After the Knife....

Well, I am back from the hospital, and got home about noon. The surgery itself wasn’t that bad, so I thought, but the doctor seemed to think it was pretty major. When I was being prepped, there was a student nurse trying to put a catheter in my hand, and well, it went straight through the vein. She wasn’t too happy, and was very apologetic, but I didn’t mind too much, and this was before the drugs. She got her “teacher” to do the catheter for her and she did a nice job.

This is when I had to inform them that I had sleep apnea, and did not bring my machine, so they decided to give me a saddle block, versus putting me to sleep, which I preferred anyway. Now I get the first round of I.V.drugs. Smiling, I am carted to the O.R. where I receive a second round of drugs, a spinal tap, and it’s off of the gurney and on to the table for me. This is where they play with my butt cheeks and ask me if I can feel anything, the answer obviously was no.

Now the nurse anesthetist hooks up a syringe full of what looks like milk, but damn, it was some happy milk. I don’t know the real name, but I think it was something like heroin or crack it had to be. The next thing I know I am lying on my back buck-naked and the nurse saying, “don’t worry, we’ll cover you back up.” Just then I realized, I am naked in front of all of these folks, but I just don’t care, the drugs are too good.

I get wheeled in the recovery room, where I met the nicest nurse who sat with me until I could move my legs. She has just me the love of her life at 50 years old and is about to get married to a guy she dated 25 years ago. We talked for about an hour, she also told me she was a fellow bush “dis-liker”, but that’s a whole different story.

Once I moved my legs, I was moved into a room where my wife and parents came to see me. Which by the way, I found a scam. When I was registering, they told me my insurance covered a semi-private room, but for 25 dollars more, I could get a private room. I declined to shell out the extra money. I figured I could just talk the other peoples ears off and they would leave. When I was wheeled to the room, it was a private room, WTF? Not that I was disappointed about being in a private room, but why try to charge more for what I am getting anyway?

Well, everyone came in, and I was in good spirits, but my wife gave me the nickname “devil sheep”! She thought that was funny, it was because I don’t want to be babied and that’s what she was trying to do. So the explanation from her was that I am sweet like a sheep around other, but mean like the devil when we are alone. Any who, it was kind of funny.

Then after I finally peed, they wanted to make sure my kidneys worked, I was thrown in a wheelchair and thrown into my car. I came home and everything is fine so far. Got some Hydrocodone, and a couple of days to recover. Should I feel this good on Monday or Tuesday, I will return to work. This time around, the surgery went a lot easier than last time.

Snappy


P.S. I didn’t miss Lewis Libby get the 5 counts against him, I am just waiting for Karl Rove to get his now.

The Big Knife incident....

Well, tomorrow is the big day for a little surgery. I have a pilonidal cyst that will be removed. Sadly this is the second time this has come up, and as luck would have it I have come down with a cold also.

Well, what is that weird crap you have, you may ask, I will let you read about it here.

It has since been established that pilonidal disease is an acquired condition involving midline pits in the natal cleft. These holes or pits are enlarged hair follicles in the skin. The nature of these distorted hair follicles is unclear. It has been suggested that gravity and motion of the gluteal folds create a vacuum that pulls on the follicle. Bacteria and debris enter this sterile area, producing local inflammation. Edema occludes the mouth of the follicle, which continues to expand, rupturing into the underlying fatty tissue. Keratin and pus escape, and a foreign body reaction results in a microabscess, which is similar to perforating folliculitis. The purulent material subsequently tracks within the presacral subcutaneous tissue, producing acute and chronic pilonidal abscesses, as well as potential laterally displaced and epithelialized tracts. The conversion from a microabscess to the burrowing infection defines pilonidal disease; the same forces that create the pits are thought to cause the conversion.

