Killers, Liars, Fools, Fear Mongers, Cop Outs, Spies, Road Kill And Deadly Demographics
When Killers Come Home! Casualties Of War
Lou Dobbs Rips Fox News' Geraldo, MSNBC's Maddow Over Obama 'Birther' Show
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:59 AM | By: Kenneth D. Williams-Article Font Size
On yesterday's Lou Dobbs radio show, the host had plenty to say about critics who are ripping him for allowing a debate on his program about Obama's birth certificate — everyone from Ann Coulter, to Fox News and "intellectually challenged" Geraldo Rivera, to MSNBC TV's "tea-bagging queen" Rachel Maddow.
|
|
Maddow Had Her Own Retort For Dobbs Last Night:
|
|
Bill O'Reilly Defended Dobbs For Allowing "Free Speech" On His Program:
|
|
CNN Chief Klein Misrepresents Birther Coverage To Defend Dobbs
July 29, 2009 5:06 pm ET — 13 Comments
On July 28, CNN president Jonathan Klein reportedly defended Lou Dobbs' coverage of conspiracy theories about President Obama's birth certificate by falsely characterizing Dobbs' coverage as being limited to asking why some people continue to doubt Obama's citizenship. In fact, Dobbs has gone far beyond reporting on other people's conspiracy theories; he has repeatedly used discredited arguments to cast doubt on the adequacy of the birth certificate Obama has provided. Klein falsely claimed Dobbs has simply asked, "Why do some people doubt [Obama's citizenship] still?"
Dear Friend,
Thanks to your amazing response, we have already gathered more than 15,000 signatures calling on CNN to credibly address Lou Dobbs' frequent promotion of fringe conspiracies about President Obama's birth certificate. Unfortunately, CNN president Jon Klein has resorted to not telling the truth in order to defend Dobbs. Yesterday, Klein told TV reporters that Dobbs' coverage of the issue has been "all about the phenomenon of doubters" -- with Klein suggesting that Dobbs has done nothing more than host discussions of why "some people doubt" that Obama is a U.S.-born citizen.
Dobbs has done far more than simply ask why there are still people who doubt Obama's citizenship. He has legitimized their conspiracy theories by demanding that Obama produce documentation -- to prove something that Klein himself acknowledges is beyond doubt. Rather than misleading the public, he should credibly address CNN's still growing Dobbs problem by simply telling the truth.
It's time to contact Klein directly and demand a definitive explanation on whether he finds it appropriate for one of his premier hosts to promote discredited, racially charged conspiracy theories on his network. So, please email CNN president Jon Klein and let him know that mainstreaming fringe conspiracy theories is not acceptable. Visit our special website and take action today:
It is no secret that the birther movement is tinged with racism. [1] By legitimizing birther conspiracy theorists, CNN is doing more than simply pushing a baseless story and harming its journalistic credibility. It is also empowering bigotry, xenophobia, and hate. Is this what "the most trusted name in news" has come to represent?
Dobbs' promotion of the birther movement is hardly the first time he has tarnished CNN's reputation by giving voice to outlandish, racially charged conspiracy theories on the network. He promoted the idea that the Bush administration was attempting to form a "North American Union" between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and fear-mongered over the supposed "reconquista movement" by which Mexicans were planning to take over the American Southwest. In 2005, he suggested that immigrants were responsible for a spike in leprosy cases in the U.S. -- even though the purported spike was based on false reports and had never actually occurred. Despite being debunked repeatedly, Dobbs defended his leprosy report publicly before being forced to offer a correction.
It's the same story all over again. It needs to stop. So please email Klein today and let him know that mainstreaming fringe conspiracy theories is not acceptable no matter how he spins it:
Dobbs' promotion of the birthers puts him at odds with many of his CNN colleagues, as well as far-right media figures like Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, who called the story "absurd," and conservative pundit Ann Coulter, who dismissed Dobbs as "wrong." But it does align Dobbs, Klein, and the entire network with deeply controversial figures within the birther community. Such people include Andy Martin, who has made anti-Semitic and racially charged comments; convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy, who plotted but never followed through on murders and bombings; 9-11 "Truther" Philip Berg; perennial candidate for public office Alan Keyes, who has reportedly accused Obama of taking the "slaveholder's position" on abortion; a pastor who has prayed for Obama's death; and the discredited right-wing website WorldNetDaily.
It's time for CNN to stop dredging up this kind of filth and to start acting like "The Most Trusted Name In News." Join us in pressuring CNN president Jon Klein today:
Thank you for your continued help in holding CNN accountable.
Eric Burns
President,
Media Matters for America
[1] MSNBC president calls birtherism "racist" (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200907240043), Again slamming Dobbs' birther theories, Matthews wonders if it's about "not documentation, but pigmentation" (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907230001), and CNN's Martin: Birther's "I want my country back" comment means "How is this black guy all of the sudden running the country?" (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907220041)
So This Should End It | American Princess | By EM Zanotti
This, of course, would be why when the fringes of the Left supported a campaign to impeach Bush, they also included Cheney, Rice and several others in the chain of succession in their resolutions. They didn't want to have to have a man ...
American Princess - http://americanprincessblog.
Army Civilian Employee Spied on Peace Activists
by LIBERTY BEAT
Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:05:10 PM PDT
The discovery this month that anarchist "John Jacob," an activist in anti-militarist organizing in the Pacific Northwest, is really civilian Army intelligence analyst John Towery II, shows that those concerned about civil liberties must remain vigilant in the Obama era. The gathering of domestic intelligence by Army agents highlights real dangers for civil liberties.
