Fitna,the movie. Graphic Content.

Complete link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410

"OBAMA PASTOR JEREMIAH WRIGHT ANNOUNCES YOUNG DEATH BEFORE YOUNG IS PRONOUNCED DEAD!

Posted by Larry Sinclair on July 18th, 2008

Coming soon!

Our country has a lot of George statues, and no surprise -- given that he was known to enjoy the company of men in every way possible -- quite a few of them are rather gay, although none has proven to be particularly hot. Albany, it turns out, is no exception, as reader John points out:

We don't have any hot gay statues in Albany, I'm afraid. This one of Geo. Washington is gay (strike a pose) but definitely not hot. (Checking the package, though, proves he has something going on).

Hmm, gay but not hot? We're nevertheless intrigued...let's check out the goods, shall we?

Yeah, we agree with John: this guy's definitely gay, but hardly smokin'.

But hey! What's goin' on down there?

Whoas! Check the package! This George, though not exactly hot, clearly has it goin' on for some lucky gent.

Thanks for the submission, John, which proves that any gay statue is better than no gay statue. Readers in other cities, please don't be shy about sharing the best gay statuary you have to offer.

We also encourage everyone to check out John's excellent tree photography on his Flickr.

The Hot Gay Statue Contest Roundup:

Seems to me the US government and oil industry owes the American People an explanation:

*WE HAVE THE OIL*?

"...THIS IS AMAZING! OUR ELECTED LEADERS MUST BE MADE TO GET OFF THE DIME
AND DO SOMETHING TO FREE OUR COUNTRY FROM MIDDLE EAST OIL DEPENDENCE.
THIS LOOKS VERY MUCH LIKE IT CAN BE DONE AND WHY ARE THEY NOT DOING
SOMETHING ABOUT IT? I'VE SENT THIS TO MY ENTIRE MAILING LIST, HOPE IT
GETS SOME OF YOUR ATTENTION. I HOPE YOU PASS IT ON AS WELL. JUST MAYBE
WE 'THE PEOPLE' CAN GET OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO DO SOMETHING OR REPLACE
THEM WITH PEOPLE THAT WILL..."

"...*EVER HEARD OF THE BAKKEN FORMATION?* GOOGLE IT. I DID, AND AGAIN, BLEW
MY MIND. THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SERVICE ISSUED A REPORT IN APRIL ('08) THAT
ONLY SCIENTISTS AND OILMEN/WOMEN KNEW WAS COMING, BUT MAN WAS IT BIG. IT
WAS A REVISED REPORT (HADN'T BEEN UPDATED SINCE '95) ON HOW MUCH OIL
WAS IN THIS AREA OF THE WESTERN 2/3 OF NORTH DAKOTA; WESTERN SOUTH DAKOTA;
AND EXTREME EASTERN MONTANA ... CHECK THIS OUT.

*THE BAKKEN IS THE LARGEST DOMESTIC OIL DISCOVERY SINCE ALASKA 'S PRUDHOE BAY,
AND HAS THE POTENTIAL TO ELIMINATE ALL AMERICAN DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL..
*THE ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (EIA) ESTIMATES IT AT 503 BILLION BARRELS.
EVEN IF JUST 10% OF THE OIL IS RECOVERABLE...
AT $107 A BARREL, WE'RE LOOKING AT A RESOURCE BASE WORTH MORE THAN $5.3 TRILLION.

'WHEN I FIRST BRIEFED LEGISLATORS ON THIS, YOU COULD PRACTICALLY SEE THEIR JAWS HIT THE FLOOR. THEY HAD NO IDEA.' SAYS TERRY JOHNSON, THE MONTANA LEGISLATURE' S FINANCIAL ANALYST.

'THIS SIZABLE FIND IS NOW THE HIGHEST-PRODUCING ONSHORE OIL FIELD FOUND IN THE PAST 56 YEARS,' REPORTS THE PITTSBURGH POST GAZETTE.
IT'S A FORMATION KNOWN AS THE WILLISTON BASIN , BUT IS MORE COMMONLY REFERRED TO
AS THE 'BAKKEN.' AND IT STRETCHES FROM NORTHERN MONTANA, THROUGH NORTH DAKOTA AND INTO CANADA . FOR YEARS, U.S.OIL EXPLORATION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED A DEAD END. EVEN THE 'BIG OIL' COMPANIES GAVE UP SEARCHING FOR MAJOR OIL WELLS DECADES AGO. HOWEVER, A RECENT
TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGH HAS OPENED UP THE BAKKEN'S MASSIVE RESERVES... AND WE NOW HAVE ACCESS OF UP TO 500 BILLION BARRELS. AND BECAUSE THIS IS LIGHT, SWEET OIL, THOSE BILLIONS OF BARRELS WILL COST AMERICANS JUST $16 PER BARREL!

*THAT'S ENOUGH CRUDE TO FULLY FUEL THE AMERICAN ECONOMY FOR 41 YEARS STRAIGHT.*

*[AND IF THAT DIDN'T THROW YOU ON THE FLOOR, THEN THIS NEXT ONE SHOULD -
BECAUSE IT'S FROM TWO YEARS AGO, PEOPLE!]*

U.S.A. OIL DISCOVERY- LARGEST RESERVE IN THE WORLD!

STANSBERRY REPORT ONLINE - 4/20/2006 HIDDEN 1,000 FEET BENEATH THE SURFACE OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS LIES THE LARGEST UNTAPPED OIL RESERVE IN THE WORLD IS MORE THAN 2 TRILLION BARRELS. ON AUGUST 8, 2005 PRESIDENT BUSH MANDATED ITS EXTRACTION.

