while I looked into it (I was dying laughing). I came back and explained the city code for Fresno, CA is (FAT - Fresno Air Terminal), and the airline was just putting a destination tag on her luggage.
8. A Senator's aide called to inquire about a trip package to Hawaii. After going over all the cost info, she asked, ''Would it be cheaper to fly to California, and then take the train to Hawaii ?''
9. I just got off the phone with a freshman Congressman who asked, ''How do I know which plane to get on?''
I asked him what exactly he meant, to which he replied, ''I was told my flight number is 823, but none of these planes have numbers on them.''
10. A female senator called and said, ''I need to fly to Pepsi-Cola, Florida. Do I have to get on one of those little computer planes?''
I asked if she meant fly to Pensacola, FL on a commuter plane.
She said, ''Yeah, whatever, smarty!''
11. A senior Senator called and had a question about the documents he needed in order to fly to China. After a lengthy discussion about passports, I reminded him that he needed a visa.
'Oh, no I don't. I've been to China many times and never had to have one of those.''
I double checked and sure enough, his stay required a visa. When I told him this, he said, ''Look, I've been to China four times, and every time they have accepted my American Express!''
12. A New Mexico congresswoman called to make reservations. ''I want to go from Chicago to Rhino, New York.''
I was at a loss for words. Finally, I asked, ''Are you sure that's the name of the town?''
"Yes, what flights do you have?'' asked the lady.
After some searching, I came back with, ''I'm sorry, ma'am, I've looked up every airport code in the country and can't find a Rhino anywhere.'
''The lady retorted, ''Oh, don't be silly! Everyone knows where it is. Check your map!''
So I scoured a map of the state of New York and finally offered, ''You don't mean Buffalo, do you?''
The reply? ''Whatever! I knew it was a big animal.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are not willing to govern fools, be prepared to be governed by them.
The push and pull of these political forces all vying for their own benefit have left the mainstream out in the backwater. We've been busy with our lives, raising our kids, paying the bills, grinding out another day's work and maybe take a camping trip or vacation once a year. The one bill we haven't been paying is the debt we owe our founding fathers. Many of them paid for our freedom and security with their lives, some with their fortunes, some with both. All of them paid dearly and we owe them a huge debt, not just of gratitude, but a debt of duty, ensuring their work was not in vain. We owe them the hard work of taming the political forces and reigning them in under the authority of the Constitution which those men of valor established this great nation with. Today, we are taking up the task again. The kids' soccer game no longer takes precedence over our responsibilities to our children's futures. The Saturday game no longer takes precedence over the political game. Getting that deer head mounted on my wall is just going to have to wait until I can personally claim two politicians' heads are mounted on my wall. (One from each of the major parties.) And if my state's in as much or more corruption than the federal government, then I won't rest until I've got two more of their heads.
The one bill presented to the congress each session for the past ten years! which attempts to reign in these political forces is the 'Enumerated Powers Act.' We need to own this bill and return the favor congress has been doing us with stimulus spending and so-called health care reform and shove this one down their throats. We can do it too, if we (the backwater mainstream) all get together under one big political umbrella and shame each one into admission of their constitutional treason. Stop blaming the other guys' politicians and start looking into the history of YOUR politician and holding him or her accountable for overstepping their authority. Make them take up support of OUR bill or fire them and put somebody in that will.
Sources:
: to change or alter greatly and often with grotesque or humorous effect.
I don't find any humor in the shape changing character of extremist liberals running our country. Barack Obama's speech before the Congress 2 days ago had the conservatives in the house fuming. The press, still being in the tank for the Obama administration even after their bias was wholly exposed for all to see through the election cycle, are not explaining what you see when they showed you video of the president's speech. The backdrop of so many conservatives waiving white papers after Obama's grandiose proclaimation "My door is always open" was the story for the evening.