Portland Indymedia reports that Towery, based out of the Fort Lewis Force Protection Fusion Cell, infiltrated the Washington state group Port Militarization Resistance from September 2007 through July 21, 2009 -- the day that activists exposed him at an Olympia, Washington City Council meeting. According to National Lawyers Guild human rights lawyer Larry Hildes, activists suspected the presence of a government mole after court documents showed that Olympia Police ordered pre-emptive arrests at a demonstration based upon information received from Army employees attending the group's meetings.
Port Militarization Resistance is an organization that uses public education, lobbying, and nonviolent civil disobedience to end the community's participation in the United States' occupation of Iraq by stopping the military's use of the civilian Port of Olympia. Activists also organize at the Port of Tacoma, Washington, to oppose shipments of military equipment to Iraq and Afghanistan.
"John Jacob" administered the email listserv for Port Military Resistance. Mr. Towery attended meetings of the group and reported on its activities to the Fort Lewis Force Protection Fusion Cell. The Fusion Cell coordinates local, state, and federal law enforcement, as well as military police and intelligence analysts. The Fusion Center's dynamic increases the potential for information covertly gathered by the Army to be shared over a variety of intelligence networks, and even with private industry.
By actually administering this group's listserv, the Army's agent did not simply gain access to public meetings. He gained access to private correspondences, membership lists, email addresses, and internal discussions. This "intelligence" was clearly shared with other agencies attached to the base Fusion Cell. Further, it was used to sanction members of the organization with pre-emptive arrests during at least one political action. Indymedia reports,
By his own admission, John Towery spent the past two years spying on anarchists, Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans, SDSers and anti-war activists in Tacoma, Olympia and the Pacific Northwest. He admitted that he reported to an intelligence network that included county sheriffs from Pierce, Thurston and other WA counties, municipal police agencies from Tacoma, Olympia, Seattle and elsewhere, WA State Police, the US Army, FBI, Homeland Security, Joint Terrorism Task Force, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency among other agencies.
This episode is reminiscent of Department of Defense domestic surveillance programs of the 1960s -- which were halted after congressional investigations into civil liberties abuses. In February 1970, the ACLU filed a class action suit seeking an end to extensive political surveillance program that the Army developed during the 1960s and the destruction of the spy files. In Laird v. Tatum, the District of Columbia Circuit ordered discovery and proof as to the nature and scope of the Army's domestic intelligence system and its effect on dissent, but the Supreme Court ultimately reversed them. In Laird, the Circuit court opinion stated,
It is highly important for the safety of the country that to the extent consonant with the performance of the military's mission a separation of sensitive information and military power be maintained, as a separation of match and powder. . . . [T]o permit the military to exercise a totally unrestricted investigative function in regard to civilians, divorced from the normal restrictions of legal process and the courts, and necessarily coupling sensitive information with military power, could create a dangerous situation in the Republic.(1)
In ruling with the Army, the Supreme Court's majority said that the existence of intelligence files did not make out a claim of "specific present objective harm or the threat of specific future harm" because the Army had merely been gathering public information.(2) Today's case in Olympia surely goes further (as did most of the COINTELPRO programs of the '60s). In today's age of government-mandated information sharing, the threat of harm from the collection and dissemination of this information is great.
According to Constitutional scholar Seth Kreimer, in any bureaucracy, "you manage what you measure."(3) A list of political opponents prefigures the danger of political purges. The accumulation of blacklists of potential agitators is well adapted to the use of extralegal mechanisms to suppress dissenters through low visibility retaliation like selective prosecution or ISA audits. Kreimer quotes Justice Jackson's observation,
I cannot say that our country could have no central police without becoming totalitarian, but I can say with great conviction that it cannot be totalitarian without a centralized national police . . . [A national police] will have enough on enough people, even if it does not elect to prosecute them, so that it will fin no opposition to its policies.(4)
In the push to generate "intelligence fusion" and information sharing among all levels of law enforcement, government officials have neglected to limit agencies' ability to amass information about political activities of citizens.
The function of political surveillance is to suppress any challenges to the hegemony of the multinational/governmental elite. In Port Olympia, armed forces who claim to fight for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan are using repressive surveillance to directly hinder democratic action at home.
For more on Civil Liberties, check out Political Research Associates at www.publiceye.org.
Tatum v. Laird, 444 F.2d 947, 958 (D.C. Cir. 1971), rev'd 408 U.S. 1 (1971).
Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 14 (1971).
Seth Kreimer, "Watching the Watchers: Surveillance, Transparency, and Political Freedom in the War on Terror," 7 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 133 (2004).
Robert H. Jackson, The Supreme Court in the American System of Government 70-71 (1955).
Three advocacy groups have asked Google to commit to protect the privacy of readers in its book search service, which is poised for a major expansion under a pending class-action settlement.
Three advocacy groups have asked Google to commit to protect the privacy of readers in its book search service, which is poised for a major expansion under a pending class-action settlement.
The groups -- the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley -- have asked Google to limit the data it collects about users' reading habits, to commit to protect reader records by handing them over only in response to subpoenas or court orders and to put into effect measures giving users control of their data.
The groups made the requests in a letter to Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive. In an accompanying blog post, the groups are urging people to send e-mail messages to Mr. Schmidt demanding privacy protections.
