PotPourri Of Global Interest

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

‘Death Panels’ Aren’t the Half of It, Says Senator Kyl

August 18, 2009, 2:10 pm

By Carl Hulse

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Senate Republican, says if the Democratic health care overhaul is ultimately killed, its demise should not be blamed on the overheated talk of government “death panels” for the old and infirm.

While distancing the Republican establishment from the hype over the rather remote prospect of government-ordered euthanasia, Mr. Kyl said on Tuesday that public concerns about the health legislation go well beyond a minor provision concerning consultation on end-of-life issues.

“I really reject the notion that the American people oppose this because somebody on the Republican side has deliberately spread misinformation about the plan,” he said on a conference call with the news media. “In this democracy, there is no way voters can be fooled to this extent.”

The plan simply costs too much and goes far beyond what is needed, Mr. Kyl said, given that most Americans are satisfied with their current health coverage.

As for the death panels, Mr. Kyl said the Republican Party was not responsible for that claim. “You can’t control what somebody will say about the debate,” he said. What Republicans are saying, he said, is that there is a provision on end-of-life counseling that is scaring a lot of people.

As a result, Mr. Kyl predicted, “There is no question that it is going to be dropped.”

So the death panels should rest in peace.

REAL Torture for POW

Instead of using Water Boarding on prisoners, why not make them read the 1,000 + page Health Care Reform Proposal?? Real Torture For Sure!!

Health Care Reform! (This is in the 1,000 page Proposal)

If the proposal passes, it will not be effective until 2013
Young People, under 25, will have to pay $4,000/yr.
Non-insured, except extreme hardship cases, will have to pay $300 - $500 / month ( about the same as Swiss Plan
If you refuse the plan, the annual fine is $2500

So, what's the rush? If it has to be, then get it right, right for everyone.

I make no claims items 1-4 are correct .... it's what I have seen reported.

Obama Joker artist unmasked: A fellow Chicagoan

Right wingers were accused of doing this....nope....right out of Chicago Land!

When cryptic posters portraying President Obama as the Joker from "Batman" began popping up around Los Angeles and other cities, the question many asked was, Who is behind the image?

Was it an ultra-conservative grassroots group or a disgruntled street artist going against the grain?

Nope, it turns out, just a 20-year-old college student from Chicago.

Bored during his winter school break, Firas Alkhateeb, a senior history major at the University of Illinois, crafted the picture of Obama with the recognizable clown makeup using Adobe's Photoshop software.

Alkhateeb had been tinkering with the program to improve the looks of photos he had taken on his clunky Kodak camera. The Joker project was his grandest undertaking yet. Using a tutorial he'd found online about how to "Jokerize" portraits, he downloaded the October 23 Time Magazine cover of Obama and began digitally painting over it.

Four or five hours later, he happily had his product.

On Jan. 18, Alkhateeb uploaded the image to photo-sharing site Flickr (shown at right). Over the next two months, he amassed just a couple thousand hits, he said.

Then the counter exploded after a still-anonymous rogue famously found his image, digitally removed the references to Time Magazine, captioned the picture with the word "socialism" and hung printed copies around L.A., making headlines.

Some N.Y. Lawmakers Take Pensions on Top of Pay

And we don't need term limits? Essentially lawmakers retire for a day and come back to their jobs collecting both their pay and their pension...almost doubling their annual income .... What do you think, America?

Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times

State Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg, 75, earns $101,500 in salary and collects an annual pension of about $72,000

- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx
- MySpace
- Yahoo! By DANNY HAKIM

Published: August 17, 2009

ALBANY — When Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg retired last year, there were no sendoffs, no cakes and no serenades.

Assemblyman William L. Parment says, “Sure, people would say this is not a good system and this shouldn’t be allowed.”

Enlarge This Image

Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times

Assemblyman John J. McEneny, 65, “retired” last year but kept his Assembly seat. He makes $94,500 and a $73,000 pension.

In fact, no one even knew he had left the Capitol, because he never did. Mr. Weisenberg, 75, a Long Island Democrat, “retired” last year but continued to work as a lawmaker and remained on the payroll. As a result, he earns $101,500 in salary and collects a pension of about $72,000, according to the comptroller’s office.

Similarly, Assemblywoman Rhoda Jacobs, a 72-year-old Brooklyn Democrat, retired last year after 31 years, but continued to serve her district. She earns $104,500 and draws an annual pension of more than $71,000. And Assemblyman John J. McEneny, a 65-year-old Albany-area Democrat who retired last year but kept his seat in the Assembly chamber, now earns $94,500 and a pension of about $73,000.

All of them are beneficiaries of “double dipping,” a practice in which public servants simultaneously collect government salaries and pensions, sometimes for the same job.

Most people who have a traditional pension put in years or decades of work at a job, then retire, leave the job and begin collecting monthly pension payments. Some companies do allow double dipping, though the practice has most likely declined during the recession and federal rules impose more restrictions on corporate pension funds.

In Albany, veteran lawmakers can “retire” at 65 from their jobs and start collecting pensions, but without actually leaving their jobs, giving up their salaries or even telling their constituents. Four legislators took advantage of the rule last year.

Mr. Weisenberg was actually a chief sponsor of legislation last year aimed at cracking down on double dipping by local governments. “Double dipping?” said Mr. Weisenberg, asked about the appearance created by his notional retirement. “I don’t see this as that,” he added. “This is something I earned.”

