Dear Senator Sanders,

Senator Sanders,

I just finished taking your survey, and I have some issues. I know that just like multiple choice tests, multiple choice surveys are difficult to construct: the answers provided often do not adequately apply to or express the respondents' situations.

I have had good health insurance for the past 12 years. The price has kept going up, but I have had no issues with its coverage. I understand it will be classified as a "Cadillac Plan," which is a GROSS mischaracterization. It is neither luxurious nor extravagant. I still pay copays; many things are covered at percentages; it includes lifetime caps, but has to now -- we just changed from Washington Employers Trust, to Cigna -- covered pre-existing conditions. I pay $60.28, twice a month which is %20 of the cost, and that includes dental and vision as well as medical, for a total cost of $7234.80/year, FOR MYSELF.

Now under the Baucus Caucus / Gang of Six proposal, my employer would be FINED, because he treats me too well. He gives me crappier coverage, he no longer pays the FINE. Further, the "funding" to provide for whatever public option there might be goes away, which is a recipe for disaster, which as anyone knows is exactly what the Reaganite Republicans want: Government HAS to be a problem; it CANNOT be a solution. You already know that.

I WANT reform, but not THIS reform. In theory, my coverage will remain relatively unaffected, but if my boss gets selfish or offended or simply cannot afford the imposed FINES, my coverage will get worse. It's like passing a highway bill that assures every city will have a bridge that will fall down.

In theory, I agree with a public option, and the idea that "if you like what you have, you can keep it," but what's not being said is that if you don't like what you have -- can we say Walmart? -- you are F*cked.

In theory, I approve of the expansion of Medicaid, but since that is a mandate to states, who are going broke, I disapprove.

Now I TOTALLY disapprove of the "Opt-out" provisions which put unfortunate people at the mercy of morons like Rick Perry and Mark Sanford and the Democratic candidate who lost in VA while promising he would opt out. I TOTALLY disapprove of allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. True, this would initially lower costs, while the big boys slash prices to squeeze out little guys, but in the end it will create companies that are too big to fail. Just like banking deregulation. I TOTALLY disapprove of Republican ideas of tort reform, since they take away our right to a day in court in many cases merely to force insurers to do what we pay them to do.

I WANT reform, but not THIS reform. I agree with you and Thom Hartmann and Dennis Kucinich and Jim McDermott and others (who I wish would form a third party that actually represents People not corporations): Single payer/Medicare Part E.

Sincerely,
Chris Harmatta

The Ultimate in Simplicity

Yeah, why do something in ten pages when you can do it in 1000. And save those poor oppressed insurance mobsters companies and their execs.

To anyone who doesn't listen to Thom Hartmann: Why?

Oh yeah.... almost forgot this.

The Party of...

I was about to write about the "Party of No," morphing into the "Party of Slow," in regard to their whining and crying about being rushed to confirm Judge Sonya, but then there's the "Party of Jello," as in the continuing saga of the party in search of(?) a spine: The Democrats and their lack of a stand on health care.

I give Ed Schultze credit for his introductory rant and rave to open his radio show yesterday. I've been pissed in the past at Ed for being a Bush-Toady like Obama water carrier. I will never forgive Obama for helping to pass the Freedom Is Superfluous Act, and I get sicker by the day as Obama continues to further trash the Constitution, in grand Bush fashion, by helping to whitewash Bush's torture regime. Ed gave Obama a free pass in the first case, and a couple of weeks ago, I called him on the carpet for continuing to do so.

Apparently I wasn't the only one pissed at Ed; yesterday he knocked it out of the park. In a nutshell: Grow a pair Dems. You're the MAJORITY. Act like it. Do what you were elected to do. If the refuckyoucans want to obstruct, make them go all the way. Make them filibuster. And not just for one night. Make them show their true colors. Act like you represent the American people for once.

I know Ed feels in part that there's no point in trashing Obama, since the refucks are already all too ready, willing, able and happy to do so. But we're not Refucks. We're better than them. We have principles. Unlike them, we'd rather DO good, than look good. We'd rather DO right than appear right. Or at least that's how I believe it should be.

I don't know where you can go to hear his rant, but it's got to be out there in a podcast or some such thing. It's well worth a listen.