*[(???) WHAT THE!??]*

THEY REPORTED THIS STUNNING NEWS: WE HAVE MORE OIL INSIDE OUR BORDERS,
THAN ALL THE OTHER PROVEN RESERVES ON EARTH. HERE ARE THE OFFICIAL ESTIMATES:

-8-TIMES AS MUCH OIL AS SAUDI ARABIA
-18-TIMES AS MUCH OIL AS IRAQ
-21-TIMES AS MUCH OIL AS KUWAIT
-22-TIMES AS MUCH OIL AS IRAN
-500-TIMES AS MUCH OIL AS YEMEN *- AND IT'S ALL RIGHT HERE IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES.

HOW CAN THIS BE!? HOW CAN WE NOT BE EXTRACTING THIS!? BECAUSE WE'VE NOT
D E M A N D E D LEGISLATION TO COME OUT OF WASHINGTON ALLOWING ITS EXTRACTION,
THAT'S WHY?

*JAMES BARTIS, LEAD RESEARCHER WITH THE STUDY SAYS WE'VE GOT MORE OIL IN THIS VERY COMPACT AREA THAN THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST -MORE THAN 2 TRILLION BARRELS. UNTAPPED.

THAT'S MORE THAN ALL THE PROVEN OIL RESERVES OF CRUDE OIL IN THE WORLD TODAY,
REPORTS THE DENVER POST.

DON'T THINK 'BIG OIL' WILL DROP ITS PRICE - EVEN WITH THIS FIND? THINK AGAIN! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE, AND IF THEY CAN EXTRACT IT (HERE) FOR LESS, THEY CAN AFFORD TO SELL IT FOR LESS - AND IF THEY DON'T, OTHERS WILL. IT WILL COME DOWN - IT HAS TO.

*[GOT YOUR ATTENTION/IRE UP YET? HOPE SO! NOW, WHILE YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT IT .... AND HOPEFULLY P.O'D, DO THIS:*

TAKE 5-10 MINUTES AND COMPOSE AN E-MAIL; FAX OR GOOD OLD-FASHIONED LETTER TO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON .. AND THEIR RESPECTED LEADERS. WE'LL START WITH THEM, AND HERE'S HOW YOU CAN SEND THEM YOUR EMAIL/FAX, DEMANDING THE IMMEDIATE LEGISLATION/ AN ENERGY PLAN THAT CALLS FOR TAPPING INTO THESE (OUR OWN!) RESERVES, AS WELL AS ALLOWING FOR THE OFFSHORE DRILLING FOR OUR OIL, IN OUR OFFSHORE WATERS AND INTER-CONTINENTAL SHELF ... NOT TO MENTION ALASKA . TECHNOLOGY AIN'T WHAT IT USED TO BE PEOPLE (EVER HAD ARTHROSCOPIC SURGERY?). THEY CAN SURGICALLY EXTRACT OUR OIL, AND GET US ON THE WAY TO AT LEAST SOME MEASURE OF ENERGY INDEPENDENCE .

IF YOU DON'T TAKE A LITTLE TIME TO DO THIS, THEN YOU SHOULD STIFLE YOURSELF THE NEXT TIME YOU WANT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT GAS PRICES... BECAUSE BY DOING NOTHING, YOU'VE FORFEITED YOUR RIGHT TO COMPLAIN.

Author Unknown

Analysis: I'm a fan of space research and travel, and I'd like to see more funding and attention go into the American space effort, and with it more American ability to collaborate on international space ventures.

Still, I think there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed, and one of those lines involves rinky-dink tin-cup-passing by the once-revered NASA. I'm late to noticing this, as NASA posted this video on its site last month, but I just came across it, kinda cute admittedly. Buzz Lightyear has finally made it to outer space, aboard the International Space Station. 

I've embedded the rehosted youTube version, but the NASA site itself has other great multimedia stuff.  That way you avoid the sinking realization that you're virally enjoying a clever Walt Disney promotional product tie-in deal with a sadly underfunded federal agency (see also the more lighthearted take here on CNET).

NASA better pay less attention to product placement ads and more to its core constituency: no, not the research community - Congress!  The most significant news of the week for NASA is that it is again drawing the glare of Rep. John Culberson (R-TX), who recently became an Internet hero for battling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats over use of Twitter and Web 2.0 capabilities as official congressional business tools.  In today's Houston Chronicle, I find this stinging piece, "Culberson taking shots at NASA's bureaucracy":

WASHINGTON — Two days after telling an online town hall meeting that NASA had "failed us miserably" and "wastes a vast amount of money," Houston Rep. John Culberson said Thursday he was weighing legislation to overhaul the structure of the space agency, responsible for about 20,000 jobs in the Houston area.

Culberson, a blunt-spoken conservative from a heavily Republican westside district, said his proposal would slash NASA headquarters' bureaucracy and enable scientists and engineers to rekindle visionary space exploration.

"We need revolutionary change, a complete restructuring," Culberson told the Houston Chronicle. "NASA needs complete freedom to hire and fire based on performance; it needs to be driven by the scientists and the engineers, and it needs to be free of politics as much as possible."

Culberson also said he's "kicking around" an idea to make NASA more like the National Science Foundation, which has a bit more independence than NASA currently does within the federal bureaucracy.   (Want to keep up with Culberson?  Follow him here on Twitter, he's prodigiously tweeting.)

The real battle is going to be over the politics and science of relying on Russian vehicles during the 2010-2015 gap, devoid of any U.S. operational space vehicles whatsoever (bye-bye Shuttle).  This is just heating up...

Email this post to a friend

Masum Momaya speaks with the Egyptian women's rights activist about the complexities of being a devout Muslim and a Feminist. http://www.imow.org/wpp/learn/podcasts/index

What does religion have to do with it?

Throughout history, religion has had a lot to do with women's personal and political lives. Religious women make change happen, whether seeking peace or inciting war. Belief can inspire social justice, or block a woman's access to freedom or equality. Join us this month as we explore how faith makes or breaks political women around the world.