Mr. McEneny explained how the system worked. “You have to have a day without being on the payroll,” he said. “You take the last day of your term, New Year’s Eve, and then you resign. On January 1, you come back as the newly elected assemblyman.”

Assemblyman William L. Parment, a Democrat from Chautauqua County in western New York, was the fourth Assembly retiree last year: he now earns a $101,500 salary while drawing a roughly $66,000 annual pension.

“I didn’t retire from the job. I took the retirement benefit that was due under pension law,” said Mr. Parment, 67. “Sure, people would say this is not a good system and this shouldn’t be allowed.”

In fact, the gravy train has already been curbed, if not entirely stopped. In 1995, the Legislature changed the law so that lawmakers returning to the same jobs could not collect their pensions if they earned more than $30,000. But, the rules were changed only for future generations — in this case, lawmakers elected after 1995.

Other loopholes remain, including one for lawmakers who leave one local or state elected post for another. Such is the case with Senator George H. Winner Jr., a 59-year-old Elmira Republican, who retired from the Assembly after his 2004 election to the Senate. He now gets an $80,000 annual pension on top of his $89,000 salary, and also has a private law practice.

Mr. Winner said it would cost the state more if he truly retired because he would still be earning a pension and the state would also have to make pension contributions for his successor. “I’m actually saving the taxpayers money,” he said.

Despite Mr. Winner’s argument, finding a critic of the practice is not hard. As Kenneth Adams, the president and chief executive of the Business Council of New York State, put it, “Don’t you have to stop working to collect a pension?”

The retirements were revealed in data provided to The New York Times by the state comptroller’s office and come amid a series of state pension scandals.

Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo has been investigating allegations of widespread corruption in the state pension fund under former Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi.

That legislators are legally double dipping reinforces the degree to which such pension perks have become embedded in state and local government.

Hundreds of state workers have obtained special waivers allowing them to return to their jobs after retiring and to keep their full pensions. Without the waivers, they could earn only up to $30,000 in salary or be required to forfeit their pension benefits. Mr. Weisenberg’s legislation made it harder to get the waivers.

State and local elected officials, however, are not required to obtain such waivers, though they do have to be at least 65 to return to their jobs with full pensions. Eight state lawmakers are earning salaries and drawing state pensions, though only the four most recent Assembly retirees stayed in the same elected offices.

Legislators earning two sources of income said they accrued their pension credits in a variety of government jobs — Mr. Parment was elected to the Assembly in 1983 but started government work in 1967 as a facilities planner for the state university system.

The lawmakers also point out that legislators have not gotten a pay raise in more than a decade and say they are simply taking advantage of the system after decades of work.

Still, at least one lawmaker has opted to pass on the double dip.

Assemblyman Bob Reilly, 69, a Democrat from Clifton Park, near Albany, was elected to the Assembly in 2004, having retired after 26 years as a school administrator and eight years as a county legislator. Together, he and his wife, a former teacher, have annual pensions of roughly $80,000.

He said “ a crusty old guy” confronted him when he first ran for the Legislature, and started “shouting at me about how all these politicians just want to line their pockets.” So Mr. Reilly decided to donate his annual $79,500 salary to charity.

For good measure, he has sponsored legislation that would take away the pensions of public officials convicted of crimes related to their office.

“If you as a public servant don’t fulfill your pledge,” Mr. Reilly said, you “don’t deserve your pension.” The bill’s fate? “I can’t get it through committee.”

Puzzled Congress Members??

President Obama has made health care his top priority. He says the cost of Medicare and Medicaid is “the biggest threat” to the nation’s fiscal future. But to the puzzlement of Congress and health care experts around the country, Mr. Obama has not named anyone to lead the agency that runs the two giant programs.

The agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is the largest buyer of health care in the United States. Its programs are at the heart of efforts to overhaul the health care system. If it had an administrator, that person would be working with Congress on legislation and could be preparing the agency for a new, expanded role.

“The vacancy stands out like a sore thumb,” said Dr. Denis A. Cortese, president of the Mayo Clinic, often cited by the White House as a health care model.

“In effect,” Dr. Cortese said, “Medicare is the nation’s largest insurance company. The president and Congress function as the board of directors.

“Under a strong administrator, it could take the lead in making major changes in the health care delivery system, so we’d get better outcomes and better service at lower cost.”

The agency provides health insurance to 98 million people, pays 1.2 billion claims a year and has an annual budget of more than $700 billion. It has a pervasive influence on medical care, regulating hospitals, doctors, health plans, laboratories and almost every other type of health care provider. When Medicare decides to cover a new treatment or adopts a new payment policy, private insurers often follow its lead.

Trying to remake the health care system without a Medicare administrator is like fighting a war without a general.

“You need a general,” said Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the health subcommittee of the Finance Committee. Of the job vacancy, Mr. Rockefeller said: “It’s a big problem. I can’t explain it.”

Administration officials said they were searching for someone with the right mix of managerial experience and clinical expertise.

“We’re working hard to find the best fit to steer C.M.S. during this critical period,” said Reid H. Cherlin, a White House spokesman. “We look forward to nominating an administrator soon.”

The agency has not had a regular Senate-confirmed administrator since October 2006, when Dr. Mark B. McClellan stepped down. Its chief operating officer, Charlene M. Frizzera, has been the acting administrator since January.