"We've asked that Google only respond to legitimate warrants when the government comes calling, for example, and we've asked that they not share your private reading data with third parties without your permission, among other things," the groups wrote.
On its public policy blog, Google said it shared many of the privacy goals raised by the advocacy groups. But Google also said that its expanded book search service would not be built until a landmark settlement of a copyright class action filed by authors and publishers was approved by a court. (That settlement, which will allow Google to build an expansive digital library, has attracted criticism and is currently being scrutinized by the Justice Department for possible antitrust problems.) Because the service has yet to be built, it is premature to draft a detailed privacy policy about it, the company said.
"The services authorized by the agreement haven't been built or even designed yet," Dan Clancy, engineering director for Google Books, wrote. "That means it's very difficult (if not impossible) to draft a detailed privacy policy. While we know that our eventual product will build in privacy protections -- like always giving users clear information about privacy, and choices about what if any data they share when they use our services -- we don't yet know exactly how this all will work. We do know that whatever we ultimately build will protect readers' privacy rights, upholding the standards set long ago by booksellers and by the libraries whose collections are being opened to the public through this settlement."
Cindy Cohn, legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said she had decided to go ahead with the public campaign after months of discussions with Google. She said that Google's response was insufficient and that the company should commit to guarantees in writing before the settlement was reviewed by a court in October. And she dismissed the argument that Google could not make privacy guarantees until the product was built. "Whether to hand data only in response to a warrant or not is not a tech decision," she said.
| Click On Home For The Full Menu |
A Chance for Real Democracy in Honduras | By Kevin Coleman
We are witnessing a democratic awakening of the Honduran people. This time, if democracy is restored, it will come from the bottom up, from university students camped out in stairways to protect journalists, from workers with cheap digital cameras, from campesinos hiking through mountains and flouting curfew to say to elites: "Hello! This is not how a democracy conducts itself."
| |
| Judge: Swine Flu Is Reason To Suspend Constitutional Rights Delays caused by lockdown are costing thousands of dollars, inconveniencing jurors. By LARRY WELBORN THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER SANTA ANA – A Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that there is legal justification to keep the Central Men’s Jail under medical quarantine – at least for a couple of days – to control a swine flu outbreak. |
TV AD - "SNAIL": Tell Congress To Pass Health Insurance Reform Now!
The unions are telling us that "when something goes slow enough, it's easy to kill it, dead in its tracks."
In Error-Laden Wash. Post Op-Ed, Feldstein Falsely Claims Health Care Plan Gives "No Protection" To Unemployed - July 29, 2009 9:20 pm ET
In a July 28 Washington Post op-ed, Harvard University economics professor Martin Feldstein advanced several falsehoods, including his claim that President Obama's health care reform plan provides "no protection if [Americans] lose their current insurance because of unemployment"; his suggestion that a 5.4 percent surtax would be added to everyone in the 35 percent marginal tax bracket; and his claim that Obama supports a British-style health care system in which "the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are salaried."
Feldstein falsely asserts Obama health plan offers "no protection" to those who lose insurance
From Feldstein's Post op-ed:
For the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, the Obama health plan is bad news. It means higher taxes, less health care and no protection if they lose their current insurance because of unemployment or early retirement.
Benefit 1: Those who lose their insurance will be able to buy a new policy despite pre-existing conditions
The current system contains barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.Currently, insurance companies can deny coverage, or offer coverage only at astronomical rates, to people with pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies also routinely restrict or deny coverage byrescinding health insurance policies on the grounds that people had undisclosed pre-existing conditions.
According to Obama, bills would eliminate these barriers. Obama: "Under each of these bills, you won't be denied coverage if you've got a preexisting medical condition. You won't lose your health care if you change jobs, if you lose your job, or if you start a business. And you won't lose your insurance if you get sick." [Remarks; 7/21/09]
Indeed, House Democrats' tri-committee health care reform bill bars insurers from using pre-existing conditions to deny coverage. According to a Ways and Means Committee staff descriptionof the House bill, section 111 "[p]rohibits the application of pre-existing condition exclusions," andsection 112 "[r]equires guaranteed issue (no one can be denied health insurance) and renewal of insurance policies and prohibits the use of rescissions except in instances of fraud." From the description of the bill:
SEC. 111. PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.
A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act) or otherwise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based on any health status-related factors (as defined in section 2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act) in relation to the individual or dependent.
SEC. 112. GUARANTEED ISSUE AND RENEWAL FOR INSURED PLANS.
The requirements of sections 2711 (other than subsections (c) and (e)) and 2712 (other than paragraphs (3), and (6) of subsection (b) and subsection (e)) of the Public Health Service Act, relating to guaranteed availability and renewability of health insurance coverage, shall apply to individuals and employers in all individual and group health insurance coverage, whether offered to individuals or employers through the Health Insurance Exchange, through any employment-based health plan, or otherwise, in the same manner as such sections apply to employers and health insurance coverage offered in the small group market, except that such section 2712(b)(1) shall apply only if, before nonrenewal or discontinuation of coverage, the issuer has provided the enrollee with notice of non-payment of premiums and there is a grace period during which the enrollees has an opportunity to correct such nonpayment. Rescissions of such coverage shall be prohibited except in cases of fraud as defined in sections 2712(b)(2) of such Act.