Follow women's spiritual path to art and action. Discover how the veil can celebrate devotion while dividing worlds. Learn how one woman raised an army in God's name. Explore how women protest codes and control with song or their bodies. Listen to the hopes of a new generation: a future unburdened by fundamentalism.

http://www.imow.org/wpp/stories/viewTopic?topicId=134

About Women, Power, and Politics

Welcome to a world where women rule!

A world where the untold stories of women claiming and exercising their power around the world and throughout history come alive in I.M.O.W.'s global online exhibition Women, Power and Politics.

From March 8 to December 31, 2008, Women, Power and Politics is available to audiences worldwide in Arabic, English, French and Spanish. We will focus on one provocative new topic each month and ask the questions no one is asking. Like never before, women and men are focusing on issues of substance concerning women's political participation, speaking to one another about the issues that matter to them, learning the tools to promote powerful women, and acting to create change.

To start your journey through a world of Women, Power and Politics, watch our welcome video by Former President of Ireland Mary Robinson, read a letter from the curator, Masum Momaya, or get straight to the issues by exploring the topics in focus. http://www.imow.org/wpp/stories/index

Monthly Submission Categories

How Have Women Brought About Democracy? August 2008
This month, we shift our focus to more formal politics, examining the processes of democracy. We'll meet with women warriors, revolutionaries and peacemakers, discussing democracy and women's role in it.
Submit before July 15, 2008 to be considered for a featured story. General submissions welcome until December 31, 2008.

Why is Voting Important? September 2008
We will examine the process of earning the right to vote around the world. Why will some women risk their lives for the right to vote, while others who already have that right choose not to exercise the privilege?
Submit before August 1, 2008 to be considered for a featured story. General submissions welcome until December 31, 2008.

Women Running for Office October 2008
We will be looking at the many ways women candidates experience campaigns and elections. What's it like to campaign? What does it take to win elections?
Submit before September 1, 2008 to be considered for a featured story. General submissions welcome until December 31, 2008.

Women Working Together Across Borders November 2008
How do women coming together share strategies and issues? What happens when they return home? This month, the Women, Power and Politics exhibition takes to the road. We'll be reporting live from the Association for Women in Development Conference in South Africa.
Submit before October 1, 2008 to be considered for a featured story. General submissions welcome until December 31, 2008.

Reflections December 2008
The final month of our exhibition is devoted to reflections on Women, Power and Politics.

http://www.imow.org/wpp/about/index

"...There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.
That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:
a. FDR led us into World War II.
b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost. an average of 112,500 per year.
c.. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
e. Johnson turned Vietnam in to a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year.
f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
g. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.

WAIT!

1. It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation..
2. We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
3. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
4. It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB !
The Military morale is high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
But wait! There's more!

JOHN GLENN (on the Senate floor - January 26, 2004)
Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.
This is a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.
Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
'How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?'
Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
'I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions.
My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.'
'I ask you to go with me . . as I went the other day...to a veteran's hospital and look those men.
with their mangled bodies. in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!'
'You go with me to the Space Program at NASA
And go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...
and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.
You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.
You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?
What about you?'
For those who don't remember:
During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA.
Now he's a Senator!
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran."

Author Unknown

Even though it is one of the most commonly performed medical procedures, and one of the safest according to the World Health Organisation (WHO), every day a staggering 219 women die worldwide from a botched abortion. Decriminalising abortion is essential in our struggle to stop these preventable deaths.

Over the last two decades, opinion in favour of a woman’s right to choose abortion has steadily increased.

A 2003 poll by the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes (AusSSA) found that more than 80% of people, and 84% of GPs, support choice. An Australian Election Study found that, in 2004, 54% believed “Women should to be able to obtain an abortion readily, when they want one”, up from 38% in 1987.

Interestingly too, AusSSA found that 77% of religious respondents supported a woman’s right to choose, and out of 1000 Catholics interviewed, 72% were pro-choice.

According to ProChoice Victoria, the Melbourne Anglican Church sent a submission to the Victorian Law Reform Commission this year supporting the “provision of safe and affordable abortions with appropriate safeguards for women who, for whatever reasons, request them”.

Less than 5% of the population opposes abortion, but this tiny minority enjoys a sympathetic ear from politicians and is over-represented in state and federal parliaments.

Anti-abortion crusaders are also influencing the increasingly socially conservative ALP. A recent example is the support the Health Services Union gave to the anti-choice Labor candidate, Marlene Kairouz, in the recent Kororoit by-election.

This year the Victorian parliament will vote to decriminalise abortion, and three models are being advanced by the Victorian Law Reform Commission.

Abortion is still legally a crime, but is lawful under the 1969 Menhenitt ruling if a doctor decides that continuing a pregnancy endangers the woman’s life or health. While abortion remains a crime, doctors are unable to provide the most appropriate medical care for fear of possible prosecution.

Out of the three proposals, only “Model C” gives women the decision-making power throughout her entire pregnancy. It recognises a woman’s authority over her body.

The Socialist Alliance rejects the argument being peddled by the anti-abortion lobby that Model C will encourage more women to have terminations because it implies that women don’t take responsibility for the choices they make.

There is also no evidence to suggest liberal abortion laws lead to higher termination rates. Sedgh, Henshaw, Singh, Ahman and Shah, in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet in 2007, found that “unrestrictive abortions laws do not predict a high incidence of abortion and by the same token, highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with low abortion incidence”.

While it is critical to remove abortion from the criminal code, it is equally important not to put the “crime” of abortion back into the Health Act, by imposing complex restrictions on access to services based on age or gestation.

Regulating abortion differently to other medical procedures perpetuates the sexist assumption that politicians and the legal fraternity are better placed then women themselves to decide when or if to have children.

The Socialist Alliance supports Model C and agrees with 54% of Australians who believe in removing all impediments for women to access abortion services.

We believe that abortion should be part of a comprehensively funded reproductive health program, which includes extensive sex education and freely available contraception.

Victorian Premier John Brumby is ignoring the only option that offers real choice for women, believing the debate in the ALP should be between Models A and B.