Mr. Cherlin said the agency was “running at 100 percent capacity” and continued to provide vital services.

But Dr. John C. Lewin, chief executive of the American College of Cardiology, said that, in the absence of an administrator, many decisions were being made by “a beleaguered bureaucracy.”

Since Mr. Obama took office, more than a half-dozen people have been seriously considered for the top job running Medicare and Medicaid. Some have been interviewed by White House officials, but the names sank from view as fast as they bubbled to the surface.

Among those who have been considered are Dr. Donald M. Berwick, president of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, a nonprofit group in Cambridge, Mass.; Dr. Glenn D. Steele Jr., president of the Geisinger Health System, in Pennsylvania; and Dr. Nicholas J. Wolter, chief executive of the Billings Clinic in Montana.

Some insiders suggest that the president is waiting for Congress to finish work on health care legislation, so he could pluck an administrator from Capitol Hill — someone like Elizabeth J. Fowler, chief health counsel for the Senate Finance Committee, or Jack C. Ebeler, a top aide at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

“It’s an extremely important position,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, “and it’s extremely important to have a talented person in that post for health reform.”

Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, a senior Republican member of the Finance Committee, said the delay in naming a Medicare administrator was “of great concern.”

“Medicare is in real trouble,” Mr. Hatch said, noting that its hospital insurance trust fund was expected to run out of money in 2017.

The delay in choosing a health secretary, after former Senator Tom Daschle withdrew from consideration because of tax problems, may have delayed the selection of a Medicare administrator. Some candidates have been reluctant to sell financial holdings in the health care industry. Some apparently wanted more authority than they could have in an administration where health policy is directed from the White House.

Thomas S. Crane, a health lawyer who used to work at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the Medicare agency was “running on autopilot.” For example, he said, “officials are deferring decisions on serious policy questions involving Medicare fraud and abuse.”

To help finance coverage for the uninsured, Mr. Obama and Democrats in Congress propose to squeeze more than $400 billion in savings from Medicare over the next 10 years. They want doctors, hospitals and nursing homes to work together in teams, with Medicare payments eventually based on the quality of care.

They also contemplate huge changes in Medicaid, the program for low-income people, financed jointly by the federal government and the states.

All the major health care bills moving through Congress would use Medicaid as a vehicle for expanding coverage, adding perhaps 11 million people to the rolls, an increase of about 20 percent.

Vernon K. Smith, a former Medicaid director in Michigan who is now a consultant to many states, said the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services desperately needed an administrator to address “the future fiscal stability of the Medicaid program.”

Read Whole Foods CEO John Mackey’s Op-Ed

URGENT ACTION: Shop Whole Foods This Week

by Bill Hennessy

Buy ALL YOUR GROCERIES at WHOLE FOODS this week. I will shop the Whole Foods store at Clayton and Woods Mill tomorrow.

Whole Foods, the 10th largest grocery store in the country, has the most generous healthcare package in the industry. Yet the left–greedy, lazy, mindless, nasty hate-mongers that they are–has launched a boycott against the chain. Why?

Because the CEO dared to offer his company’s policy as an alternative to Obama’s socialized medicine push (for which he’s blowing $150,000,000 of your debt on advertising).

Face it. The statists don’t care about helping people, insuring more people, or giving you more choices and lower costs for healthcare. The leftists want to USE healthcare as a vehicle to give Washington Politicians full control of your lives. As the left becomes panicked over losing this debate, their true motives emerge. The motive is socialism, not better healthcare. This is ideological warfare, and you better be armed to hilt with facts and passion.

Let’s leave these leftist whiners in the dust. If every libertarian, conservative, Republican, Ron Paul nut, independent, and Constitution Partier shops at Whole Foods this week, the liberal boycott will result in the best quarter in the company’s history.

If you can’t afford to do your weekly shopping there, at least buy some of their outstanding meat. (Their chicken breast, spinach, asiago cheese, and pine nut brats are to die for.) Buy their lump charcoal which leaves almost no ashes! Have lunch in the deli–best lunch in town, I promise. Buy yourself some treats. But SHOP AT WHOLE FOODS NOW!!!!

In the interest of full disclosure, Whole Foods did NOT pay me a penny to write this post.

Democrat Underground Quote on Obama:

"The best con-man to come around in a long time."

All Conservatives Need To Do .... Vote

Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.

At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.

In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.

Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”

Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.

During Republican President George W. Bush’s second term, the number of self-identified conservatives as measured by Gallup dropped, riding at a low of 37% as recently as last year.

According to new data released by Gallup on Friday, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states--including President Obama’s home state of Illinois--even though Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in party identification in 30 states.

“In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4,” said an analysis of the survey results published by Gallup.

“Despite the Democratic Party's political strength-- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country--more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal,” said Gallup’s analysis.

“While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level,” said Gallup. “Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.”

Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii are the most liberal states, even though conservatives marginally outrank liberals even there. In Massachusetts, according to Gallup, 30% say they are conservative and 29% say they are liberal, a difference that falls within the margin of error for the state. In Vermont, 29% say they are conservative and 28% say they are liberal, which also falls within the survey’s margin of error for the state. In Hawaii, 29% say they are conservative and 24% say they are liberal, which falls within the margin of error for that state.