It was once thought that every pilonidal lesion contained a nest of hair. In reality, only 50% of cysts and sinuses are found to have hair during exploration. This finding, however, does not diminish its importance in the pathophysiology of pilonidal disease. Here is a link to a diagram of the epidermis http://www.jdenuno.com/epbimages/images/mayoskin.jpg

Hair has three distinct roles. The distended hair follicle plays the first role. It is not shed like its normal counterparts; it can remain in the follicle during its expansion. The hair contributes to local inflammation once the follicle ruptures, and it can even perforate the posterior wall of the follicle, enhancing microabscess formation. The second role is that of hairs from other parts of the body, which also can cause local disease. Free hairs act as secondary invaders, entering the follicle through its open mouth and contributing to the foreign body reaction. Neighboring hair in the skin surrounding pilonidal wounds plays the third role. These hairs act as mechanical irritators that affect wound healing. The second and third roles affect advanced pilonidal disease and maintain the adverse environment within the natal cleft.

Malignant degeneration rarely occurs in pilonidal disease, although verrucous carcinoma (giant condyloma acuminatum) has been described.

Here is a couple of links to what it looks like, if you are interested. I will warn you, this is of medical content, so it mught be a little gross looking to you.
This is the exit of the sinus , but it isn't of me, just a generic pic.
This is why I am glad they let you sleep during this.
Here is a pictoral site I found of the surgery.


I will be there at 5:30 a.m. and should be back home within 6 hours. Supposedly, I am to be off of work for one week, so my plan is do this on Fri. have Sta. And Sun. for recovery, and try and go back to work by Tuesday. I don’t like knowing that the workload is increased on my coworkers because of this, so I will try and get back as soon as I can, but I think I will be able to.
Hopefully I will put an update or two up while I am down and out.
Snappy

Miers nomination withdrawn

Well, it was announced that Harriet Miers nomination for the supreme court was withdrawn this morning. After many unanswered questions and disappointed senators, the inevitable happened. The president stood seadfast beside his decision, as he does with all decisions, whether he is right or wrong.

The good thing is that maybe the case Gonzales V. Oregon might be decided on without the interuption of a new member possibly swinging the vote. The bad thing is that this is just another embarassment for this administration.

The nomination of Harriet Miers was mediocre at best. I realize you can be on the Supreme court with no formal judging experience, but you need more credentials than what she had. This was exhibited by the Senators not supporting her leading up to the vote.

Personally, I believe this was a lure to a trap by the republican party that backfired. I think their plan was to present someone who wasn't going to be voted in by the democrats, then present a hardliner that the democrats whine about, and they could then say,"well, you just don't want to vote for anyone we pick." Instead, what has happened was the Democrats mostly agreed with her nomination but the Republican senators were outraged, therefore forcing the resignation. A failed nomination during the vote would have exposed that more Republicans voted against the Republican nomination and that would not have looked good.

The next nominee will likely be a conservative stalwart and leave the Democrats vigorously opposing the candidate. Other candidates mentioned frequently included conservative federal appeals court judges J. Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, Karen Williams, Alice Batchelder and Samuel Alito; Michigan Supreme Court justice Maura Corrigan; and Maureen Mahoney, a well-respected litigator before the high court.

The battle that is going to be embarked upon now will be a hard fought battle. With the weakness of the Republican party exposed, and the many dilemmas currently ongoing i.e. Lewis Libby and Karl Rove in the Valerie Plame scandal, Richard Cheney and his ties to Halliburton and the Valerie Plame case, Michael Brown and the FEMA fiasco, Bill Frist short selling stock from his families HMO and making a HUGE profit just one week before it tanked, Tom Delay and his whole stunt and I am sure there will be more to come.

The only problem I see in the future for the Democrats is their lack of orginization, and being the minority, lack of fight. This withdrawal is one of the best things that could happen for the Democrats. Sandra Day O'Conner will remain on the court through January due to this.

This will now be a third candidate to replace Sandra Day O'Conner. The first was John Roberts, who, when Rhenquest passed away, was quickly withdrawn, and placed as Rhenquists replacement. Then Harriet Miers, who withdrew amidst many negative comments from Republican Senators. Now there will be a third candidate. I will crap a brick if they nominate either Dick Cheney or Tom Delay though. That would be Hubris, and what an example that would be.

Snappy

Carol Reynolds, representing District 2, was elected to the City Council in November 2001. The daughter of a registered nurse and United Steel Workers organizer, Reynolds might be considered something of an activist by birthright. A firm believer in the adage that "one person can make a difference", Reynolds spent 15 years as a retail manager before taking a job with a major city utility company in 1987. It was in that transition that Reynolds realized her passion for the rights of the "everyday person" and started her work in the community as an advocate for the environment, social change and public education.Reynolds, a native of Birmingham and lifelong resident, has an impressive track record of community service. She has provided leadership to a number of organizations including Airport Neighbors United, (former board member).