Section 2711 of the Public Health Service Act provides that -- with certain exceptions:
[E]ach health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the small group market in a State --
(A) must accept every small employer (as defined in section 300gg-91(e)(4) of this title) in the State that applies for such coverage; and
(B) must accept for enrollment under such coverage every eligible individual (as defined in paragraph (2)) who applies for enrollment during the period in which the individual first becomes eligible to enroll under the terms of the group health plan and may not place any restriction which is inconsistent with section 300gg-1 of this title on an eligible individual being a participant or beneficiary.
Section 2712 provides that -- with certain exceptions:
[A] group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage in connection with a group health plan, may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan based on any of the following health status-related factors in relation to the individual or a dependent of the individual:
(A) Health status.
(B) Medical condition (including both physical and mental illnesses).
(C) Claims experience.
(D) Receipt of health care.
(E) Medical history.
(F) Genetic information.
(G) Evidence of insurability (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence).
(H) Disability.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee bill also bars the use of pre-existing conditions to deny coverage. The bill states that "[a] group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage, may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan or coverage based on any of the following health status-related factors in relation to the individual or a dependent of the individual:
''(1) Health status.
''(2) Medical condition (including both physical and mental illnesses).
''(3) Claims experience.
''(4) Receipt of health care.
''(5) Medical history.
''(6) Genetic information.
''(7) Evidence of insurability (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence).
''(8) Disability.
''(9) Any other health status-related factor determined appropriate by the Secretary."
Benefit 2: Those who lose their insurance may be eligible for subsidies to purchase a new policy
The House bill provides "individual affordability credits" through a Health Insurance Exchange to certain individuals. The criteria for which individuals are eligible for these credits are as follows:
(A) who is enrolled under an Exchange-participating health benefits plan and is not enrolled under such plan as an employee (or dependent of an employee) through an employer qualified health benefits plan that meets the requirements of section 312;
(B) with family income below 400 percent of the Federal poverty level for a family of the size involved; and
(C) who is not a Medicaid eligible individual, other than an individual described in section 202(d)(3) or an individual during a transition period under section 202(d)(4)(B)(ii).
The Senate bill provides credits to "low" and "moderate-income" individuals. According to a HELP Committee release, the bill offers the following credits to individuals:
Support for Affordable Health Coverage. To reduce the economic burden of health care on vulnerable Americans, low-income, and moderate-income Americans who enroll in plans through the Gateways will be eligible for premium credits. Credits are provided on sliding scale, so that those with the lowest incomes receive the most help. Gateways, which will provide information on health insurance options, will administer these credits. The premium credits would be on a sliding scale up to 400% of the poverty line ($88,080 for a family of 4), with those at lower end receiving more. (§ 3111)
Feldstein falsely suggested surcharge would apply to all taxpayers in 35 percent tax bracket
From Feldstein's op-ed:
Although the president claims he can finance the enormous increase in costs by raising taxes only on high-income individuals, tax experts know that this won't work. Experience shows that raising the top income-tax rate from 35 percent today to more than 45 percent -- the effect of adding the proposed health surcharge to the increase resulting from letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income taxpayers -- would change the behavior of high-income individuals in ways that would shrink their taxable incomes and therefore produce less revenue. The result would be larger deficits and higher taxes on the middle class. Because of the unprecedented deficits forecast for the next decade, this is definitely not a time to start a major new spending program.
Top surcharge of 5.4 percent applies to families earning $1 million or more. Contrary to Feldstein's suggestion that the surcharge provided in the House bill would apply to all taxpayers in the 35 percent tax bracket, the 35 percent tax bracket applies to income in excess of $372,950 while the top surcharge of 5.4 percent -- which Feldstein includes in his calculation of a 45 percent top marginal rate -- applies to income greater than $1 million for tax payers filing joint returns, $500,000 for married individual filings, and $800,000 for other filings. The legislation would also establish a 1 percent tax on taxpayers filing joint returns with income exceeding $350,000 but not exceeding $500,000 per year, and a 1.5 percent tax on income exceeding $500,000 but not exceeding $1 million per year.
Feldstein falsely claimed that "Obama has said that he would favor a British-style 'single payer' system"
From Feldstein's op-ed:
Obama has said that he would favor a British-style "single payer" system in which the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are salaried but that he recognizes that such a shift would be too disruptive to the health-care industry. The Obama plan to have a government insurance provider that can undercut the premiums charged by private insurers would undoubtedly speed the arrival of such a single-payer plan. It is hard to think of any other reason for the administration to want a government insurer when there is already a very competitive private insurance market that could be made more so by removing government restrictions on interstate competition.
Britain has a socialized medicine system, which is not a single-payer system. As Pulitzer Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explained in a July 28 post to his New York Times blog critiquing Feldstein's op-ed, single payer "means a system like Medicare, in which the government pays the bills. It absolutely does not mean a British-style system -- and Obama definitely didn't advocate anything of the sort." Also criticizing Feldstein's piece, The New Republic's Jonathan Chait similarly pointed out in a July 28 post to TNR's The Treatment blog, "Britain does not have a single-payer system. It has a socialized system, where the government directly employs all health care providers. ... Does Medicare own hospitals and pay doctors government salaries? No."
Obama has not said he supports a socialized medicine system like the one in Britain. Feldstein purported to show that Obama supports a "British-style 'single payer' system" by linking to an August 19, 2008, Wall Street Journal Washington Wire blog post, which quotes then-presidential candidate Obama saying: "If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system" [emphasis added]. Indeed, Feldstein's purported evidence undermines his claim.