In one non-state jurisdiction covered by the survey, liberals did outnumber conservatives. That was Washington, D.C., where 37% said they were liberal, 35% said they were moderate and 23% said they were conservative.

Even in New York and New Jersey, conservatives outnumber liberals by 6 percentage points, according to Gallup. In those states, 32% say they are conservative and 26% say they are liberal. In Connecticut, conservatives outnumber liberals by 7 points, 31% to 24%.

Alabama is the state that comes closest to a conservative majority. In that state, according to Gallup, 49% say they are conservative and 15% say they are liberal.

In President Obama’s home state of Illinois, conservatives outnumber liberals, 35% to 23%.

Gallup's results were derived from interviewing 160,236 American adults between Jan. 2, 2009 and June 30, 2009.

Even though conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states, in 21 of these states self-identified moderates outnumber conservatives, and in 4 states the percentage saying they are conservative and the percentage saying they are moderate is exactly the same.

The two states with the highest percentage of self-identified moderates are Hawaii and Rhode Island, where 43% say they are moderate.

For a ranking of all 50 states by the advantage that self-identified conservatives have over self-identified liberals see the Gallup analysis here.

Self-Sustaining Sovereignty

photo credit: ww3billiard

Like parched lips to the water fountain, insolvent states are lapping up the dollars coming from the federal government in the latest round of socialist thievery and inter-generational slavery. Rather than face the hard task of balancing their own budgets based on available tax revenue, they welcome the (supposedly) free money as a political lifeline. Unwilling to face reality, they embrace the federal fantasy such a stimulus of necessity creates.

The Constitution’s framers created a system whereby sovereign and independent states delegated some of their powers to a central, federal government who could secure the blessings of liberty and provide for the general welfare of all. Thomas Jefferson described this structure once in a letter to Robert J. Garnett:

The best general key for the solution of questions of power between our governments is the fact that ‘every foreign and federal power is given to the Federal Government, and to the States every power purely domestic.’ I recollect but one instance of control vested in the Federal over the State authorities in a matter purely domestic, which is that of metallic tenders. The Federal is, in truth, our foreign government, which department alone is taken from the sovereignty of the separate States. (Thomas Jefferson, via Quoty)

Today, however, the tentacles of the federal government have a far greater and deeper reach into the affairs of its subservient state governments. In most cases, sovereignty has been replaced with dependency; assertion of power with groveling for assistance; exercise of delegated authority with fear of stepping on the federal government’s toes.

But in nearly every case, federal money is welcomed with open arms and visible relief. State leaders seem unwilling to recognize the simple fact that what the federal government pays for, it controls. Such control may start out slowly and with measured reticence, but nobody finances the operation of anything without ultimately having a say in how it is carried out.

From this we learn that in order to be sovereign, one must be self-sustaining. The ability to self-govern (acting instead of being acted upon) requires not being in bondage through slavery (financial or otherwise) to another party. Thus, by accepting federal money for internal projects and programs, states are further surrendering their sovereignty and eroding any sort of division between state and federal spheres of authority.

Just as a drug addict is dependent upon his supplier for the continual provision of resources he “needs”, so too do the states increase their addiction to easy money by accepting handouts from Uncle Sam. Both the supplier and the federal government know that once the addict is hooked, they’ll do anything demanded of them in order to get just one more fix they so desperately need.

Isn't Thinking Bad Thoughts The Same as Saying Them?

By Billy Graham

Yes, it is wrong - and one reason is because it means we're guilty of hypocrisy. Some of Jesus' strongest words were directed at people who pretended to be good outwardly, but inwardly were still selfish and sinful. He compared them to dishes that were clean and beautiful on the outside, "but inside... are full of greed and self-indulgence" (Matthew 23:25).

This doesn't mean, of course, that we should go ahead and do anything we feel like doing, even if it's wrong. If we acted that way, we'd only end up hurting both ourselves and other people. Instead, it means we should strive to get rid of our wrong motives and wrong thoughts, and replace them with good motives and good thoughts. The Bible says, "Rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind" (1 Peter 2:1).

Isn't Thinking Bad Thoughts The Same as Saying Them?

By Billy Graham

Black or Red Book?

Which book is your name in?

Brand Your Life

The "Brand You life" is damned hard work ... and so, so, so satisfying compared to "your father's world."

Live Longer and Better Despite Diabetes

By Mark Stibich, Ph.D.,

With diabetes becoming more prevalent, our children, for the first time in history, could have shorter life expectancies than their parents. This doesn’t have to be. On average, diabetes will shorten life expectancy 7.5 years (for diabetic men aged 50) to 8.2 years (for diabetic women of 50). But you don’t have to be “average.” Typically, less than 60% of diabetics take medications correctly. So following the doctor’s orders is one step to beating the odds. Also, most people aren’t living healthy. Be different! Don’t skip health screenings, practice good nutrition, stay active. Here are some tips to get started:

1. Take Your Medicine

Steve Wisbauer / Getty Images

It is shocking how many people get medicine prescribed from a doctor and then simply don't take it. Medications (and surgery) are the main tools that doctors have to help people get well. If you have been prescribed medication (or lifestyle changes), the single best thing you can do for your life expectancy and to manage your diabetes is, well, take your medicine. It's not as easy as it sounds -- take some time to read up on how to create a strong, daily medication habit.