In the first weeks of Barack's presidency the Republicans were complaining they had no opportunity to meet with him. Finally, a big show was made of bringing them in for a discussion. During the first meeting, the Republicans were communicating their vision and ideas and Obama's reaction to their complaints and/or plans was, "I won." meaning he had the majority of both houses and the bully pulpit and he didn't have to concern himself with their opposition. "They should shut up and sit down." Since then, he gave one, maybe a second 'meeting' could be counted, but one other opportunity to the conservatives to speak their minds to him. So those white papers were all the proposals and ideas the conservatives have been trying to have considered for his health plan. The president lied to YOU the American public and once again, the fawning press have failed to do their jobs and inform you of what's going on. The effect is, you see conservatives looking partisaned and O looking gracious. His character and image is transmogrified in the press. The conservatives are not even who are keeping this health-care reform bill from passing. If O had the support of his own party, he wouldn't have to concern himself with the opposition. Its the (fiscally conservative) Blue Dog Democrats that are killing his plans for government control of health care compensation.
Now! Do you remember all the hoopla through the election cycle when the bloggers brought to light the fact of O's long association with the ACORN group and the ACORN group's reputation? Most of you bloggers and netsurfers probably do, but for the rest, the answer is probably 'NO.' because the press did not sufficiently cover it and actively obfuscated much of the story playing it down and finally only acting because the bloggers were shaming them with the detail and scandal the news agencies were avoiding. So, the voters did not hear much about ACORN unless they were more interested in politics than watching the evening news. The politically centered talk shows covered the issues of Barack's ties to terrorists, crooks, and ACORN but did so by bringing on balancing pundits which made the whole mess look just like another political 'he-said, she-said.' A few media exceptions openly stated how far they would go to ensure O was elected. Chris (thrilled leg) Matthews comes to mind.
Bloggers
Where did these scandalous stories break? Who found out Barack Obama's pastor for TWENTY YEARS was a racist promoting hatred of whites and the entire United States? Who told us about Barack Obama's ties to the home-grown terrorist Bill Ayers? Who put up video of ACORN/Black Panther thugs 'ensuring a fair election' by intimidation in front of a poll? Who bothered to dig up Barack Obama's entire history of ties to criminals, Islamists, (yes, the extremist variety that want to see the destruction of ALL liberty in the world) Communist haters of American capitalist society, and the rest of the laundry list? Who is now exposing the Czars Obama is empowering without Congressional oversight? Who is exposing the character and history of those czars?
Who did all that work to reveal the character and belief system of our current president? It wasn't ANY of the nightly news agencies. Even FOX was too busy trying to appear centrist. If your ideology is centralism, you're going to be drug around by the nose with the whims or 'control' of the favored extremists. So the voters either didn't care or didn't know and now we have a president with THE MOST extreme ideology of ANY sitting president since George Washington and he stands entirely against George Washington's principles. He doesn't really like free markets because he wants to take what belongs to the hard working and innovative producers and 'redistribute' their hard earned belongings to the 'disadvantaged.' Oh my bleeding heart!! And he's willing to use tactics HE TAUGHT to ACORN to get it done as demonstrated in his speech the other night and in the latest scandal from ACORN. This is another story that was broken by a blogger. (I have an idea, the papers should fire the liberal editors and reporters who've demonstrated no propensity for reporting real news and start replacing them with the 'unprofessional lout' bloggers from the blogosphere.)
Joe Wilson's outburst, calling Obama out saying, "You lie!" has landed JOE WILSON in hot water while Barack Obama was calling the conservatives liars and partisaned and politically motivated. Joe apologized? He should have stood up and finished the job of calling him out on his string of lies and slander using this political tactic of redirecting the criticism he so richly deserves. Weak, Joe Wilson and a shameful excuse for a representative of conservative values. Weak, Republicans for encouraging Joe to apologize. Weak, Dennis Prager for claiming Republicans lose respect because of Joe's outburst when he was answering the slander and lies of Barack Obama on the spot. You demonstrate why I don't want to be associated with Republicans any longer. You're weak and tepid passion for the job we send you there to do is pissing me off. That's why the Tea Parties are likely to produce a new political party which will truly split the conservatives in this country.
We can't afford to be weak in the face of evil and we can't be indecisive in the fight against evil, and we can't be leery of using the language and the facts and opportunities to name evil for what it is. Barack Obama hates America. I've seen proof. I've reported proof. Today, the mask fell off of ACORN but the media are complicit with evil and WILL NOT TELL YOU THE WHOLE TRUTH!!! Barack Obama may not be exposed for training ACORN employees to take every advantage possible, legal or not, (there's no video of it) but you have to know that O is also tied to many other criminals, tax cheats, and literal America haters that HIS character is revealed by ACORN"s behavior. He is the worst kind of Socialist. The kind that is willing to do ANYTHING to advance his cause for 'the greater good.' Socialism is pure evil in a ribbon and bow. It leads to the empowerment of tyrants, murderous dictators, and backwater despots. Socialism is a societal disease which saps the will of the individual to thrive and encourages them to rely on government for their welfare at every level.