York Falsely Claimed Health Reform Measure Requires End-Of-Life Consultation
On Fox News' Special Report, Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York falsely claimed that a provision in a House health reform bill "says that there will be consultation between a caregiver and a patient to discuss things like hospice care and other issues -- other end-of-life issues," which he claimed raised the question of "whether there's any coercive element to this." But the provision York cited is not mandatory. Read More
NY Times Quadruples Cost Of House Health Bill
New York Times reporters Robert Pear and David M. Herszenhorn falsely claimed in a July 28 article that the House health care reform bill is "estimated at $1 trillion over 10 years." In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that the House tri-committee bill "would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period," not $1 trillion.Read More
Caught With "Pants On Fire," Mccaughey Backtracks, Hedges -- Again
http://mediamatters.org/items/200907280050
For at least the second time, former Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey has been caught making a false claim about pending legislation and then backtracking by claiming that she was describing the effect, if not the literal language of the bill. In February, McCaughey claimed that the economic recovery act would permit the government to dictate treatment but after being confronted about the falsehood, reportedly said the legislation was vague enough to allow it to happen in the future. More recently, after saying that the House health care reform bill would "absolutely require" end-of-life counseling, according to a July 28 Politico article, when asked about criticism of that claim, McCaughey stated that "[i]n so many words" the bill would make end-of-life counseling mandatory because "although it is presented in the bill as a Medicare service, when a doctor or a nurse approaches an elderly person who is in poor health, facing a decline in health, and raises these issues, it is not offering a service. It is pressuring them."
In recent weeks, McCaughey has repeatedly asserted that the House Democrats' health care reform bill makes end-of-life counseling for seniors "mandatory." PolitiFact reported: "On the radio show of former Sen. Fred Thompson on July 16, 2009, McCaughey said 'Congress would make it mandatory -- absolutely require -- that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.' "PolitiFact.com stated:
For our ruling on this one, there's really no gray area here. McCaughey incorrectly states that the bill would require Medicare patients to have these counseling sessions and she is suggesting that the government is somehow trying to interfere with a very personal decision. And her claim that the sessions would "tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner" is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn't just wrong, she's spreading a ridiculous falsehood. That's a Pants on Fire. [emphasis added]
Matthews Purports To Correct Romano On End-Of-Life Consultation, But Gets It Wrong
During a Hardball discussion about a provision in the House health care reform bill that provides coverage for end-of-life counseling as a service through Medicare, host Chris Matthews purported to correct Washington Post reporter Lois Romano's explanation of the provision, claiming: "We already have that in Medicare." In fact, Romano was correct; the bill would require Medicare to cover the cost of such counseling for the first time.
Matthews on provision: "It's not about Medicare, Lois. We already have that in Medicare."
From the July 29 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Well, that's how hot it's getting. Lois Romano, Jonathan Martin -- Lois, your thoughts about this debate. It's a provision in the energy bill -- energy and commerce version of the health care bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee. It was put in, this provision, by Earl Blunauer from Oregon -- Blumenauer.
MARTIN: Blumenauer, yeah.
MATTHEWS: Blumenauer. It's -- there it stands. It's a provision which allows you to get counseling every five years or so. I wonder what the hell this provision's doing in a bill that's aimed at people who are younger. It's not about Medicare recipients, people over 65. Why we'd want to be visited every five years by somebody to talk about how you want to die? I think it's crazy this is in there, but your thoughts.
ROMANO: But, it's not in there. I mean, basically --
MATTHEWS: It is in there.
ROMANO: No, but it's --
MATTHEWS: It's in the bill; it's in the Dingell bill.
ROMANO: It's a benefit. First of all -- first of all -- Chris, first of all, it's an extension of a 1999 bill that was enacted during the Bush administration, and it's a self-determination -- a patients' rights bill. And all it really says is that Medicare will pay if somebody wants to go in and have a consultation. It doesn't say you have to have a consultation. It doesn't --
MATTHEWS: It's not about Medicare, Lois. We already have that in Medicare. This is about people under 65 -- younger people. This is not about Medicare. We've got it in [unintelligible] you're saying that. This is about a health care bill to help people in their middle years and their younger years. Why would you have this conversation with them?
ROMANO: I think it's just basically to give patients some rights. They want to go in and have a conversation. It's about a living will, as [President] Obama said. It's about making choices about being prepared, you know, whether -- and I think most people would opt to use it if they were ill. I don't think you and I, healthy, would go in and say, "Oh, listen. Can we talk about how I'm going to die in 20 years if something happens." I think it's -- you're talking about a person -- say they're under 65, say they're 45, and they're dying, and they just want to go and have a consultation.
The provision would require Medicare to cover the cost of counseling for the first time.According to PolitiFact.com:
Sec. 1233 of the bill, labeled "Advance Care Planning Consultation" details how the bill would, for the first time, require Medicare to cover the cost of end-of-life counseling sessions.
According to the bill, "such consultation shall include the following: An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to; an explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses; an explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy." [PolitiFact.com, 7/16/09]
AARP moderator stated that the provision would allow Medicare to "cover consultation." During a July 28 AARP health care forum, moderator Michael Cuthbert said: "As I read the bill, it's saying that Medicare will, for the first time, cover consultation about end-of-life care." Cuthbert's statement was a response to a questioner who said: "I have been told there is a clause in there that everyone that's Medicare age will be visited and told to decide how they wish to die."