2. Eat Right

SW Productions / Getty Images

Nutrition and eating is a huge part of living longer and healthier with diabetes. There are a lot of different diets and approaches to eating well with diabetes. Keep in mind that the best diet is the one you stick to. Talk with your doctor, your friends and read up on these diet approaches for diabetes.

3. Good Shoes

Robert Kirk / Getty Images

Diabetes can wreak havoc with your circulation and your feet are one of the first places to show damage. One thing you can do to prevent damage to your feet when you have diabetes is to wash your feet daily in warm water, use lots of moisturizer, check your feet carefully for blisters and other problems and, most importantly, make sure your shoes actually fit. Making sure your shoes fit, are comfortable and don't damage your feet of one of the simplest things you can do to live better with diabetes.

4. Exercise

Noel Hendrickson / Getty Images

Everyone needs to exercise, but people with diabetes not only need to exercise to increase their life expectancy and improve their health (just like everyone else), people with diabetes also need to exercise to help manage their diabetes. That’s right, exercise helps your body balance blood sugar. Exercise daily and follow these guidelines. If you need more inspiration, learn about some hidden benefits of exercise.

5. Prevent Other Diseases

Digital Vision / Getty Images

It would be great, no it would be fair, if having diabetes meant you would be protected from cancer or heart disease. But the simple fact is that just because you already have one chronic illness, doesn’t mean you have any special protection from other illnesses. In fact, you may even have an increased risk of other chronic illness because of diabetes. What you can do is get screened for all the other illnesses and health conditions appropriate for your age group. Don’t get so caught up in your diabetes that you forget to get a mammogram or a prostate exam. Here’s a list of common screenings that you should talk about with you doctor -- and don't forget to see your eye doctor each year; diabetes can increase the risk of eye problems.

6. Sleep More

Stockbyte / Getty Images

Not only does sleep help you feel well rested (and help your body balance hormones and make repairs), it’s just a simple fact that if you are well rested and have energy, you will be much less likely to break your good health habits. We tend to abandon healthy habits when we are feeling tired or stressed. By actively working to improve/maintain sleep and keep stress at bay, you can set yourself up to succeed at all the healthy things you want to work into your life. Try these tips for a good night’s sleep.

7. Fun Ways to Live Longer

Photodisc / Getty Images

Living longer and increasing your life expectancy doesn't have to be a chore. There are some very fun things you can do that may help you live longer. Here's a quick list of healthy and fun things: chocolate, sex and red wine. Find out what fun you have been missing out on!

8. Brush and Floss

Paul Burns / Getty Images

Diabetes may leave you with a higher risk for gum disease. Weirdly, flossing not only keeps gum disease away, but it also may increase your life expectancy. That's right, daily flossing can add a few years to your life. So, in addition to a regular trip to the dentist, floss everyday and take good care of your teeth.

9. Get Technical - Anti Aging Foods

Breno Peck / Getty Images

Now, if you have mastered the above (which would already put you ahead of about 99% of all people), there are still a few things you can do to maximize your life expectancy despite diabetes. Here is where all the buzz in the media about antioxidants and life extension come into play. If you are feeling like really pushing the envelope, consider working these anti-aging foods into a balanced diet for people with diabetes. Also, consider bitter melon and Tai Chi.

10. Laugh for a Longer Life

Plush Studios / Getty Images

Can just laughing increase your life expectancy? Maybe, it's certainly worth a try. While the evidence isn't very strong for the curing power of laughing, there is certainly no harm in laughing more in your life. In fact, there are a few studies that show that laughing and having a good time can reduce your stress levels and have you healthier than before.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Government Health Will Pass, Because:

Yes it will pass and most likely Obamas rating will go back up. Why do I say this? Don't forget David Axelrod is a brilliant political strategist. What we are seeing now is getting across the river and burning the bridge. Everything we are hearing, reading and seeing are nothing but smoke screens and trial balloons. Everything is about Congress being able to pass some kind of bill, since they know passing the 1,000 + pages, would be political disaster for most, Congress, I believe will pass a Government / National Health Care Bill, in some form. Congress will say: We listen to the people and here is the bill with what they wanted; Obama will say, I listen and I worked hard for you to get Health Care Reform passed based on what the American People told me during my Town Hall Meetings. Tort reform will be added as icing on this cake. Everyone will have the same sound bites that will essential say: We gave the American People what they wanted and all the 'mean' ole Republicans elected to do nothing, as usual. Remember how the Big Bad Wolf disguised himself to get to Little Red Riding Hood? Everything going on in our government is about trying to make Obama appear to be the greatest president of all time; to build his legacy to historical levels never before seen.

Will we be made aware of all the details in the bill that eventually passes? Only the better parts, not the parts that reward political lobbyists; not the parts that state this bill in "X" numbers of years can be evaluated and additional items can be added as deemed fit for, not the individual citizen, but, fit for the sustenance of the bill.

Still my question of why can't this bill be reduced to a few pages and why can't we have a bill that allows the uninsured to purchased the government plan base on what they can afford with t

Three items/questions I think are worthy to mention:

Simplifying the language and reducing the volume to 25 pages or less.
Why can the uninsured opt-in to the current government plan based on what they can afford with their tax credit?
Why are we not allowed to deduct 100% of all health care cost, from the top, from state and federal income tax?

Another question that may come into play is/will health care subsidies be taxable?