Between the media's complicity with evil and the conservatives' tippy toeing through the politics, the American ethic and value system is being destroyed. Slanderers need to be sued. I want all of these conservative voluntary legal expert groups to go on the offensive. Start suing the ACLU for slandering good people, good companies, and our American heritage. Sue the government for funding these slandering partisan groups. Sue the government for funding controversial privately run programs like Planned Parenthood. Sue the government for over-riding the document that holds them accountable to 'We The People of these United States.' Sue the press for highlighting the worst of the best and the best of the worst to create a favor and disfavor in public opinion. Tie the ACLU's hands. Tie up their funding with defensive work. Sue the state run schools for revisited history of our great nation and her wondrous accomplishments. Start reading the blogs and acting on the best information available. We've been doing the job the press won't for a decade now.
The Amazon Conduit will be working again on October 15, 2009. Thank you to everyone for your patience.
Have a great weekend,
daisy, Team Vox
Today marks the first 9/11 anniversarry with a new POTUS holding the reigns of the American military. In case anyone has forgotten, we are still involved in the wars that event kicked off. How has the new POTUS handled the job of defender of the free world? That is what is coming to light in this week. Ben pointed this out to me, and I thank him. Presidential policies matter in world events and during a hot war, they matter to each and every volunteer in our armed services because their careers, reputations, and especially their lives may be called on the line at any moment.
So, let us examine the president's performance in the war effort. August 31, 09 the McClatchy reported that the Pentagon is Worried About Obama's Commitment to Afghanistan.
[The prospect that U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal may ask for as many as 45,000 additional American troops in Afghanistan is fueling growing tension within President Barack Obama's administration over the U.S. commitment to the war there.]
Violence has been escalating in Afganistan and three different polls indicate support for the war in Afghanistan is declining in the American public. Obama and staff are said to have thought there would be more support for the Afghan war effort though they criticized the Iraq war effort as wrong. (??) Dopes! The left don't support any military action or use unless its peaceful. Without decisive action, of course the people don't want to be involved in putting troops into engagement with their hands manacled. War is not a place or time for half measures. The POTUS position is one of leadership, not polling the public for followship.
[However, administration officials said that amid rising violence and casualties, polls that show a majority of Americans now think the war in Afghanistan isn't worth fighting. With tough battles ahead on health care, the budget and other issues, Vice President Joe Biden and other officials are increasingly anxious about how the American public would respond to sending additional troops.]
The troop level assessment indicates bureaucracy is hampering military effectiveness. It isn't specifically stated, but the indication is that this bureaucracy is rolling down from the administration, a fear running through the brass that an 'incident' may be used to prosecute military staff and nobody wants to fall on their proverbial sword to cover the president's political ass since his administration is demonstrating their own willingness to be the political steam roller that threatens them, so brass will not take the necessary risks to win this war.
[The assessment also calls for more U.S. government civilians to be sent to Afghanistan and for the streamlining of the military's command structure, saying that too much bureaucracy is making it difficult for commanders to make decisions on the ground.]
Tuesday September 8, 09. McClatchy again, this time reporting about the cost to troops in blood due to the indecisive commanders in the field afraid to risk an incident. "We're Pinned Down!" 4 US Troops Die in Afghan Ambush
(Not an image of this story)
[U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.]
Back to the Pentagon is worried piece; at the same time that the violence is escalating and the troops are suffering greater losses, due to bureaucratic failure to risk an incident, the commanders are feeling added pressure to make progress. Bureaucracies suck. They suck exponentially when a commander in chief adds fear in his officers by his indecisive waffling for fear of criticism from the world and its left leaning press.
[ Meanwhile, U.S. military commanders in Kabul feel the political clock ticking, saying they think they have no more than 18 months to show some kind of progress, even as most agree that they don't have enough troops.]