Obama made clear the intent is to "simply make sure that you've got more information, and that Medicare will pay for it." In his follow-up to Cuthbert, Obama stated, "But understand what the intent is. The intent here is to simply make sure that you've got more information, and that Medicare will pay for it." Obama later added: "So if Medicare is saying you have the option of consulting with somebody about hospice care, and we will reimburse it, that's putting more power, more choice in the hands of the American people, and it strikes me that that's a sensible thing to do."
Rep. Blumenauer: "The provision merely provides coverage under Medicare." Blumenauer, who Matthews noted co-authored the provision, released a fact sheet on advance planning consultations in the House health care bill that states: "Myth: Patients will be forced to have this consultation once every five years. Fact: Advance planning consultations are not mandatory; this benefit is completely voluntary. The provision merely provides coverage under Medicare to have a conversation once every five years if -- and only if -- a patient wants to make his or her wishes known to a doctor. If desired, patients may have consultations more frequently if they are chronically ill or if their health status changes."
Matthews says provision is "social policy dynamite," but eldercare groups support the counseling provision
From the July 29 edition of Hardball:
ROMANO: I think it's just basically to give patients some rights. They want to go in and have a conversation. It's about a living will, as Obama said. It's about making choices about being prepared, you know, whether -- and I think most people would opt to use it if they were ill. I don't think you and I, healthy, would go in and say, "Oh, listen. Can we talk about how I'm going to die in 20 years if something happens." I think it's -- you're talking about a person -- say they're under 65, say they're 45, and they're dying, and they just want to go and have a consultation.
MATTHEWS: That's -- no. This is on a regular recurring basis. It seem like something --
ROMANO: But it's not mandated, Chris. It's not mandated.
MATTHEWS: It's not mandated, but what's it doing in there? I just have a sense this was put in by a lobbyist who wanted this in for hospice care -- somebody pushed this in there. It's the kind of social policy dynamite that sounds like Denmark or Scandinavia, and it's that kind of mind-set that drives a lot of moderates and conservatives crazy. Your thoughts, Jonathan.
[...]
MATTHEWS: We'll come back on this. I think it's like the abortion issue that's been jammed into this thing. There shouldn't -- we have a Hyde Amendment, Lois, that says the government will not pay for abortion. People are talking about putting that into the bill here. Pro-choice people that want the government to pay for abortions. There's a lot of social policy being jammed at us, on what is essentially a financing issue.
Numerous eldercare groups support the provision. According to the fact sheet distributed by Blumenauer's office, the provision is "Endorsed By: AARP, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, American Hospice Foundation, Consumers Union, Gundersen Lutheran Health System, Medicare Rights Center, National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, Providence Health System."
Wash. Post Latest To Promote End-Of-Life Counseling Myth
A Washington Post article about President Obama's AARP forum on health care promoted the falsehood that a provision in the House Democrats' health care reform bill makes end-of-life counseling for seniors mandatory -- it does not. Ceci Connolly wrote that "[o]ne woman asked Obama about 'rumors' that under the proposed legislation, every American over age 65 would be visited by a government worker and 'told to decide how they wish to die,' " but Connolly did not report that the "rumors" -- which have been promoted by conservatives -- are not true.
From the July 29 Post article:
Polls show that senior citizens are more skeptical about health-care reform than any other age group.
One woman asked Obama about "rumors" that under the proposed legislation, every American over age 65 would be visited by a government worker and "told to decide how they wish to die."
First, Obama joked that there aren't enough government workers to undertake such a task. Then he got serious and personal, mentioning that his grandmother, who died shortly before Election Day last year, had a medical directive.
"It gave her some control ahead of time so that she could say, for example, if she had a terminal illness, did she want extraordinary measures even if, for example, her brainwaves were no longer functioning? Or did she want just to be left alone?" he said. "You know, that gives her some decision-making power over the process."
House bill does not make end-of-life-counseling mandatory
Advance care planning is not mandatory in the House health care bill. The House health care reform bill provides coverage for counseling as a service through Medicare and is not mandatory. Section 1233 of America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 amends the Social Security Act to ensure that advance care planning will be covered if a patient requests it from a qualified care provider [America's Affordable Health Choices Act, Sec. 1233]. According to an analysis of the bill produced by the three relevant House committees, the provision "[p]rovides coverage for consultation between enrollees and practitioners to discuss orders for life-sustaining treatment. Instructs CMS to modify 'Medicare & You' handbook to incorporate information on end-of-life planning resources and to incorporate measures on advance care planning into the physician's quality reporting initiative." [waysandmeans.house.gov, accessed 7/29/09]
Rep. Blumenauer: "Myth: Patients will be forced to have this consultation once every five years." Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who co-authored the provision, released a fact sheet on advance planning consultations in the House health care bill that states: "Myth: Patients will be forced to have this consultation once every five years. Fact: Advance planning consultations are not mandatory; this benefit is completely voluntary. The provision merely provides coverage under Medicare to have a conversation once every five years if -- and only if -- a patient wants to make his or her wishes known to a doctor. If desired, patients may have consultations more frequently if they are chronically ill or if their health status changes."
AARP, Obama explained counseling provision at health forum
AARP moderator stated that the provision would allow Medicare to "cover consultation." During a July 28 AARP health care forum, moderator Michael Cuthbert said: "As I read the bill, it's saying that Medicare will, for the first time, cover consultation about end-of-life care." Cuthbert's statement was a response to the questioner who said: "I have been told there is a clause in there that everyone that's Medicare age will be visited and told to decide how they wish to die."