Summary: A Government Health Care bill will pass before the end of this year. If may be a 'watered-down" versions with provisions for future revisions. People against this are now being used as sacrificial pawns in order for our government to appear, later, as doing the right thing, when, all they are really trying to accomplished is more power. Seniors care will be diminished/rationed, because you cannot cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars without cutting care currently afforded seniors. If they can, they certainly need to educate Seniors/The Retired much better than they are now. Lastly, remember, the introduction of a possible co-op is not a citizen/member co-op, rather a smoke screen for a government co-op.

Health Care Will Pass

August 17, 2009

Government Health Will Pass, Because:

Yes it will pass and most likely Obamas rating will go back up. Why do I say this? Don't forget David Axelrod is a brilliant political strategist. What we are seeing now is getting across the river and burning the bridge. Everything we are hearing, reading and seeing are nothing but smoke screens and trial balloons. Everything is about Congress being able to pass some kind of bill, since they know passing the 1,000 + pages, would be political disaster for most, Congress, I believe will pass a Government / National Health Care Bill, in some form. Congress will say: We listen to the people and here is the bill with what they wanted; Obama will say, I listen and I worked hard for you to get Health Care Reform passed based on what the American People told me during my Town Hall Meetings. Tort reform will be added as icing on this cake. Everyone will have the same sound bites that will essentially saying: We gave the American People what they wanted and all the 'mean' ole Republicans elected to do nothing, as usual. Remember how the Big Bad Wolf disguised himself to get to Little Red Riding Hood? Everything going on in our government is about trying to make Obama appear to be the greatest president of all time; to build his legacy to historical levels never before seen.

Three items/questions I think are worthy to mention:

Simplifying the language and reducing the volume to 25 pages or less.
Why can't the uninsured opt-in to the current government plan based on what they can afford with their tax credit?
Why are we not allowed to deduct 100% of all health care cost, from the top, from state and federal income tax?

Another question that may come into play is/will health care subsidies be taxable?

Left-Wing Thugs/Left-Wing Extremists

Left-Wing THUGS Attack Americans Opposed to "ObamaCare" -- Click Below to Tell Congress to REJECT Obama's Socialized Health Care

Dear RightMarch.com member,

It's getting ugly out there.

All across the country, left-wing extremists are disrupting congressional town-hall meetings with venomous attacks on anyone who voices their objections to Barack Obama's plans to socialize American health care.

At a town hall meeting with Rep. Kathy Castor in Tampa, Florida, as she was introduced, the reaction was overwhelmingly against her, with boos and chants of "You work for us." In the lobby, you could hear the counter of Planned Parenthood representatives shouting, "Healthcare Now." Shortly thereafter, violence erupted, where three big "goons" came out and started pushing and roughing up the people in line and in the hallway, at one point even using a chokehold on one of the people. Police officers on the scene did nothing to prevent the violence being perpetrated on these citizens trying to exercise their free speech rights -- citizens who far outnumbered those who were allowed to stay. See the videos HERE!
At a town hall meeting with Rep. Russ Carnahan in St. Louis, Missouri, police arrested six people for assaulting constituents who were opposed to the health care takeover. As reported locally, "Kenneth Gladney, 38, a conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with 'Don't tread on me' printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room at St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was awaiting treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack." See the videos HERE!

Many Representatives have announced they won't be holding any town-hall meetings after seeing that their constituents are OPPOSED to the socialist "ObamaCare".

We've got a plan to fight back against these radical left-wingers. Barack Obama's "Organizing for America" group is sending out Alerts to get their people to come out to townhalls to shout us down with "powerful voices". MoveOn.org has hired skilled "grassroots organizers" -- meaning, people like the union thugs in those videos -- who are working at townhalls across the country to give the impression that there's ANY support for Obama's plans to socialize health care in America. They've built new online tools to track events across the country -- and to make sure MoveOn members turn out at each one.

They're raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to push their far-left agenda, against the true grassroots uprising we're witnessing in America.

TeleMedia Ecosystem

2009: The Redefinition of Telecom

The new TeleMedia Ecosystem is being created around us: telecom companies, ISPs and Operators becomes not just Data Pipes but also Content & Services 'Pipes' and most importantly, platforms of EXPERIENCES. Read more www.mediafuturist.com/telecom20/

Assistance With Prescriptions

There are actually a wide variety of programs that help uninsured and underinsured Americans dramatically reduce their medication costs -- or even get them for free. Many programs can also help seniors with a Medicare prescription drug plan avoid their "doughnut hole" coverage gap, or reduce their costs once they reach it. Here's what you should know.

Drug Assistance Programs
Through pharmaceutical companies, government agencies and charitable organizations, there are literally hundreds of programs available today that provide low-cost or free drugs to people in need. Although most drug assistance programs have income requirements, don't assume you won't be accepted because you think your income is too high. Many programs will consider applications on a case-by-case basis. Here are some great resources for finding and navigating the many programs that are available.

Partnership for Prescription Assistance (www.pparx.org; 888-477-2669): This is a network of pharmaceutical companies and professional medical organizations that can match you to more than 475 public and private patient/drug assistance programs that offer more than 2,500 drugs at reduced cost or at no charge.
RX Assist (www.rxassist.org): Created by Volunteers in Health Care, RX Assist allows you to search a database of patient-assistance programs by medications. It also provides tip sheets on getting free or low-cost medications, information on copay, generic drugs and other types of assistance programs.
NeedyMeds (www.needymeds.org): This is a non-profit resource that will let you search for drug-assistance programs, download applications and find assistance based on disease. It also provides links to state sponsored programs that provide prescription drug coverage or subsidies to low-income people who aren't poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.