This is not good enough. In 2006, the state ALP conference overwhelmingly voted in favour of a woman’s right to choose. But this vote is undermined by the ALP MPs’ right to exercise a “conscience vote” on this subject.

We urge people to pressure MPs to vote in favour of Model C and women’s reproductive rights. Let’s not let a tiny reactionary minority impose their repressive agenda upon us all.

[Helen Laxton is a member of the Victorian Socialist Alliance.]

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/757/39124

            Thus I have listed below three pointed and deliberate refutations of a particular person’s policies that, while not necessarily mocking or arrogant, served as “reality checks” to public figures.  These are not mean-spirited (“Go fuck yourself.” –Dick Cheney to Senator Patrick Leahy) or intended for the simple sake of insult (“Poor George….He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.” –Ann Richards speaking of presidential candidate George H.W. Bush) but rather used to assert the speaker’s power over an ideological inferior.

3.) Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.

The vice presidency through much of history has been an office largely devoid of any power except advisory—it is only in recent years that the Veep has become almost as scrutinized as the President for a variety of reasons (war mongering, shooting old men in the face, etc.).  In that vein, vice presidential debates are often overshadowed.  But in the 1988 election one of the most memorable moments came from the debate between Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen (running mate for Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis) and Indiana Senator Dan Quayle (running mate for George H.W. Bush).

            During the televised event, Tom Brokaw pointed out that the trend since WWII was for vice presidents to ascend to the presidency in the absence of an election and asked of Quayle's abilities to lead if required to or elected to.  Quayle had been criticized (and would be throughout his vice-presidency) for being an intellectual lightweight—railing against the TV character Murphy Brown, misspelling "potato" at an elementary school, saying "I love California. I practically grew up in Phoenix.”  Although he did work behind the scenes of the Bush presidency to further the conservative agenda, he was thought to be about as competent for the presidency as George W. Bush is thought to be competent for the presidency now—not at all.

Quayle had, throughout the campaign, been comparing himself to John F. Kennedy when his youth and inexperience were brought up for scrutiny.  In response to Brokaw’s question, Quayle again asserted that he had as much experience as Kennedy.  Bentsen carefully rebutted with, “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy.  I knew Jack Kennedy.  Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.  Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

            While the crowd reacted, Quayle stared sullenly off into space.  Bentsen tried to continue and moderator Judy Woodruff turned around to silence the audience, which is when Quayle put on his best pouty face and gave Bentsen the stink eye, saying “That was really uncalled-for, Senator.”  The final word was Bentsen’s: “You’re the one that was making the comparison, Senator [disparaging head roll while pronouncing the word]….And frankly I think you are so far apart in the objectives you choose for your country that I did not think the comparison was well-taken.” 

            This was a great exchange because it shut down the annoying practice of invoking a dead person’s legacy to justify the advancement of one’s own self or agenda.  It eroded Quayle’s credibility and showed that he had no substance to back up his allegation (other than the childlike “nuh-uh!”) while Bentsen had the experience, judgment, and street cred to pronounce otherwise.        

2.) We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly.

            At the G8 summit in summer 2006, Vladimir Putin deadpanned the above gem at a press conference after George W. Bush extolled the free press and freedom of religion in Iraq and expressed his support of any people who were trying to institute democratic reforms, particularly Russia.  This exchange took place before the 2007 surge in Iraq (which, in addition to funneling 21,000 additional troops into the country, resulted in a change of tactics which contributed to the success that Republicans now cite), when civilian deaths peaked at 4,000 in the month of December.

The comment, while admittedly not coming from an American politician, was nevertheless a blow to the man who, upon the two leaders’ first meeting, said that had “looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul.” Bush tossed to Putin by saying “He can speak for himself,” which is in fact exactly what the Russian president did.  Bush’s response was a mollifying “Just wait,” a slightly better reaction than “That was uncalled-for” but served the same purpose of making Putin look lucid and unafraid to imply failed leadership while Bush appeared to grasp at straws for a witty response rather than an informative one.  While this was more of a friendly jab than a malignant criticism, it is sometimes more jarring when friends say “you’re wrong” then when enemies do.

1.) At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

      After Joseph McCarthy’s speech before a ladies' club in Wheeling, West Virginia in February 1950 during which he accused the State Department of harboring communists, the term “McCarthyism” has come to mean pursuing a cause by means of reckless fear mongering and disregard for ethics.  The senator became chairman of the Senate Committee on Government Operations in 1953 and used the position to call hearings for suspected communists in the State Department, broadcasting and defense agencies, universities, and the military.

            In 1954 his actions began to be publicized in an unflattering light.  Popular news anchor Edward Murrow criticized McCarthy in a broadcast by arguing that dissent is not disloyalty and that McCarthy was exploiting fear of communism and working against due process.  He was attacked in print journalism for writing letters to Time magazine’s advertisers saying “it is much more important to expose a liar, a crook or a traitor who is able to poison the streams of information flowing into a vast number of American homes than to expose an equally vicious crook, liar or traitor who has no magazine or newspaper outlet for his poison” after they ran a story critical of McCarthy. 

            The memorable anti-McCarthy quote came from the Army hearings of April 1954 in which McCarthy and his counsel Roy Cohn were arguing with the Army’s lawyers over threats to ruin Secretary of the Army Robert Stevens after he refused to privilege a McCarthy subordinate who had been drafted.  McCarthy had promised to investigate the Army and so he did.  Joseph Welch, lawyer for the Army, behooved Cohn that, if there were upwards of 130 stateside communists in vulnerable military areas as McCarthy insisted, he should establish FBI surveillance immediately rather than execute unnecessary and slanderous public investigations.  McCarthy retorted that if Welch were concerned about the immediate need to protect against communists, he should not have hired a man named Fred Fischer as an attorney, who McCarthy accused as being involved with the “legal bulwark of the Communist Party.”  Welch defended the integrity of Fisher and assaulted that of McCarthy and hoped to end the exchange by saying "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”  The Senator attempted to press Welch further about Fisher, when Welch, clearly aggravated concluded his remarks with “I will not discuss it further. I will not ask Mr. Cohn any more questions. You, Mr. Chairman, may, if you will, call the next witness,” at which point the gallery applauded.