Obama made clear the intent is to "simply make sure that you've got more information, and that Medicare will pay for it." In his follow-up to Cuthbert, Obama stated, "But understand what the intent is. The intent here is to simply make sure that you've got more information, and that Medicare will pay for it." Obama later added: "So if Medicare is saying you have the option of consulting with somebody about hospice care, and we will reimburse it, that's putting more power, more choice in the hands of the American people, and it strikes me that that's a sensible thing to do."
Outside groups support the counseling provision
AARP: Supports provision, criticized "gross," "cruel" distortions. A July 28 Politico article on the counseling provision reported: "'This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves but also better ensure that their wishes are followed,' AARP Executive Vice President John Rother said in a statement. 'To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion -- especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives.' "
National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization: Supports provision, no "responsible legislative analyst" would indicate it is mandatory. The July 28 Politico article also reported: "Jon Keyserling, vice president for public policy and counsel at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, said: 'I was surprised that any responsible legislative analyst would indicate this is a mandatory provision. That is just a misreading of the language and, certainly, of the intent.' " According to a fact sheet distributed by Blumenauer's office, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organizationsupports the provision.
Conservatives have used "pants on fire" falsehood to fearmonger about the provision
Betsy McCaughey was forced to backtrack after calling the provision "mandatory" -- a "pants on fire" falsehood. As Media Matters for America noted, after repeatedly falsely asserting that the bill makes end-of-life counseling for seniors "mandatory," former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey was forced to backtrack from her claim -- a claim PolitiFact.com called "a ridiculous falsehood. That's a Pants on Fire." Confronted with accusations that she lied about the bill, she claimed, as she had done with a prior falsehood about another bill, that she was right about the effect (if not the literal wording) of the legislation.
Other conservatives in the media have advanced McCaughey falsehood. Fox News host Sean Hannity cited McCaughey to falsely claim that under the House provision, senior citizens would be "forced to undergo" end-of-life counseling. Similarly, syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh has falsely claimed that seniors would be subject to "[m]andatory counseling" at "a minimum of every five years, more often if the seasoned citizen is sick or in a nursing home." He added, "That's an invasion of the right to privacy." Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York falsely claimed on Fox News' Fox & Friends that the bill "says that there will be consultation between a caregiver and a patient to discuss things like hospice care and other issues -- other end-of-life issues," which he claimed raised the question of "whether there's any coercive element to this."
People Think Health Care Reform Will Hurt Them
Atlantic Online
Fall into party line and vote on a bill that will actually work. I couldn't agree less with this analysis. I don't think this poll will have Democrats ...
See all stories on this topic
| Road Kill: It's Fresh, It's Organic, It's Free By Sandor Ellix Katz, Chelsea Green Publishing. Posted July 28, 2009. Even some hardcore vegans have found solace in scavenging. Here's why. How broke would you have to get to eat roadkill? Don't freak out. This isn't a sensationalist necrophilic bizarre fetishized kind of thing. It's legit. Actually, depending on several factors, it can be perfectly safe (and entirely affordable) to eat meat that has been left by the side of a highway or county road. In fact, there may be not much of a difference from a deer you hunt, and a deer you kill accidentally. Now, this may sound a bit extreme to you. But according to Sandor Katz, lifelong activist and food lover, roadkill has been a source of food for poor people since cars were invented. So, don't be classist. At least read more about it! The following is an excerpt from The Revolution Will Not Be Microwaved: Inside America's Underground Food Movements bySandor Ellix Katz. It has been adapted for the Web. If you pay attention and look at the road while driving (or, even more so, while walking or biking), you will inevitably encounter road kill. Animals moving across the landscape are often unavoidable prey at fifty-five miles per hour. Little systematic counting has been done, but extrapolating from data collected by road crews in Ohio, one analysis estimates there are an average of more than one hundred million road kill victims in the United States each year. Dr. Splatt, the pseudonym of a high-school science teacher who for thirteen years has organized students around New England to participate in a road kill census, comes up with a very similar estimate of 250,000 animals killed by cars in the United States on an average day. Some people see food in these unfortunate victims of our car culture and regularly pick road kill up off the road to take home and eat. A few passionate souls I have encountered eat road kill almost every day. My neighbors Casper and Pixey bring road kill stews to our potlucks. For a while they did their frying in grease rendered from a road kill bear they came across in the mountains. On one of my friends Terra and Natalie's visits, they had strips of road kill venisons splayed across their dashboard drying into jerky. When I first met Terra, she was vegan. Then she and her boyfriend Ursus -- who has the word vegan tattooed onto his shin -- discovered road kill and quickly became road kill carnivores. In her zine, The Feral Forager, Terra explains how they came to start eating road kill: Our first feral feast of road kill was on spring equinox of 2002. That past winter we had experimented with skinning and tanning, using a possum and a raccoon we had found on the roadside. . . . On spring equinox we were driving in the suburbs of a large southeastern city and spotted a fox dead on the roadside. Our first thought was what a great fur it would make. We scraped it up (it wasn't very mangled at all) and took it to our friends' house downtown, and Ursus skinned it in the backyard while our friends assisted. When it was all done and hanging gutless and skinless from a tree, it was like some collective epiphany: why not eat it? There was a great firepit there and several willing "freegans," along with a few pretty hardcore vegans (including Ursus) who raised no protest. After a couple hours on a spit, the grey fox was edible. I guess it was something about the start