Discount Cards
Another way to cut your medication costs is with drug discount cards, and a good starting point is Together Rx Access (www.togetherrxaccess.com; 800-444-4106). Backed by a consortium of pharmaceutical companies, this free prescription savings program provides a 25 to 40 percent savings on more than 300 brand-name and generic drugs. This program is available to people who don't have drug coverage with annual incomes of $45,000 or less for individuals, $60,000 for a family of two, and up to $105,000 for a family of five. Other drug card programs you should look at include www.rxsavingsplus.com, www.yourrxcard.com, www.rxfreecard.com, www.pscard.com, www.familywize.com and www.freedrugcard.us. These are all free programs with no eligibility requirements.

Buy Generic
Another big money saver is to ask your doctor or pharmacist if the medication you're taking is available in generic form. Many chains like Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, Kmart, CVS, Walgreens and Safeway offer great deals on many generic drugs. Wal-Mart for example charges only $4 for a 30-day supply and $10 for a 90-day supply with no eligibility restrictions. You can also find great generic deals online at sites like Rx Outreach (www.rxoutreach.com; 800-769-3880) and Xubex Pharmaceutical (www.xubex.com; 866-699-8239).

Medicare Help
For Medicare beneficiaries, if your annual income is less than $16,245 for an individual ($21,855 for a married couple living together) in 2009, you may be eligible for some extra help in paying for your medication. Call Social Security at 800-772-1213 to see if you qualify.

Savvy Tip: If you find that you're not eligible for the drug-discount programs and generics aren't available, another way you can save money is by finding the pharmacies that offer the lowest prices. Go to www.destinationrx.com and register -- it's free. Then type in the medicine you're looking for and click on "Compare Pharmacy Prices" for a cost comparison of online, mail-order and local pharmacies.

The General Welfare in the Preamble

One of the most misunderstood and misapplied clauses in the Constitution is found in the preamble, which states that the Constitution was ordained and established “in Order to … promote the general Welfare”.

What is general welfare? What does this phrase empower the government to do? Has the interpretation of this phrase changed since the era of the Founders?

The phrase, proposed by Benjamin Franklin to the Second Continental Congress in 1775, was originally implemented in the Articles of Confederation, as follows:

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare…

While such a stipulation was provided, the government was not given power to raise funds to actually secure the general welfare, and thus the provision lacked power and funding. And so, when the Constitution was created, Congress was given power in Article I Section 8 to raise funds for such a purpose:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to … provide for the … general Welfare of the United States.

To understand the phrase better, it is also important to define the word using the vernacular of the time. The 1828 Webster’s dictionary lists two definitions for welfare: one to be applied to persons, and one to states (political bodies). As the Constitution was written to list the government’s powers and restrictions, the definition for states must be used, which reads:

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government.

Note that the definition closely links welfare to protection (from unusual evil or calamity) and security (peace and prosperity). This stands in contrast with the current definition according to Webster’s dictionary:

Aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need; an agency or program through which such aid is distributed.

The difference between the two definitions is striking; indeed, they are wholly disparate. This etymological evolution was commented on by Noah Webster himself (the man responsible for the 1828 dictionary):

In the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place which, in particular passages, … obscure the sense of the original languages…. The effect of these changes is that some words are not understood … and being now used in a sense different from that which they had … present wrong signification of the false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced… mistakes may be very injurious. (Noah Webster, via Quoty)

Once the original intent and definition of the “general welfare” clause is understood, it is important to observe how the phrase can be Constitutionally implemented. James Madison commented on this as follows:

Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. (James Madison, via Quoty)

Madison here refers to the enumeration of powers, the specific list of items stated in the Constitution for which the government is given authority. All other powers not mentioned are denied to the government, as the tenth amendment declares:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And so, Madison here clarifies that the “general welfare” clause holds no power outside of the specific items government is given power, in the Constitution, to control and regulate. Thomas Jefferson likewise agreed:

[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. (Thomas Jefferson, via Quoty)

The government, then, is not authorized to collect taxes nor enforce the redistribution of wealth (when applied to the modern definition of “welfare”) unless the object of their desire is found in the powers enumerated unto them. Such limited powers is a hallmark of a Republican government, as Madison stated:

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546)

One must always remember that the Constitution was written for our government, and therefore the “general welfare” it refers to is that of the government itself, not of individual citizens. The Founders of this nation never intended for Uncle Sam to become a dole-dishing agent of wealth redistribution, and the fact that our government serves this role today shows how far we have strayed from the object and design of the Constitution.

Chef Emeril Lagasse to open "Lagasse's Stadium" at The Palazzo Las Vegas

August 15, 2009

Chef Emeril Lagasse and The Palazzo today announced Lagasse’s Stadium – a ground-breaking new place to dine, watch and play – opening this fall at The Palazzo Resort-Hotel-Casino. Sports fans will be in the center of the action while enjoying Chef Emeril’s world-famous cuisine and warm hospitality in this new state-of-the-art venue.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Burning Man Organization (BMO)

August 12th, 2009
Commentary by Corynne McSherry

In a few weeks, tens of thousands of creative people will make their yearly pilgrimage to Nevada’s Black Rock desert for Burning Man, an annual art event and temporary community celebrating radical self expression, self-reliance, creativity and freedom. Most have the entirely reasonable expectation that they will own and control what is likely the largest number of creative works generated on the Playa: the photos they take to document their creations and experiences.