Put that in line with Thom Hartmann today. A little more calm and subdued, but no less urgent: Call your Senators and Representative and let them know your preference for a single payer healthcare option. I did so, and I'll write up the results in the morning. I was NOT totally pleased.

You know, If you're not insured through your employer, and you need a coronary bypass or some such procedure, assuming you don't plan to roll over and die, you have three options:

1) Spend the rest of your life in debt
2) Go bankrupt*
3) Commit a crime and go to prison where health care is provided.

*Oooopppsss.... can't do that any more. Not since our Obama's vice preznit got together with Bill Frist to take care of the Frist family's Hospital Corporation of America through "reform." They left us the prison option. And homelessness. So sweet of them. So... My calls...

First I called Jim McDermott. Good old Bagdad Jim. (and I use that as a term of endearment) According to his aid, he's been in favor of Single payer since... I forget the year. 93...?

Next up was Patty Murray. She's in favor of the "public option." According to her aid, she can't/won't back single payer because there isn't the backing necessary to pass it. 'scusa me... The way something gets the backing it needs to pass is by people backing it. It gets lonely out there in the lead sometimes. You're not a rookie Ms Murray. This is your third term. Lead. Secondly, the public option is a compromise position. You don't start the negotiations at the compromise. That's where you end up. You start by shooting for the moon.

And finally, Maria Cantwell: No position as yet. WTF? ?...but as she's a member of the Senate finance committee..." The Committee chaired by Max Baucus? Yes. Who didn't include anyone representing single payer insurance to the hearings on reform? Yes. The one who had defenders of single payer insurance arrested? Uhhhhh... Has she voiced an opinion, issued a statement on those arrests? Uhhhhh...

and she has no opinion. Way to go Ms Maria. I really wish we could get rid of you.

$700 Billion Buys Who What? UPDATED

Crooks and Liars jumped on George Stephanopoulos' Roundtable portion from yesterday. I watched the show, but didn't comment as I have the past couple of weeks, because, well, basically the whole thing astounded me. For one, George Will actually talked sense for once, instead of hiding his assenine opinions behind big words and complex sentences.

John McCain, as usual, substituted Dick-wagging for clarity of thought:

"The question is who in this crisis looked more presidential, calm and unflustered. It wasn't John McCain, who, as usual, substituting vehemence for coherence said let's fire somebody and picked one of the most experienced and conservative people in the administration."

Not sure if he still thinks there's value in someone still being conservative AFTER having experience. Seems to me to be proof of a lack of intelligence.

The quote that reeeeeally chilled me after all was said and done, was when Will asked about bailing out companies when there's really no way to tell who owes what to whom for what? Seriously... if there's any truth to what Will says, how will anyone be able to know if OUR bailout bucks are going where they need to go.

Another question I have is: Who is going to end up owning the foreclosed homes? When the bank goes bye-bye, where goes the title, and who will get the money when they sell?

The Fucks at Fox like to talk all the time about how the Democrats want to redistribute wealth in some ultra-liberal, socialist scheme. THIS redistribution of wealth is the Refuckyoucan wet dream. THIS is what 50 some million asshats voted for in 2000 and 2004.

THIS is what McShame will bring you, except in spades.

Update: Thom Hartmann talked about a part of this financial mess called, "the derivatives market,"of which I will admit to having NO understanding, except to say that it truly IS a higher-than-high stakes gambling venue for the rich, super-rich and wannabe rich. The root of it all is that $700 billion is chump change... a laughable down payment. NO ONE has a clue as to how much money is involved because of the leverages and speculation involved, but Hartmann seems to have reason to believe that we're talking QUADRILLIONS of dollars.

Think this'll make the "news?"

I kinda doubt it. Actually, I'm willing to bet on it not.

Part of the new housing bill that just passed:

You apply for a mortgage and they can finger print you. No shit; according to Thom Hartmann anyway.

Now just what the fuck..? ??? Do the Dems want a Zero% approval rating? They sure as hell seem to be headed that way.

Being the lazy ass I am, I haven't gone back to look at Dubya's objections and veto threats, but again I'm willing to bet they were all about the stupidity of bailing out dumb fucks who had no business getting loans from dumb fucks who had no business being in business. Kinda like HIM when he was fucking up in the oil business, eh? So...