The previous info, and image, I got from the Birmingham City councel web site. I have an opinion I would like to share here. Carol Reynolds, though I do not live in her district, is in a runoff election against a local, I will say "person" for the sake of civility, person for the District 2 seat on the city councel. Sadly, he is not the caliber of person she is and yet he forced a runoff. Carol's record is impressive, and she is a great person. I know someone who is a friend of hers and he constantly tells me of the great things she does. She has a kind heart, and a serious commitment as a public servant, which is not easily said about many people in public positions.

Here is a list of accomplishments from her website;

1. Removed 27 taxi cabs with invalid insurance within first 6 weeks in office
2. Created ordinances preventing taxi industry from over charging patrons
3. Voted to create a stronger police force with advance weaponry
4. Allocated 80% of Discretionary Funds to school enhancements
5. Annexed land into District 2 increasing tax base
6. Voted for $20 million to prevent takeover of public school system
7. Secured $4.7 million for airport noise mitigation buyout
8. Created zone buyout plan establishing time line and defined target area
9. Partnered with Jefferson County for flood buyout
10. Secured $1 million for new library in District 2
11. Secured funding for repair of dam at East Lake Park
12. Secured funding for new gymnasium at Hawkins Park
13. Secured funding for Hawkins Golf Course beautification
14. Contributed to plans redevelopment of Eastwood Shopping Center
15. Contributed to plans concerning the first Publix grocery store in Birmingham
16. Facilitated evening and Saturday bus service through the Transportation and
Communication Committee
17. Replaced bridge at 71st Street South

Pretty impressive if you ask me. The most impressive is these projects are not "pork" type projects, but things that affect the foundation of a community. The woman has her priorities straight, and her record shows this.

So in all fairness, let me introduce you to her competitor if you will.

Here is a bit of a bio that was published in the Birmingham news;

Matthews, an ordained minister who first gained public attention in the early 1990s working with youth as "God's Gangster," knows first-hand about crime and recidivism.

As a youngster, he was a gang member and by 1985 he'd been in and out of jail on a variety of burglaries, robberies, assaults and other crimes. A forgery conviction sent him to West Jefferson Correctional Facility in 1985.

In prison, he became a born-again Christian, Matthews said. On furloughs with the prison chaplain, he spoke to youth groups and preached against crime. His ministry and good behavior earned him early release in 1989 and in 1993, then-Gov. Guy Hunt granted him a full pardon.

Matthews said his second biggest issue is the ever-increasing water rates charged by the Birmingham Water Works Board.

He has a radio show, I'm not shure what church he is a minister of, much less which one he attends. but his past is not one I personally would look at as a "banner". I realize people can change, and sometimes do, but you can only judge people by what they have done in the past, not what the say they will do. That's how I judge people, and believe me, I judge, oh, I judge.

Hopefully Carol will get enough votes to remain in office, she is a good woman, with a great track record.

I realize the majority of you have no interest in this race, but one day, you never know, she may aspire to a higher office in the state, and personally, I hope she does.

Snappy

We have a new Fed Chairman! The funny thing is, I am pretty non-opinionated on this guy. His resume seems pretty strong, and the papers on macro-economics that he has written are well thought out. I mean, he does have a P.H.D., what would you expect. I am surprised he isn't from Texas though, as most appointments from this president have been as of late i.e. Harriet Miers.

Greenspan has been a decent chairman, especially when times were good, but he can't single handedly control inflation. When there is a full on assault on the middle-class and the working poor, dropping the interest 1/4 point does nothing for someone who can't even stay current with their bills, much less finance a home to own. Even Greenspan himself kept trying to tell Bush what he was doing wasn't going to work, Though greenspan is the one who suggested to George H. W. Bush to borrow from social security so that money would not show as a defeceit in the budget. Teaching creative bookkeeping basically, and look where it has gotten us. The national debt is 8,009,326,847,182.94 and the national debt has continued to increase an average of$1.62 billion per day since September 30, 2004, and China holds most of that debt. The budget defcit is forcasted to be over 1.7 Trillion within the decade.