That’s because they haven’t read the Burning Man Terms and Conditions.

Those Terms and Conditions include a remarkable bit of legal sleight-of-hand: as soon as “any third party displays or disseminates” your photos or videos in a manner that the Burning Man Organization (BMO) doesn’t like, those photos or videos become the property of the BMO. This “we automatically own all your stuff” magic appears to be creative lawyering intended to allow the BMO to use the streamlined “notice and takedown” process enshrined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to quickly remove photos from the Internet.

The BMO also limits your own rights to use your own photos and videos on any public websites, (1) obliging you to take down any photos to which BMO objects, for any reason; and (2) forbidding you from allowing anyone else to reuse your photos (i.e., no licensing your work no matter what is depicted, including Creative Commons licensing, and no option to donate your work to the public domain).

Moreover, the Burning Man Terms and Conditions also strip attendees of their trademark fair use rights. The ticket terms forbid any use of Burning Man trademarks on any website, which means that ticket-holders can’t label their photos “Burning Man 2009” or even use the words “Burning Man” on their Facebook walls or Twitter updates.

We do empathize with BMO’s desire to preserve the festival’s noncommercial character and to protect the privacy interests of ticket-holders. But by granting itself ownership of your creative works and forbidding fair uses of its trademarks, BMO is using the “fine print” to give itself the power of fast and easy online censorship.

BMO's not the first to misuse the DMCA this way. Some doctors recently have begun to use the DMCA process to take down negative comments patients post about them to websites like RateMDs.com. How can they do this? Under the same theory BMO is using, each doctor demands that patients assign to the doctor copyright in anything the patient writes online about the doctor. It’s bad enough that some companies routinely trot out contracts prohibiting you from criticizing them, but it’s another thing altogether when they demand that you hand over your copyrights to any criticisms, so that they can use the DMCA to censor your own expression off the Internet.

The BMO’s motives here may be more laudable than those of the paranoid doctors. But the collateral damage to our free speech is unacceptable. Using take-it-or-leave-it fine print to assert veto rights over online expression is no way to promote a “society that connects each individual to his or her creative powers.” Burning Man strives to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit. Unfortunately, the fine print on the tickets doesn’t live up to that aspiration.

Females For Life (FFL)

Does a woman who is pregnant really have a choice on campus? Or is she forced to choose between having a baby and sacrificing her education and career plans?

Do parents, who are keenly aware that their education has a direct impact on their ability to take care of their family, have the resources and support they need and deserve in order to complete their education?

Our questions began after a Feminists for Life board member revealed her pregnancy in college and said, "Without housing on campus for me and my baby, without on-site daycare, without maternity coverage in my health insurance, it sure doesn't feel like I have much of a free choice."

As she traveled to campuses across the country, FFL's President Serrin Foster realized that she had never seen a visibly pregnant student-or faculty member. In response, FFL held our first Pregnancy Resource Forum in 1997. After moderating Pregnancy Resource Forums for more than a decade, Foster knew this was not an isolated problem.

We wondered, what would student leaders from Ivy League, top state, private and religious universities and colleges, activists who were not in a crisis situation, find out about resources on their campuses?

In order to determine what students perceived about their schools' resources and support for pregnant and parenting students, Feminists for Life launched its first-ever nationwide Pregnancy Resources Survey^SM in the fall of 2007.

The students' revealing answers to our comprehensive study are unveiled in Feminists for Life's groundbreaking study, Perception is Reality.

Read more about this study and FFL's pioneering work on college campuses:

Full-length report, Perception is Reality
FFL announces publication of Perception is Reality
Overview of survey findings
She Asked. They Answered.: Collegians respond to most common questions from pregnant women and parenting students
Telling comments from student leaders who want to help
Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant & Parenting Student Services Act
Patricia Heaton comments on the new FFL study, Perception is Reality.

The results of this study shine a new light on the perceived (and likely real) lack of resources, policies, communications and central location to find help on their campuses.

Feminists for Life is committed to continuing to help administrators and college students evaluate their campuses and work toward new solutions. If you are a college or university administrator or a student and would like to take FFL's Pregnancy Resource Survey^® to evaluate woman-centered solutions on your campus, please contact FFL's College Outreach Coordinator at coordinator@ffloncampus.org.

In response to the overwhelming perception that colleges and universities lack resources to support pregnant and parenting students, Feminists for Life invites student activists to hold their first annual Rally for Resources^SM on their campus this year.

We depend on the support of others because women and student parents in need are depending on Feminists for Life. Please consider your choices to help these student leaders:

Provide students across the nation with the tools they need to start a revolution on campus. Sponsor a kit ($35), Rally for Resources ($75), lecture or Pregnancy Resource Forum ($1,000-3,000), Please visit our secure online support page to make a tax-deductible donation to support our work.
Join Feminists for Life now. ($25 membership, $15 students)
Stay up to date on pro-woman issues and receive invitations to our events by joining our free e-list.

On behalf of those who too often feel they are forced to choose,
thank you for helping us help pregnant and parenting students complete their education.