Taliban's Growth in Afghanistan's North Threatens to Expand War Friday August 28, 09 McClatchy
This kind of crap is what encourages our enemies to hang on, if they just hold out, America will defeat itself. Eight years in and now we're seeing a growth in the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mr. President, be the leader you have to be. If you could see past your ego, you might recognize that George Bush was a far superior intellect if for no other reason than his commitment to finish what he started. Oh but wait, this isn't YOUR war, is it? Today, at least four military men would say, "No, it isn't."
What do the actions of a professional ethicist say of him when he calls Sarah Palin and 'her ilk' ignorant, nefarious, and just plain stupid? Since I am of Sarah Palin's 'ilk,' I take offense at Dr. Nuland's summation of my principles, knowledge, understanding, and motives. Allow me to demonstrate my ignorant, nefarious and just plain stupid concerns regarding the socialism of my liberties and freedom, my self reliance and desire to control what I have made or earned, my choices with regard to my own health care, wealth, and my participation in philanthropy.
Since the extremist socialist left have taken power first in the universities, then of the press, then of the Democrat party and now the U.S. government by means of creeping socialism, they have been talking about the reform of our health care industry to create a single-payer system now amended to a 'government option.' The criticism this has inspired includes death panels due to rationed health care seen as inevitable in a single-payer system for good reason. Listen now to Dr. Nuland's reasonable argument in favor of the bill as it has morphed into a 'government option' which has been described by leading Democrats as "...a step toward single-payer." An early quote by the Messiah, himself gives further credence to the suspicion this is indeed a trojan horse.
Dead Wrong, by Sherwin B. Nuland.
Sarah Palin, meet Hippocrates.
As if you hadn't heard, a gaggle of American conservatives is stridently charging that pending healthcare reform legislation will institute a mechanism for euthanizing selected members of the handicapped and elderly populations. That it would, in Sarah Palin's formulation, establish 'death panels.' Its true that HR3200, the bill that will eventually come before the house of representatives, is still a work in progress. It has already been amended by three separate house committees while two senate committees are working on drafts of their own. All of the provisions to be included in the final bill are not yet known, but one thing is certain. There is not a single statement in the voluminous number of pages under study that contains the slightest consideration, no matter its remoteness, of death panels, euthanasia, or any such fearsome concept. In reality, the legislation simply calls for the reimbursement of physicians who council patients on 'end of life' decision making. Counseling that is already required by a 1990 law that is now covered by many insurance plans.
But the specifics of the present bill are irrelevant to the loony conversation the right has sparked during the August recess. After all, even if there were some provision before congress that could conceivably be interpreted as establishing a 'death panel' centuries, if not millennia of established medical ethics, in addition to existing U.S. law, would prevent its actualization. In the midst of this crucial debate on the future of health care, somehow, the proponents of the euthanasia talking point, seem to have forgotten everything we know about the practice of medicine in America. Even putting aside the Judeo-Christian morality upon which the constitution and our nation's culture are based, the notion of forced euthanasia would contradict the long-held body of medical ethics to which all American doctors must adhere. At times, morality can be dismissed as a matter of personal conscience no matter how wide-spread its acceptance. Ethics, on the other hand, arises from societal or group commitments to principia of behavior, a formulated code of ethical precepts, whether philosophical, legal, or religious, is a statement of commitment that the group has a right to insist upon from its members, even to the point of punishing breaches.
Since its origin, in the works authored by followers of Hippocratic teaching, the ethics of Western medicine have forbidden any action that might harm a patient, hence the famous injunction, "Have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely to do good or to do no harm." That principle has been re-iterated again and again through the ages. As for example in the words of the Geneva Convention code of medical ethics adopted by the world medical association in 1949, which states in part, "The health of my patient will be my first consideration, and elsewhere I will maintain the utmost respect for human life. I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity." I know of no source that permits anything else. Moreover, as the modern discipline of bio-ethics has evolved since the 1960's, there has been universal acceptance among its authorities of four principles that are considered fundamental. Autonomy, beneficence, non-malfeasance, and justice. The principle of autonomy, which refers to the autonomy of the patient, directs that every individual has the free will authority to make well informed medical decisions for himself and that the physician must never dictate such decisions. In the words of a highly regarded text book of bio-ethics, "This implies a respectful and broadly rational dialog between doctor and patient in order to combine the patient's values and the doctor's expertise to produce benefit. For this to happen the patient and the doctor must be prepared to listen to each other, think about what is being said, and be responsible about their respective roles."