My whole gripe about this is the fact that Reagan's "Trickle down theory" (supply side economics) had proven not to work in the 80's and early 90's, and here we are in the throws of it again. Republican's preach less government and lower taxes, they tag Democrats as "tax and spend". Well, we now sit with a larger government than we have ever had, spent more money than has ever been spent, and cut taxes on the wealthiest families. The government should be run like a houshold budget, you only use credit in an emergency, and if you can't afford it, you don't buy it!

Historically, whenever either party was doing poor they just blamed the previous administration, and now it is becoming clear to many, including members of the sitting party that the current policies do have a major impact on what the economy does. So Reagon and H. W. Bush were responsible for their economies, not Clinton's, and Clinton was responsible for the Economy in the 90's, or their administrations as a whole, not just the individual, but you know what I am trying to say.

So in conclusion, I hope Dr. Bernanke does a satisfactory job, and doesn't listen to people trying to sway him. He should do fine, and as usually in changes of post in levels like this, us working poor will never know the difference. I have included the official biography below.

Snappy


Biography of Dr. Ben S. Bernanke copied from Whitehouse.gov;

Ben S. Bernanke was sworn-in on June 21, 2005 as Chairman of the President'sCouncil of Economic Advisers. Prior to his appointment to the Council, Dr.Bernanke served as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal ReserveSystem.

Dr. Bernanke was born on December 13, 1953, in Augusta, Georgia. He receiveda B.A. in economics in 1975 from Harvard University (summa cum laude) and aPh.D. in economics in 1979 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Before becoming a member of the Board, Dr. Bernanke was the Howard Harrison and Gabrielle Snyder Beck Professor of Economics and Public Affairs andChair of the Economics Department at Princeton University (1996-2002). Dr.Bernanke had served as a Professor of Economics and Public Affairs atPrinceton since 1985.

Dr. Bernanke has published many articles on a wide variety of economicissues, including monetary policy and macroeconomics, and he is the authorof several scholarly books and two textbooks. He has held a GuggenheimFellowship and a Sloan Fellowship, and he is a Fellow of the EconometricSociety and of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Dr. Bernankeserved as the Director of the Monetary Economics Program of the NationalBureau of Economic Research (NBER) and as a member of the NBER's BusinessCycle Dating Committee. Dr. Bernanke's work with civic and professionalgroups includes having served two terms as a member of the MontgomeryTownship (N.J.) Board of Education.

Dr. Bernanke and his wife, Anna, have two children.

Could Dick Cheney be stepping down?

There are currently rumors that Vice-President Cheney may resign soon. Many are speculating as to why this is even being considered, but I think I have an idea. This is only speculation, and not based on any hard evidence, nor any reports that I have heard as of yet.

I don’t think this has anything to do with the Valerie Plame case, though I could be wrong. It has been reported that Lewis “Scooter” Libby along with Carl Rove, leaked the CIA agent’s name. Libby, being Cheney’s Chief of staff, has caused a stir as to what directions or instructions he had.

What I think it is, or why he would be stepping down, is more of a self-viewed sacrificial move for the party. Right now, everyone sees the Republican Party slowly disintegrating. Possibly the 2006 elections could turn the Congress and the House back to a Democratic majority, which would take the power away from the Republican Party. Then there is the rumor that Hillary Clinton may be heading up the presidential ticket for the Democratic Party in 2008. Cheney himself stated in a vice-presidential debate in 2004 that he had no interest in running for president, and traditionally, the vice-presidential spot is a sort of grooming spot for a presidential candidate for the sitting party. So, what I think is happening, Alabama native, and secretary of State, Condeleza Rice is going to be put in the No. 2 spot to prep her to run head to head against Hillary in 2008, though I think it is a stretch for the grassroots Republicans to support a minority female as their president. What I mean by that is, a majority of the red states, are typically known as racist states, plus the party itself typically slams women in politics and portrays them as inept.