I'm sure this new process will help keep idiots from over extending themselves, right? I mean we do keep a Dumb Fuck Database, right? This is all for our own good, right? We're just too fucking dumb to realize why the gubmint would need the fingerprints of law abiding citizens.

Fucking amazing how that fuck stain, the champion of small government, non interference and free markets, can sweep all that shit aside when there's a chance to put a law in place that restricts our basic freedoms. Actually the truly amazing thing is that there is no real opposition from the "opposition party."

We need a good third party.

Thom Hartmann brought up an excellent point today; one that I've suspected for quite a couple of years now.

First off, we KNOW that the Refucks have gotten into the files of Democratic legislators, reading emails and memos, using some to formulate strategies on judicial and other nominees, and simply leaking some to the press. This was not (just) during Nixon's reign, but Bush's.

Next, we KNOW that Bush began his warrantless wiretapping/data mining Long before 9-11; in February of 2001; roughly one month after he took office. Qwest, upon advice from their own lawyers, refused to cooperate.

Going back to Nixon, we have the Watergate break-in and the break-in, not (just) of Daniel Ellsberg's office, but of his Psychiatrist's office. Just a couple of examples from Tricky Dicky's bag of dirty "tricks."

And let's not even get into who J. Edgar Hoover spied upon: Everyone from Errol Flynn and Frank Sinatra, to LBJ and JFK.

So spying within the American government on itself is nothing new. Hell, I'll bet even Jimmy Carter wanted to know who had lust in their hearts, but to what end? WHY all the spying?

Knowledge is power, and while we KNOW Dubya has no love of knowledge, we also know that he is obsessed with power. He needs it even more than his booze and his coke. Having things done his way is... There is no other way, so...

We look at spying from an historical point of view, and we look at the Democrats rolling over time and again, and especially as they have since November '06; we look at how no one from Dubya's inner circle has appeared before Congress and we even look at how David Vitter and Larry Craig still DO sit there, and we, or at least I, have to wonder, like Thom did today:

What do those White House mother fuckers have on Pelosi? Hoyer? Reid? Obama? ???

Oh... If you heard Ed Schultze's interview with Obama last week... his crap about su[pporting this latest FISA giveaway, that it's OK because there's an "Exclusivity clause" in it...? Obama's full of shit.

It's CRAP!

With minor exceptions, FISA authorizes electronic surveillance only upon certain specified showings, and only if approved by a court. The statute specifically allows for warrantless wartime domestic electronic surveillance—but only for the first fifteen days of a war. 50 U.S.C. § 1811. It makes criminal any electronic surveillance not authorized by statute, id. § 1809; and it expressly establishes FISA and specified provisions of the federal criminal code (which govern wiretaps for criminal investigation) as the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...may be conducted," 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) (emphasis added).^[2]

The Department of Justice concedes that the NSA program was not authorized by any of the above provisions.

Read more here:

On NSA Spying: A Letter to Congress

I Was Going to Apologize to Mike Gravel, but

Then I read this posting by JP. For the most part his posting, which has to do with the plight of the migrant tomato pickers in Immokalee, Florida, has nothing to do with Gravel, except when JP mentions the LOW cost of production due to our government supported/legalized slave labor as opposed to the HIGH price of goods at the point of sale. This is the big reason I had no use for Gravel: he was totally ignorant of any basic economic sense.

Last night as I responded to a comment, I mentioned how I once heard Thom Hartmann take Gravel to school. Gravel, like Huckabee, and I believe Ron Paul, want to do away with the IRS and replace it with a national sales tax. (my apologies to any other idiots with the same dumbass notion who I fail to name) I don't remember what Gravel called it, but Huck calls it a Fair Tax. There's nothing fair about it, lemme tell you. Sales taxes are highly regressive: they hit the poorest the hardest, and there's no way to sell them any differently. Doing away with the IRS? It would solve nothing, not to mention that it just won't fucking happen. anyway...