      Needless to say, this brought a halt to McCarthy's credibility with a reasoned and emotional appeal to McCarthy's unreasonable bullying.

7/18

The Dark Side: Jane Mayer on the Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals

We spend the hour with New Yorker magazine investigative journalist Jane Mayer about her new book, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals. In the book, Mayer reveals a secret report by the International Red Cross warned the Bush administration last year that the CIA’s treatment of prisoners categorically constituted torture and could make Bush administration officials who approved the torture methods guilty of war crimes. Mayer also reveals that the Bush administration ignored warnings from the CIA six years ago that up to a third of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay may have been imprisoned by mistake. [includes rush transcript]

[Disclaimer: my reasoning may very well be flight of fancy, but it's at least interesting to consider. Take it how you will; statelessness with not likely ever be considered a good thing by any nation since all nations typically are self-promoting and protectionist.]

The Wikipedia entry on statelessness mentions several problems associated to it. One of those problems is diminished civil rights. The problem with this problem is that it's taken for granted that only those citizens of a nation are given rights. That's simply not true, or at least shouldn't be true. If an American, for example, were to visit Canada, then that person would have all of the important rights in common with all others; just because he's not a citizen, there's no reason why it would be permissible to assault him, or commit some other crime against him.

Admittedly, this leaves a number of rights out. For example, the right to find employment and make a living would be denied, unless they have a work permit and Visa. Regardless of citizenship however, one may find residency (at least temporarily). So the question becomes not something of citizenship or nationality, but rather of the knowledge that such a person exists. So long as the government knows you're there, they shouldn't have any reason to deny you a way of life.

The rights regarding voting in national elections and other integral political functions can be denied validly. That isn't to say that a non-citizen is powerless in the process. For example, Bono isn't Canadian, but even he gets to talk with Prime Ministers and make splashes regarding certain issues. The ability to affect the process is not limited by nationality, but rather by an appeal of reason and/or charisma. I would argue that anyone may influence a nation's decision, but that a nation's decision is that of the nationals.

The second problem listed by Wikipedia is the perception that stateless persons are not loyal or committed to the nation. My response is this: So what? I feel no need to harbour feelings of blind pride; the fact that I was born here does not obligate me to be remain here, nor to claim that this is the "best place on earth" as self-promotion by the government would have me believe. Rather, having the ability to look objectively at the nation allows for a greater deal of critical thinking regarding a nation's policies. For this reason, I am convinced that even if stateless persons were not loyal to a nation, that fact does not degrade them.

Of course, there's really no reason that a stateless person would be disloyal to a nation. The laws will always apply equally to all, regardless of citizenship. Presumably the law is enough to convince anyone that there are things that you can't do (for example, spying). The only time you may consider them disloyal is if they disagree with a nation's war, but that's something that even citizens do. In nations without conscription, this really isn't a problem, as military service is voluntary. Furthermore, no stateless person could possibly join the military, as the military is a governmental institution (which serves an "integral political function"). Thus, loyalty holds no value in a democratic nation.

The third problem is regarding a child's nationality. Once again, this isn't a problem as I see it, since statelessness shouldn't be a problem in the first place. The question is one of equality, and no self-respecting democratic, liberal nation would allow discrimination based on nationality (or lack thereof). Furthermore, the right to gain citizenship is a vital piece of the puzzle that allows this problem to be overcome quite simply. If you consider the possibility of being a stateless person living in a nation for an extended period of time, so long as that nation knows you exist, the naturalization process can occur. Thus, a child born into a stateless family would naturally have the same potential for naturalization.

Of course, this type of thinking relies upon a certain framework to exist within a nation. The first is that all basic rights are conferred to anyone regardless of social capacity and conditions. The second is that only nationals may hold positions vital to the nation's well-being (this includes the position of "voter"). The third is that so long as one is known to exist within the framework (in addition to meeting other specific criteria), that person may gain citizenship on the basis of naturalization.

The fourth problem posed by Wikipedia is lack of consular services outside country of residence. The saving grace is provided along with the problem in the form of the UN. There's no reason why international consul cannot exist to provide a safe-haven for people regardless of citizenship in certain nations. Furthermore, in the theoretical framework I laid out, there's the possibility for such a nation to grant a right of consular services to all residential persons of that nation.

What I'm really trying to get at is this: the only reason why nations feel it's important to require citizenship of residents is the idea of security (protectionism) and self-promotion ("best place on earth" thinking). However, any forward thinking government (one which prides itself on protecting rights common to all people regardless of race, sex, nationality, etc.) would only consider nationality necessary in cases where valid concern can be applied. For example, you can't allow non-nationals to vote, or else the decision is no longer that of the nation's. You also cannot allow non-national politicians, for the same reason. You cannot allow non-nationals to join the army, or else you might find your army run completely by another nation (and an ensuing coup d'etat); foreign legions are perfectly acceptable, but it's wise to have a national army. In short, citizenship is only necessary in cases of integral political functions and national sovereignty.

The fifth problem is that stateless persons have no home country to which they would have the right of return. Of course, refuge needs to be granted in certain cases (escaping danger within a certain country of residence), and nationality shouldn't play a role in that case. For those stateless persons who hold residency within a certain country, and that must is known by the government, should be given the right of return based on that residency. Once again, I don't believe that residency should be strictly limited by nationality.

The final problem for such a stateless person is the lack of a country to which he can be deported to. I'm sure that Wikipedia made a mistake on this one, as that's not really a problem to a stateless person. Why would anyone want to be deported? The result would be the necessity for a nation which recognizes stateless residents to apply the law of the land. Presumably, the law is universal to all perpetrators of crime regardless of nationality. The only effect of statelessness is that there won't be another nation hunting such a criminal down and attempting to interfere with a nation's sovereignty and laws.