Now, another option could be Cheney’s ties to Haliburton, and the fact he does have an interest in the company still. He is still on their payroll, and they or their subsidiaries, are getting more no-bid contracts than any one company in the history of America. To be fair to Haliburton and it’s subsidiaries, there aren’t many other companies out there that are large enough to fulfill some of these contracts as quickly as they do, but also the smaller companies wouldn’t blatantly waste money like Haliburton does either. They we used even when Clinton was in office, so it’s not like they just showed up on the map, they just showed up on the radar.
God I love political crap!

This is the funniest clip I have seen in a long time. Enjoy!


Chicken Genocide


Brian

Today was an eye opener for me. I learned that I need to read more of the acts passed by congress, just to see what kind of shit they are slipping by us. Well, here is something they did slip by us;

See section 9528


Well, if you are as fired up as I was when you read this, there is help. A great website named
Leave My Child Alone. in this website you can find several resources, including opt out forms, to disallow this practice.

Reading this, and I know it was passed years ago, just reaffirms how politicians, and republicans in general, believe we as citizens do not have a right to privacy. With the Republican led senate, congress and house, we are screwed. No party, and I say again, no party should have complete control over the government.

Fortunately for my daughters school, I write the monthly newsletter and will be heading up a letter campaign. Please do something to protect your child, you don't want a recruiter calling them on the cell phone without your consent.

Brian

Intercepted letter

A few days ago a letter was intercepted that was from Bin Laden, to Abu Musab Zarkawi. Here is a link to it;


Letter to Abu Musab

The letter is interesting, to me, on several levels. Not only the composition, but also the content. I would also be interested in how it was "intercepted" and if it is a red herring.

Firstly, I gather by the letter that God is on their side. He is apparantly blessing the muslims extremists left and right. From what Bush is telling me on the news, God is on our side, Americas side. That would mean God is for democracy, because it surely isn't a holy war started by the christian right. Oddly enough, I haven't read anything in the bible about democracy. I think God must be torn on this one, or either one side is going to be really disapointed. But, if you go by my Senators statement, it is still not apparant which side God is on, there are many dying on both sides of natural disasters. (I am not making light of those horrible disasters, just light of the nimrod, saying they were planned and intentional.)

Secondly, the letter doesn't really lay out a plan, but more of a "this is what I would do" scenario. Though if they get us out of Iraq, are the other steps necesarilly needed? I was under the impression, they just want us out, and who can blame them. I mean if China came to America to instill Comunism for all of our "freedom", we would be in the same boat.

Thirdly, Why are they still sending letters that are being "captured". I believe this was intentional for us to see. There isn't much content other than the polite compliments, the how are yous, and this is what I would do.


I personally believe we will be withdrawing before the first of the year, a lot of people have died for the weapons of mass destruction/ Iraq helping Al Qaida destroy the towers/control of oil to raise the prices for profit........... God this could go on.


Brian

Alabama should be ashamed.......

There was a poll taken that asked Alabama residents if they agreed with Sen. Erwin. Here is the poll in its entirity;. Sad, just plain sad;

Poll asks: Was Hurricane Katrina God's punishment for sin?

Sep 28, 2005

Here Are The Results of the SurveyUSA News Poll

Almost a third of Alabamians agree with Sen. Erwin.


32% Yes
62% No
6% Not Sure

State Senator Hank Erwin says Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment of sin, because, quote, "NewOrleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast have always been known for gambling, sin, and wickedness." Do you believe Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment of sin?


chart


How this poll was conducted: This SurveyUSA poll was conducted by telephone in the voice of a professional announcer. Respondent households were selected at random, using Random Digit Dialed (RDD) sample provided by Survey Sampling, of Fairfield CT. All respondents heard the questions asked identically. Within the report, you will find: the geography that was surveyed; the date(s) interviews were conducted and the news organization(s) that paid for the research. The number of respondents who answered each question and the margin of sampling error for each question are provided. Where necessary, responses were weighted according to age, gender, ethnic origin, geographical area and number of adults and number of voice telephone lines in the household, so that the sample would reflect the actual demographic proportions in the population, using most recent U.S. Census estimates. In theory, with the stated sample size, one can say with 95% certainty that the results would not vary by more than the stated margin of sampling error, in one direction or the other, had the entire universe of respondents been interviewed with complete accuracy. There are other possible sources of error in all surveys that may be more serious than theoretical calculations of sampling error. These include refusals to be interviewed, question wording and question order,weighting by demographic control data and the manner in which respondents are filtered (such as, determining who is a likely voter). It is difficult to quantify the errors that may result from these factors. Fieldwork for this survey was done by SurveyUSA of Verona,NJ.