As for beneficence, non-malfeasance, the 'do no harm' of antiquity, and justice, the words speak for themselves. Death panels indeed, euthanasia indeed! The growing professional disciplines of medical ethics and bio-ethics have had a profound impact on researchers, bed-side doctors, associations of physicians and government. The president's council on bio-ethics, a carefully chosen committee of some of the field's most eminent members, was created to advise the executive branch on any and all issues for which guidance is needed. Furthermore, the much maligned American medical association, a strong supporter of HR3200, has urged President Obama to publicly recognize the code of ethics that governs the actions of physicians. Even if some wild-eyed legislator, special interest group, or purposeful trouble-maker were to ignore the personal ethical behavior that has long been among individual and organized medicine's strongest influences, no bill could legally include any deadly provision of the kind being bruted about.
In 1990, responding to several high profile court cases, notably those of Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan, two young women in deep and irreversible comas who were kept on life support for unconscionably long periods, even as their families petitioned for cessation month after month, congress mandated that any health care institution receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding, which means all but a very few acute and chronic care hospitals, must on admission provide patients with three statements. One outlining their right to accept or refuse any type of treatment. Another laying out their right to issue advance directives to ensure that their wishes about continuing life sustaining therapy be carried out. And a third explaining any policies that govern the institution's withholding or withdrawal of life supporting treatments. Though the purpose of the 1990 legislation was to ascertain that hospitalized patients would not be maintained on ultimately futile therapies such as ventilators or feeding tubes against their stated wishes, it also forbids anything resembling forced euthanasia, since the patient or in the case of incompetence his or her legally authorized surrogate, by definition would not have requested it. Regardless, fulfilling such a request would be illegal if it were made in any of the 48 states that do not have an assisted suicide law, and even in the other two, Oregon and Washington, assisted suicide would certainly be viewed by the authorities as quite a different thing than forced euthanasia. In order for patients to make knowledgeable decisions under the 1990 law, it is essential that they thoroughly discuss with their physicians the implications of the directives they are choosing such as 'do not resuscitate' orders. HR3200 would for the first time legislate that the physician receive a fee for these discussions making it more likely that they will take place and that they will be of real substance. From these provisions of the bill, the ignorant, the nefarious, and the just plain stupid have extrapolated that the purpose of the periodic consultations is really to determine life or death with government officials and even physicians heaven forfend, taking on the role of Dr. Menglen.
It is ironic that the very legislation designed to protect patient autonomy is that from which Sarah Palin and her ilk have derived the fantastical notion that her son, Trig who has Down Syndrome would be euthanized if HR3200 were passed. Even if such a gruesome threat were real, the combination of morality, ethics, and the law would stop it early in its malodorous tracks. The entire issue or non-issue, which it surely is, contains the ingredients of travesty unworthy not only of the attention of the bio-ethics committee, but of the general public as well.
Sherwin B. Nuland the author of "How We Die" is political professor of surgery at Yale University and a member of the executive committee of the Yale interdisciplinary center for bio-ethics.
Now that you've heard the ethics expert, lets consider the possible ramifications we've learned from history. History this expert and the AMA and the Democrats are purposefully ignoring. Doctors have been honored in this country for a very long time and rightly so in my estimation. Lately, the AMA and other leading representative experts are not listening to their constituent groups, the doctors they supposedly represent. The AMA may be on board the government option/universal health care plan but the majority of doctors are not because they understand that this is not about health care choice or even 100% coverage. This is about centralizing power to the government. The real result being rationed health care and worse compensation for the health care provider. Rationed health care is the point at which we WILL see death panels. Who decides what procedures will be funded, how many of them will be funded, and who they will be funded for. Putting aside the grossly and notoriously underestimated costs of ANY government program often by literally 10,000% so that the current estimated costs of the government option at $1.2 to $1.5 trillion dollars winds up at more like $100 trillion. Compare the original estimations of Medicare costs projection $9 billion to the current Medicare costs projection $6.4 trillion. Missed it by "that" much! and so do the current guestimates for our government option health care insurance.