In cases of "illegal aliens" who enter a country without a passport or whatever...that doesn't really matter. In a nation where statelessness is acceptable, the nationality of any person living there does not matter. Then, the question is one of the "quality" of the nation. That is, "What kind of people are letting into country?" This, of course, is a type of discrimination. If residents are poor, that's too bad; to not allow someone into your country because he's poor is quite ridiculous. The question of crime is answered by effective policing. So long as they haven't done anything wrong, they shouldn't be judged prematurely.

All in all, I don't believe statelessness is necessarily a bad thing. If the mechanisms of a nation could be generalized to accept persons regardless of nationality except in concerns of integral political function, then there'd be nothing wrong.

The logistics of such a framework may be impossible, but I believe that this is a thought worth entertaining. I don't believe that the strength of a nation should be determined solely by the ground on which people are born. I don't believe that people should be denied common rights based on nationality (or lack thereof). What I do believe is that the world's nations have placed too much importance on keeping tabs on people they don't have any business in knowing. So long as essential laws can be maintained and enforced, there's no harm in leaving the stateless alone.

As a final note, the lack of discrimination based on nationality allows for cross-cultural influence. For example, if Americans could freely come and live in Canada without restriction (after security measurements of course), then Canada would become more American in a way. But the fact is that it doesn't really matter. Since Canada prides itself on multiculturalism, there's no shame in society subtly transforming.

The only reason to restrict immigration is capacity (the logistics of a nation). Aside from that, what reason is there to disallow a new life to anyone seeking it? Security issues can be handled if the capacity to handle them exists. If not, then the reasoning of denying immigration still holds. But really, that's all there is to it.

If anyone's read this far, I hope you enjoyed reading this flight of fancy. Do I believe that it's possible to achieve a world in which nationals, non-nationals and stateless people are able to co-exist? Maybe, if nations consider certain rights to be absolutely, completely universal to all people. If not, then we'll continue to see nations of pride (self-promotion) and security (protectionism).

I have some final questions. If we don't stop and rethink about how we deal with keeping track of people, what will the consequences be? How much do nations really need to know about people? Why do nations have the right to arbitrarily decide that people "belong" to a country upon birth? More specifically, in nations that enforce laws of conscription, what gives them the right to force people to fight a war on their behalf?

These questions all relate to the importance people place on individual independence and self-sovereignty. Even if certain constraints can be placed upon people justifiably (laws), does that give nations the right to maintain a hold on every individual within that nation? Can a nation be reduced? Changed? Dissolved? If it cannot, then it isn't a democratic nation at all. A democratic nation is one in which the people have the power to self-govern. If one cannot claim individual independence from a nation, then how is that nation democratic?

[Disclaimer: this is crazy talk now :) but don't let that stop you from reading this.]

Imagine if the sovereignty of a nation could be conferred to an individual. So long as that sovereign person does not attack individuals of the residence-nation, there's no problem. If two sovereign persons were to engage in a "war" (perhaps just a fistfight), then the residence-nation could justifiably resolve the issue by enforcing "international" laws (perhaps by placing "sanctions" upon each sovereign person). Thus, individuals who secede from a nation could justifiably live within that nation just as anyone else does. Furthermore, there's no reason why the government couldn't keep tabs on that individual like it would have done normally.

Taking this idea further, there's no reason why an sovereign person couldn't buy land from the residence-nation. He'd still be subject to paying for gas, water, etc. since it's unlikely that an individual could supply those himself. The most interesting prospect is that new nations could arise from within, allowing for true self-governance to occur. And yes, buying land from a government is entirely possible, as it has happened historically.

Of course this will never happen. A government is more interested in taxing people than letting them self-govern. If people were to take land away on top of denying taxation, then what reason is there to allow this type of thing to occur? There's no reason that tariffs couldn't be placed upon an individual-nation. Though he might be able to buy land, he would still need to pay for gas, etc. On top of the regular costs, he would also pay tariffs for importing those things. In other words, while an individual can claim sovereignty over oneself, by existing within the context of international relations, he can still be subject to similar conditions.

Okay, anyone tired of this rambling of mine? I'm fascinated by my concept, but it's just a dream. In writing this, I have questioned my own belief in a central government which applies laws fairly to all within the nation. If one may secede from government and establish self-governance fairly, then what challenges does the main nation have in order to maintain order as well as increasingly complex international (or intranational) relations.

Thanks to the large number of Americans who responded this call to action and the work of many others the US Senate voted Wednesday night to reauthorize PEPFAR – the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief to provide care for 12 million AIDS patients, including five million orphans. Total spending has been increased to 48 billion from 15 billion to be distributed over five years. The reauthorization also includes the lift of travel ban on people who are HIV positive who desire to come to the United States including the training of 140,000 new healthcare professionals in the world's poorest countries.

John Bradshaw, Washington director for Physicians for Human Rights issued the following statement during an interview published online in Africa News and Feature:

 
"The first thing this will do is send a real message to people in Africa and elsewhere, who have been benefiting from PEPFAR programs, that the United States has renewed and reenergized our commitment to battling AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. So, there's an important symbolic signal being sent," he says.

You can read about PEPFAR Here

I am extremely grateful and excited about this and encourage you to thank your senators for their leadership and support of this bill.

Stuff in my head: It is incredibly gratifying to see a whole nation respond to the needs of those that are less fortunate, especially  in the world’s poorest countries. This victory proves that every effort no matter how small never goes unnoticed. There’s no better time to get involved than today. Thank you. God bless America. 