of a new season -- it was almost ritualistic, without trying to make it so. Some stood by and watched while four or five of us feasted on the fox. Ursus, a hardcore vegan, was perhaps the most voracious. There was something primal about his eating -- like a wild man caged for years eating only bagels and bananas. Ursus tanned the skin and later wore it around his neck like a scarf. Terra, Ursus, Natalie, and other members of the Wildroots Collective in western North Carolina now eat roadkill nearly every day, have a good supply put away in a freezer, and have tried dozens of different species of animals found dead on roadsides. The Wildroots folks have become enthusiastic promoters of road kill and work hard to spread information and skills to empower other people to tap into this huge available food supply. Members of the collective do a good bit of traveling on the do-it-yourself skill sharing circuit, teaching people how to judge the edibility of a dead animal on the road and guiding them through the experience of skinning and cleaning a small animal. At the 2005 Food For Life gathering at the Sequatchie Valley Institute/Moon shadow, one of the most memorable events was the hands-on road kill workshop, in which we learned about the cleaning, skinning, and butchering of road kill animals. The Wildroots folks brought a road kill groundhog with them, and our friend Justin, another road kill enthusiast, brought a squirrel he had found on his bike ride to the gathering. (The more slowly you travel, the more you notice not only road kill but all sorts of roadside harvesting possibilities.) People enthusiastically took front-row seats to see these animals get skinned. Some people shuddered in horror, had to look away, or otherwise expressed their squeamishness. But most people watched quietly, fascinated, as Natalie coached Dylan, a previously uninitiated thirteen-year- old (there with his family) through the skinning of the squirrel, and Jenny and Justin skinned the groundhog. Direct experiential education like this can be transformative. Laurel Luddite wrote about her first road kill butchering experience, "The responsibility made me nervous at first. As I cut I began to feel confident that not only could I butcher this deer, but I could also fulfill my need for food whenever I saw some lying by the side of the road." Road kill has been a source of food for poor people since there have been cars. In American culture eating road kill generally has a pejorative classist connotation, epitomizing ignorant hillbilly behavior. Now Wildroots and other enthusiasts are embracing road kill with a political ideology, rejecting the values of consumer culture by "transforming dishonored victims of the petroleum age into food which nourishes, and clothing which warms." Beyond ideology, they are spreading practical information and skills to empower people. Terra's zine, The Feral Forager, offers a basic primer for safely eating road kill: Picking up road kill is a good way to get fresh, wild, totally free-range and organic meat for absolutely free. When you find the roadkill you should try to determine if it is edible or not. If you saw the animal get hit then it's obviously fit to eat (although you may have to put it out of its misery). If the critter is flattened into a pancake in the middle of the highway then it's probably best to leave it. Most of the time (not always), good ones will be sitting off the road or in a median where [they aren't] constantly being pulverized. Sometimes it can be hard to determine how fresh a carcass is. A lot of factors can contribute to how fast the meat spoils, especially temperature. Obviously, road kill will stay fresher longer in colder weather and spoil faster in warmer weather. It's best to go case by case and follow your instincts. Here are some considerations to help you decide:
Potential Risks of Eating Roadkill: One of the most severe risks of road kill is rabies. In order to assure your safety from this deadly serious brain inflammation, you may want to use rubber gloves when gutting and skinning any warm-blooded animal (warm blooded as in mammals and birds, not in regard to blood temperature). If you don't feel the need to exercise this absolute caution, at least make sure you don't have any open wounds on your hands or skin that touches the animal. Road kill is usually safe from rabies because it dies quickly when the animal dies. Also, rabies will cook out of the carcass. Generally speaking, boiling the animal first (rather than just grilling it) is a good idea, especially if it's a notorious rabies carrier (like raccoons, skunks, and foxes). |
| |
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor today in a 13-6 vote but it was almost entirely a partisan affair. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was the only Republican to vote for Sotomayor.
There are more than enough votes for her to be confirmed in the full Senate so the Republicans are just doing this just to show they won't support a wise Latina woman.
But this is, and I will say it like President Obama, this is STUPID.
Why?
Just look at the Hispanic demographics of the states of the Republicans who voted against Sotomayor on the judiciary committee. They risk alienating Latino voters.
In Alabama, Latinos are 2.7 percent and in Iowa 4 percent of the population. But these states have some of the fastest growing Latino populations and they will certainly rise in the 2010 Census.
In Utah, Latinos are 11.6 percent of the population and Sen. Orrin Hatch should watch out.
In Oklahoma, Latinos are 7.2 percent of the population and we know an election can be turned on a mere 5 percent or less.
But the big losers will be Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, where Latinos are 36 percent of the population, and Sen. John Kyl of Arizona where Latinos are 29.6 percent of the population. They have the most Latino votes to lose.
Some Latina elected officials in Chicago for the National Council of La Raza conference are actually thankful the Republicans didn't support Sotomayor.
"If anything we should be thankful for their ignorance," said Illinois State Rep. Susana Mendoza (1st District.). "It's really going to hurt the Republican party. We're going to hold onto power because Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot."
Illinois State Sen. Iris Martinez (20th District) said that if there had been a Latina in the U.S. Senate Sotomayor would have been treated differently. She agreed that Republicans will have to pay attention to Latino voters.
"They have to cater to us. They have to deal with us," Martinez said.
Sotomayor is qualified and she is not a racist as the right-wingers claim. She showed in the hearings she will judge a case based on the law and not her personal experience or background.
Those Republicans who voted against her risk alienating Latino voters. I can guarantee you that come election time their votes against Sotomayor will be remembered.
No comments:
Post a Comment