That isn't even the issue which most concerns the Tea Parties and Sarah Palin's ilk. What concerns us is this idea that a government bureaucrat pencil pushing bean counter will one day be sitting across the desk from us discussing our net worth with regard to society when it comes to doling out resources to meet our health care needs or, as Sarah Palin in her address and the good Dr. referred to them in his article, death panels. On top of that, our legislators are not inspiring any confidence that they are capable of understanding what they are doing to my liberty or that they care if they do. We aren't guessing so much as looking at past government ethics in health care and how low they've sunk. Barack Obama stood alone in the U.S. Senate in refusing to support a bill that would prescribe a doctor's care for an aborted fetus born alive. There is no more radical individual in this nation than the president on matters of health ethics. His crocodile tears for the health care of the poor don't stand at all against the backdrop of his stance toward a living human being just born allowed to suffer and die or in many cases strangled by the 'doctor' performing the abortion. I can't imagine a more calloused heart than that. The very fact that the abortion is legal, then that a doctor would take it upon himself to strangle the newborn infant refutes any high minded notion that medical, social, or legal ethics will prevent death panels' actualization. Once again, the eggheads in our institutions of higher learning demonstrate their profound blindness to the evidence in history, especially recent history.
Another critical little bit of information made its way onto the political stage revealing the natural course of government intervention into the free market system as we were still reeling from the revelation that the socialists are backroom dealing with the AMA, big pharma, and others. That insurance companies cannot compete with government backed programs that are literally designed to squeeze the insurance industry out of the market is just as obvious as Obama's record on health care ethics. When a company has the option of paying premiums for its employees or allowing the taxes they are already paying to cover their employees, the employers will obviously drop the extra expense in favor of a better bottom line. Oregon already has a state-sponsored government option and is already facing deficits in its health care budget. One resident recently faced their death panel and was told in a letter they could not fund her cancer treatment but they could offer her assisted suicide. A statement was later issued due to the public outcry, offering an apology stating the letter was 'unfortunate.' The pharmaceutical company which manufactures the expensive drugs she needed to fight her disease stepped up and offered them to her without cost. Yes Dr. Nuland, death panels indeed! Euthanasia indeed! Get out and meet the Sarah Palin ilk you egg-headed numb-skull. You just might learn something of the real world.
Politicians are magnanimous with money that isn't theirs to help people who benefit their political aspirations. This is not philanthropy. This is a payoff and it is wrong as wrong can be. Our founding fathers understood this and it has been the people which held our legislatures to account on this score until The New Deal. Probably even before that, but the New Deal was the biggest deal the politicians ever made until now, to socialize the American populace and centralize power. Lets be clear here. Outside of the enumerated powers they were endowed with per the Constitution, they force money out of your hand, pocket, paycheck, bank account, business, or whatever to keep a good bit for themselves and shovel a lot of it to their friends, then send a portion back to you and tell you how you must spend it. Isn't that special?
The Democrat health care reform is wrong on every level, whether moral, ethical, financial, philanthropic, you name it. I don't want it.
Real answers to fixing the health care insurance system in America are available. The problems are not so much with the providers of health care, but with our ability to compensate the providers of our health care and our government's insolence by insertion of its will in our personal lives. 47% of American health care is currently government care. Since that level of government intervention is providing so-called free health care to elderly, poor, or otherwise disadvantaged individuals, those individuals do not understand or care what the expense (after all, someone else is paying the bill) and so over use the system and drive up the costs and down the availability of health care professionals. Perhaps the one thing that most affects the price of health care in America is the TORT laws. This is the one area not addressed at all in any of the proposed legislation currently in Congress. Lawyers, the Democrat politicians best friend around elections curry a great deal of favor and so the TORT reform the industry is screaming for is ignored or blocked by Democrats to keep feeding the lawyers who make their living by medical malpractice lawsuits against the providers of health care. Add to that the amount of regulation on the industry which increases costs without real gain in quality or lowers quality without real reduction in price and you begin to understand that government is always a necessary evil. Though it is required for a civil society to exist, the less of it there is, the better for the people of a free nation.
Links from my Neighborhood
Senator Ted Kennedy: What i...
Senator Ted Kennedy passed away on Tuesday August 25, 200...
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country agai...
JavaScript must be enabled in order for you to use Netvib...
Ministering to people who struggle with sexual addictions.