2008 OneWord Studio Inc.

"What does America stand for?  Everyone has an opinion on this one.   Our founding fathers certainly had some very noble ideas for the nation they were creating.  Ideas like freedom, justice, and equality.  It took the Revolutionary War, Civil War, women's suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement to realize these ideals and it took brave men and women to insist upon them.  We look to these people as heroes of the past, but where are our heroes of the here and now?

We are once again at a crossroads, a point where Americans must stand up for what America stands for, a point where we are, as Abraham Lincoln once put it, "testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."  Will we rise to the challenges that we are faced with?  Will we put aside partisanship?  Will we be able to pull America back from the brink of recession, the brink of war, the brink of ignorance and back into the light of reason?

I think we can, but only if we do more than simply idolize the amazing people that America has produced.  We must emulate them; climb up onto their pedastals and stand beside them to be counted as heroes.  I believe that there is no shortage of bravery, intelligence, or passion in this country.

It's hard to see it, though, when so many voices seem to get lost along the way.  The American people clamor for affordable healthcare and are denied.  Poor families want their children educated so they can achieve the American Dream and nothing is done.  Soldiers, the very defenders of our freedom and all we hold dear, ask for asrmor, for a chance to go home when their tours are over, and are ignored.  Where is the representation in a representative democracy when politicians seem so out of touch with the desires of anyone who doesn't make a seven-digit salary?

Where is the representation, too, when outright lies are parroted by the media?  What good is the free press system when they're more concerned with celebrity babies than honest, open communication about what's going on in our government? 

These things frustrate me, but what truly saddens me is the fact that there's so little vocal outrage directed to politicians who are putting us in the largest debt in American history and refuse to consider bringing our troops home any time in the near future.  Instead, it's pointed toward homosexuals and Muslims, it's turned from the justified anger at a country that's being taken in the wrong direction and directed toward irrational hatred of "threatening" groups. 

We need this to change.  We need a lot of things to change, but the first thing is to demand we be heard by our politicians.  The people in power can no longer skate through elections on personal attacks and vague threats of what the "terrorists" want.  Terrorism is occuring in this country, in the form of stubborn dependence on a finite energy source, in the form of presidential indifference to torture and wiretapping, in the form of a blatant disregard to science, logic, reason, and expert opinion.  THIS is the terrorism we need to be combating and THIS is the terrorism that's going to weaken this country to a real terrorist attack. 

So I propose a new war: a war against apathy and disenchantment.  Nothing will get done without brave, everyday Americans who are willing to stand up for what's right.

The decision is yours: what will America stand for?"

This is a true story. If it had happened to me, my response would have been:

Dear Bureaucrat,

Choke and die,
-Mike

So, to any families who are clients of DSP in the Montague Area and who have been without speech pathology for your children for the past 6 months.......funding is now available! If you have paid for private speech therapy over the past six months, I would suggest you submit your receipts for reimbursement as well.

The first thing to note is that there are good resources. I’ve found Jason Ryan’s postings at  the NPSC blog to be invaluable. If you’re really keen on the use of social media, and you think your new agency could use some, or could use some guidance, then get yourself over to the SSC (State Services Commission) and hunt about for the guidelines. They have a community of practice that you could refer to as well. Finally, there are sites like So Said the Organisation that talk about the experiences of other jurisdictions, and the British government seems to have published a Guide really recently, which I can't find just now (and would appreciate someone linking to.)

If you’re not predisposed to doing a bit of research before you get into the blogging, podcasting, twittering, wiki editing, or other things I’d been doing, then the GOLDEN RULE when using social media is:

DO NOT, under any circumstances, BE A DICK.

It’s pretty much that simple. The wonderful thing about social media is that it allows you to express yourself freely, and to engage with people all over the world, online. The very real risk this poses is that anything and everything you do or say is permanently recorded by Google Cache. Consequently, if you find yourself having a bit too much coffee in the morning, and you’re the type to blow your stack about things like, for example, trolls saying outrageous things about people you might know, then if your response to that troll will be visible to the whole world.

Why this is a problem is the complicating factor of the Public Service Code of Conduct. Basically the Code can be interpreted to say that you are a representative of the government when speaking in public. You should recognise yourself that the internet is a very public space. Likewise, the Code says that you should maintain the confidence of both Government and Opposition. This obviously means that you’ll need to make sure that your opinions, assuming that you’re putting your opinions online, which is not always a good idea, are politically neutral.

You should be able to get the idea from this short run-down. What it all boils down to is the application of common sense. Just don’t go doing things that could embarrass you, and the boss you’ve disclosed your social media activities to, i.e. operate a "no surprises" policy.

Easy-peesy.

"...The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA."...

"This guy should run for President one day"...(Author Unknown)

'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt- ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'

ARTICLE I:
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II:
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III:
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes (This one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to work.... don't expect everyone else to take care of you!)
ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.
ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII:
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII:
You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)
ARTICLE IX:
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLE X:
This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language.
Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!

If any personal comments have been added to this, the author of those comments is unknown.

The press in foreign countries has been more open to hearing the allegations from Larry Sinclair of a drug and sex encounter with Obama in November 1999. I know first hand that the Sinclair allegations are being reported in Australia.

So, for the big question:

Will the press ask Obama to comment on the Larry Sinclair allegations during his trip?

Does anyone in the press have the guts to ask Obama?

If you think that the police state is bad now, just wait until Obama gets in power. He wants to put teenagers in charge of spying on your every action and they are going to be a million strong in number. What's more, they are going to be heavily armed and funded! I agree with Alex Jones, that's my line in the sand. No teenage punk with a gun is going to tell me what to do. We can't let it come to this people.

Obama Calls For National Civilian Stasi

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, July 17, 2008

Presidential frontrunner Barack Obama has called for a “civilian national security force” as powerful as the U.S. military, comments that were ignored by the vast majority of the corporate media but compared by one journalist to the Nazi Hitler Youth.

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,” Obama told a Colorado Springs audience earlier this month.

World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah asked if he was the only journalist in America who found Obama’s statement troubling.

“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” wrote Farah.