Copyright2005 SurveyUSA, All Rights Reserved. SurveyUSA and the SurveyUSA logo are registered trademarks.

Brian

God spoke to Bush?

I found this article, highlighting an upcoming BBC special about Bush and how God told him to do what he has done. Here is the link.
http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=1215163

If this is true, I have a few problems with it. First of all, wasn't the reason we wen't into Afghanastan was to hunt and capture Osama BinLaden? Then we went into Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction they were harboring.

What this means is that either we were lied to about the reasons we are in Iraq,(big surprise) or that Bush is lying to the folks in the Middle East (another big surprise). I seem to remember that Bush suffers from dyslexia and if that is so, well, I 'll keep the cheap jokes to myself.

I am always amazed at the reaching lies I hear. I wish some official would just be honest and say," We are an oil dependant country, and we have occupied Iraq to secure oil reserves for our use."

How would America react if say, China or Russia came in, took the President out of power, and said they were trying to free us. They wanted to help set us up with a communist state, and show us a better and fair way of life. We all would take up arms and defend our country, regardless of political lines.

Why is it so hard for the administration to understand they are not wanted in Iraq. Just because their country and government is run differently, does not mean they want to change it. I am not surprised one bit at the problems that have been run into with the rebellion that is in Iraq.

I have veered off of my original thought, so I will wrap it up before I get way off track.

Brian

Gonzales v. Oregon

Gonzales v. Oregon 04-623

This case is before the Supreme Courtand is about state-assisted suicide, or more plainly, the states allowing doctor-assisted suicide. The justices will be deciding whether the federal courts could/should block, or control, the states in this matter. John Ashcroft originally brought up this case, and then Alberto Gonzales has taken over.

Chief Justice John Roberts thrust himself in the middle of his first major oral argument he has presided over. He asked over a dozen tough questions, and seemed to be a defender of federal authority to block state-assisted suicide. Roberts has just recently replace William H. Rehnquist who recently passed as a result of thyroid cancer.

Antonin Scaliaand Roberts both seem to be skeptical of Oregon's claims. To me, from what I have read they seem tobe trying to find a black and white line for this issue, which is tricky. Morphine was one example that was used. Morphine can be used to make someone comfortable, but with too large of a dose, you will die. So their stance seems to be let the federal government regulate narcotics that are prescribed.

SandraDay O'Conner seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but with the new judicial nominee, Harriett Miers, the vote could be delayed until she is sworn in. Should that happen, what O'Conner would vote would be irrelevant.

Three of the sitting judges have personally battled cancer. Sandra Day O'Conner (breastcancer), John Paul Stevens (prostate cancer), and Ruth Bader Ginsberg(colon cancer) survived their battles, and have personal experiences with these terrible diseases in which many die from regularly. StephenBryer's wife is a counselor for children with cancer.

My interest in this case is pretty high due to having seen several relatives die of terminal diseases, and watching the end of life experience. My grandfather had succumb to prostate cancer after a long battle, my grandmother had a long battle with ALS (Lou Gehrig'sdisease), my other grandfather died of acute renal failure (his kidneys quit working), my last surviving grandmother is in the throws of dementia and Alzheimer'sand my wife's only surviving grandmother is in the beginning stages ofAlzheimer's

The case that Iwill share is why I believe stronglyin the patients right to die. My grandfather had a quadruple bypass surgery in 1993. All was well, but they discovered he was diabetic at this time, as well as hypertensive. Then in 2001 he was going to the hospital for an angiogram to see if his heart was health enough for a valve surgery, had a mishap when they injected the die, and his kidneys shut down. So then as he teetered on death, the conundrum arose. He could not have heart surgery because he had no kidney function, and he could not have a kidney transplant because he did not have a healthy heart. So dialysis was his onlyoption, and that only works for a few years on average.