Gravel was somehow trying to get his crazy notion across that taxes are the reason we pay$1-200 for a fucking pair of sneakers made by slaves for Nike. As if somehow that gap between the pennies it costs to make them and the final sales price is all money that goes to the government. Hartmann had to basically spell it out, without the benefit of visual aides (which may have been why Gravel couldn't get the lesson), from costs of production, distribution, marketing, etc, that taxes aren't shit compared to the total price tag. That's all a Refuckyoucan/Conservative propaganda smoke screen. What affects the price of goods is the market: What will the market bear; what are people willing to pay. Nikes made in the US: $100. Nikes made in Asia: $100. Case closed.

Don't get flim flammed on this notion of lower corporate taxes somehow coming back, or trickling down to you in any form other than a big shit on your head.

Now back to Gravel, once again, as much as he was exposed as an idiot by Hartmann, I still do feel that I/we owe him a very sincere apology. The reason being that he was the first candidate to be arbitrarily excluded from the primary debates, and when it happened no one, myself included, seemed to care. I don't remember any of the other candidates protesting.

Gravel was the first step, then Kucinich. All along the networks focussed on their pre-ordained darlings Hillary and Barack, as shown by the timekeeper, Chris Dodd. SO...

Senator Gravel, please forgive me. I should have stood up for you, and in doing so, stood up for democracy. If I and others had, we might now have a different election.

I gotta yield credit to the Hart Man

Bummer. One less glass of wine and I might have been the first but alas.

Listening to Thom today while twiddling my thumbs on light duty, I heard him talk about a multitude of (possible) reasons for the Mafia White Whore House to destroy the CIA's torture tapes. BTW...

Seems like everyone assumes that these are THE... ONLY... as in the is no library... tapes of Bush authorized torture. You believe that? You have a brain? Hmmm... oh

So he brings up the possibility that one reason could be that the existence of the tapes would prove that the torturing didn't get us shit for usable info (DUH). Fuck me. I kinda hinted at this shit the other day, but, hmm, did I say it explicitly enough, and firstish enough, to take credit?

Oh, oh, ophhhh...

Then Rachel Maddow comes up with the possibility that the fire started in Dick Cheney's office, due to electrical circuits being overloaded by too many paper shredders, might somehow be a result of cover up efforts.

And then the Dana Poleino kinda-sorta-semi-although-if-it-really-was-one-what-was-it-over meltdown.... was it over the lies Dubya? Dick? theCIA? Gonzo? Harriet? ____? told? ??? Just cuzz she repeats them (which is what they pay her to do; ask Scotty, Ari or Tony) doesn't mean SHE lies. It'll get to you Babe; it got to them.




And the Mucusman still hasn't figured out if waterboarding is torture yet.

WOW... A Conservative's Case for Impeachment

One of the few cool things about my job is that I get to do a lot of different things. For the past several, I've had the chance to work in a quiet little corner, out of few and listen to my radio. I've been a total talk-radio addict for many years now (I just can't keep track of the 10-in-a-row shit and remember which songs I liked and who did them; I know jack shit about present day music) and since 100.7FM, which used to be a cool talk talk station, went country and dumped Tom Leykis, I've been listening to 1090AM which has a great lineup of progressive talk shows. I usually never get to listen during the day but these past few, I've been able to catch Thom Hartmann from 9-noon.

This guy has always impressed me with his knowledge of the issues and times surrounding the founding of this country. I don't know if he keeps a laptop by his side, with someway to do quick reference, or if he knows them by heart, but his knowledge of the Federalist Papers seems amazing.

Today one of his guests was conservative Bruce Fein. If it's possible, the guy's credentials are excellent, including affiliations with the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, etc, etc and authored the articles of impeachment for Bill Clinton. The only thing I don't see, is his name on the PNAC's statement of principles. He spent quite a bit of time on Thom's show, and made a clear cut and simple case for the impeachment of both W and his Dick. He made the case without even referring to "high crimes and misdemeanors," instead focusing on W's usurpation of powers not granted by the constitution. There was no mention of lying us into a war, outing Valerie Plame, or many of the other commonly cited reasons. Instead he kept referring to this10-point proposal, spelled out at the American Freedom Agenda web site.


When someone like this starts talking impeachment, it reeeeealy makes me wonder why the hell Nancy Pelosi keeps avoiding the subject. If our Constitutional government of laws is going to survive, impeachment NEEDS to happen.