“Are we talking about creating a police state here? The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn’t count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion. Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?”

KnoxNews.com is seemingly the only other media outlet to express interest in exactly what Obama is proposing.

“The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such “youth” organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?” wrote Michael Silence.

Obama’s proposal smacks of an expanded version of an existing program in which hundreds of police, firefighters, paramedics and utility workers have been trained and recently dispatched as “Terrorism Liaison Officers” in Colorado, Arizona and California to watch for “suspicious activity” which is later fed into a secret government database.

It is also reminiscent of the supposedly canned 2002 Operation TIPS program, which would have turned 4 per cent of Americans into informants under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department.

TIPS lived on in other guises, such as the Highway Watch program, a $19 billion dollar Homeland Security-run project which trains truckers to watch for suspicious activity on America’s highways.

More recently, ABC News reported that “The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort…..to aid with criminal investigations.”

Since authorities now define mundane activities like buying baby formula, beer, wearing Levi jeans, carrying identifying documents like a drivers license and traveling with women or children or mentioning the U.S. constitution as the behavior of potential terrorists, the bounty for the American Stasi to turn in political dissidents is sure to be too tempting to resist under Obama’s new program.

I think that the scariest part of all of this is how charismatic Obama is. Not only that, but anyone who attacks him on any point must be a right-winger, a racist or both. Nothing could be further from the truth. This isn't Obama's idea at all - it's just classical tyranny on steroids. He's just following the old model and updating it for the times. I'm plenty sure that if McCain is elected he'd think it is a pretty good idea, too.

Let me be clear: I do not support Obama. I do not support McCain. Our presidents run nothing - they just take orders.

God Bless the Framers and Founders of our nation for the First Amendment right to free speech!  But, as importantly, the First Amendment provides our right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances."  In other words, as legal citizens of this country we have the right to influence public policy, laws, regulations and legal decision-making.

I spent nearly a dozen years in my career as the head of government relations for a financial services and insurance company.  There is no comprehensible way to calculate the number of trade groups, advocacy groups, ad hoc coalitions, think tank and policy wonks who are employed solely to influence the public perception and regulation of the health care industry.  I am sure someone has tried to calculate how much is spent on health care advocacy in a given year, but I would tell you to double that number....and then some! 

But, even as there are so-called "special interest" groups pursuing their specific niche piece of the health care industry, it is without question that just about every possible side is represented and every angle has been heard. We are familiar with free-market health care, single-payer health care, government-run health, care, managed care, etc, etc, etc.  All these initiatives have teams of people working daily to further their specific cause. This is what is both great, and at times unfortunate, about how public policy is created and decided in this country.  It is great that our free society provides for the open discussion of nearly every ideology imaginable.   However, it is possible the greatest idea ever imagined could never become public policy if enough money, groups, and organizations are opposed or see the idea as a threat to their ideology. 

Let me go back to the term "special interest." By far, one of the most overused, and incorrectly used term in our society.  Folks, ALL of us have special interests!! Simply make a list of all your passions, interests, careers, families, religous beliefs, parenting styles, food choices, educational attainment goals, pet ownership beliefs, and on and on and you will quickly see that you, indeed, have a huge variety of special interests.  If you have a passionate opinion on big issues such as abortion, religous freedoms, education reform and health care reform, all the way to day-to-day issues like food labeling and school bussing, your beliefs put you in so-called "special interest" groups. 

By labeling people, it is easy to place them in factions and let them "go at it"!  The media loves to group people into "special interest" to watch them fight over issues like dogs over a piece of meat. As the old media adage goes, "If it bleeds, it leads"!  For instance, if they can get film of pro-life and pro-choice groups screaming at each other, it makes good press.  But, unfortunately, too often the battle is of far more interest to decision-makers than actually taking action on public policy. In other words, when an issue is so controversial it causes massive outcry from both sides, it often becomes too easy to do nothing.  Status quo is often easier, or safer, than making tough decisions.

I go on this rant for a couple key reasons.  One, absolutely speak your mind on public policy issues that impact your world!  Whether it is the illegal immigration, or the height of street signs in your community (yes, I was actually taken to task on this in my community), make your voice heard.  On the other hand, keep in mind that in a free nation, a wide variety of issues and ideologies will be shared from a wide variety of sources. Most come from a distinct difference of opinion, upon which we must agree to disagree. Unfortunately, others come from areas of hatred and malice, where the specific intent is to harm others. This is the crap that often makes the headlines.  Try to stay above the fray and use reason when considering facts. 

Make sure your voice is heard. But, let others speak as well. Hold public officials accountable, and steer public policy through level-headed debate. And, please, the next time someone uses the term "special interest", feel free to slap them! Stupidity is a pre-existing condition.

Later  - Kerry Smith

Sure it's a lot of personal information, but if you can't trust the Government, who can you trust? After all, the Government is only here to look after us and protect us. And where else could your information be more safe?

Take the Ministry of Defence, for example. They tell us it is just a fluke that 658 laptops were stolen between 2004 and 2007. That's in addition to the 89 that have just been lost. But hey, they have recovered 32 of these. Up until a few weeks ago, the MoD only acknowledged that 347 laptops had been stolen. Seems there were "anomalies in the reporting process" that kept ministers from knowing that another 311 had been taken. A significant number of these laptops contained, as you might suspect, secret information vital to national security.

But the MoD doesn't just keep information on the hard drives of its laptops. No, this the era of the USB memory stick. They have had 131 of these lost or stolen, but just like the laptops, they can't even say when or where. They do know that some of the sticks also had classified information on them.

Yet in the midst of admitting all of this - and given that the British government never likes to admit anything, just think of what breaches of security and carelessness with data lie unknown that this point - they dismiss out of hand any attempt by opposition parties to hold them accountable and insist they must have more and more data about every single person.  It beggars belief.

There has never been a government in this country - at least in modern times - to have such complete disregard for the people they govern.