Anyway, fast-forward a couple of years and he finally decided to stop torturing himself. When he would get the transfusions, the last few times that he did, he would pass out, and the doctors told him it was just a matter of time. He made the decision to stop dialysis, which I admired him for such a brave decision. Brave based on the fact that our most primitive instinct is to survive, and he openly accepted the inevitable, and chose to not fight it. Well, the doctors said with no dialysis it could be two days to two weeks, and unfortunately, it was two weeks. Fourteen days to be exact. We could not give him water, only a moistened sponge on his tongue. He was miserable,and on day 7 asked me how much longer until it was over. I had no answer. He asked my cousin to shoot him,which wasn't an option, but he was desperately hurting. When he finally passed, I was both sad for his loss, yet relieved he wasn‚t suffering anymore.

Had he been able to be administered the endof life medication when he decided to end it,he would not have suffered, and the end result would be the same.Personally, I believe if a terminally ill patient, who has been diagnosed with certain death, with absolutely no chance of survival orrecovery, it is absolutely asinine not to allow the patient this humane option.

Why is it we will kill a dog after he has been hit by a car, or has a cancer or the such, and call it humane, but when it comes to doing the same for a human we call it murder, or at least our laws. We would rather keep a human on a machine to extend life past its natural intention, even against the patients‚ wishes. A good example of that is the Terry Schaivo case.



So back to the case,

I believe the votes will go like this.

Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens against Oregon

And Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and O'Conner for Oregon



Which will be a 5 to 4 ruling against state rights. I have come to this conclusion from the Raich case from 1996, and assuming Scalia will uphold his belief in states rights. Also I believe Roberts will vote opposite ofhow Rehnquist voted in Raich, though we may find he has different beliefs. Either way, I think Oregon will loose, but time will tell.

Brian

Hurricanes Rain on Bush's Tax cut Parade

I found this and just had to post it word for word, of course with credit to the author. This is a well researched article, that demonstrates why supply side economics do not work. A good read, and at the least interesting.

Hurricanes Rain on Bush's Tax Cut Parade
By David Sirota, In These Times. Posted October 4, 2005.

When President Bush kicked off his bid for re-election in the spring of 2004, he launched what was another in a long line of cookie-cutter conservative campaigns. There was the predictable pander to cultural conservatives with his high-profile introduction of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Then, there was the well-worn chest-thumping on national security and the War on Terror (sans any mention of the still-at-large Osama bin Laden).
And then, finally, there was the most familiar theme of all: right-wing economics.
Bush proudly promoted the trillions in tax cuts he had passed as supposedly helping the economy, and then went on the attack. "The tired, old policies of tax and spend," Bush said, referring to Democrats, "are a proven recipe for economic disaster."
The implication in Bush's statement is one America has been hearing for years from the right: namely, that conservatives' agenda of tax and spending cuts is not tired, but rather somehow "new," and is, most importantly, a path to success.
But with New Orleans residents still bailing water from their streets, that seemingly impenetrable axiom of American politics has crumbled almost as quickly as the infrastructure supposedly protecting our Gulf Coast during Hurricane Katrina. "Tax and spend" was not the recipe for economic disaster -- tax and spending cuts were.
This is a reality visible in the numbers. Year after year, the Bush administration insisted on massive tax cuts for the wealthy. And year after year, the White House refused to provide the funding government experts said was needed to strengthen levees, beef up hurricane preparedness and get federal emergency response ready for an onslaught from Mother Nature. America's budget surplus, built in the '90s to serve as a rainy day fund, was robbed to provide more and more giveaways to the rich. When the rainiest day of them all came, our country was left totally -- and unnecessarily -- vulnerable.

2001 and 2002: Denial

Casual observers wouldn't expect Mike Parker to serve as a de facto spokesman for how the Republicans' tax-cuts-at-all-cost agenda has weakened America. As a conservative GOP Congressman from Mississippi in the '90s, Parker was an outspoken advocate for giving tax breaks to the wealthy.He served as one of Newt Gingrich's lead grassroots advocates for reducing the estate tax -- a levy that falls almost exclusively on the wealthiest 1.2 percent of Americans. In his 1999 run as Republican nominee for Mississippi governor, Parker made tax cuts the centerpiece of his campaign. His signature television advertisement featured him shooting pool, saying "When I say I'll fight to cut your taxes, well friend, that's something that you can bank on."
After narrowly losing that race, Parker was rewarded for his Republican service by President Bush, who appointed him to head the Army Corps of Engineers on June 7, 2001. That was the very same day Bush signed his massive $1.3 trillion income tax cut into law -- a tax cut that severely depleted the government of revenues it needed to address critical priorities. As Parker soon learned, one of the priorities that would be sacrificed was flood and hurricane protection.
Overall, Bush's first budget introduced in February 2001 proposed more than half a billion dollars worth of cuts to the Army Corps of Engineers for the 2002 fiscal year. To be sure, these budget cuts were one in a number of cuts to public priorities like health care, human services, infrastructure and job training.

And it is true that the cuts to the corps came as the agency was being legitimately criticized: Some of its projects in recent years had run roughshod over environmental concerns, and others had been unnecessarily expensive products of congressional pork. However, instead of reforming the corps and getting it back on track, the White House used the criticism as a cover to gut the entire agency. The cuts were so deep, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) broke ranks with her party and penned a nationally-syndicated op-ed in April 2001 saying that "lives very likely will be lost."
Consider just a few of the specific examples: In the same budget that provided more than a trillion dollars in tax cuts, Bush proposed providing only half of what his own administration officials said was necessary to sustain the critical Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Project (SELA) -- a project started after a 1995 rainstorm flooded 25,000 homes and caused a half billion dollars in damage. This 2001 budget proposal came in the same year that, according to the Houston Chronicle, federal officials publicly ranked the potential damage to New Orleans by a major hurricane "among the three likeliest, most catastrophic disasters facing this country."
Similarly, less than two weeks after Bush signed his tax cut on June 7, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that "despite warnings that it could slow emergency response to future flood and hurricane victims, House Republicans stripped $389 million in disaster relief money from the budget."
By the beginning of the 2002 congressional session, Parker had enough of sitting in silence while these tax and budget decisions were being made. In a meeting with White House budget director Mitch Daniels, Parker demanded the Bush administration restore the critical money for flood and hurricane protection.
"I took two pieces of steel into Mitch Daniels' office," Parker recalled. "They were exactly the same pieces of steel, except one had been under water in a Mississippi lock for 30 years, and the other was new. The first piece was completely corroded and falling apart because of a lack of funding. I said, 'Mitch, it doesn't matter if a terrorist blows the lock up or if it falls down because it disintegrates -- either way it's the same effect, and if we let it fall down, we have only ourselves to blame.' "
But as Parker noted, "It made no impact on [the White House] whatsoever." In February 2002, the president unveiled his new budget, this one with a $390 million cut to the Army Corps. The cuts came during the same year the richest five percent (those who make an average of $300,000 or more) were slated to receive $24 billion in new tax cuts.
The cuts were devastating. The administration provided just $5 million for maintaining and upgrading critical hurricane protection levees in New Orleans -- one-fifth of what government experts and Republican elected officials in Louisiana told the administration was needed. Likewise, the administration had been informed that SELA needed $80 million to keep its work moving at full speed, but the White House only proposed providing a quarter of that. These cuts came even though the potential cost of not improving infrastructure was known to be astronomical. A widely-circulated 1998 report on Louisiana's insurance risks said a serious storm could inflict $27 billion worth of damage just to homes and cars -- and that didn't include industrial or commercial property. Local insurance executives estimated in 2002 that the total damage would be closer to $100 billion to $150 billion -- estimates that now look frighteningly accurate.
When Parker headed to Capitol Hill for annual budget hearings in February 2002, he couldn't hide the truth. Under questioning, he admitted that "there will be a negative impact" if the President's budget cuts were allowed to go forward. The White House fired Parker within a matter of days.
Some Republicans came to Parker's defense after he was removed. Then-Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said, "Mike Parker told the truth that the Corps of Engineers budget, as proposed, is insufficient." Rep. David Vitter (R-La.) said the administration was "in denial" about the cuts. "There's no two ways about it that [the corps] are very underfunded," he said, noting that "southeast Louisiana flood control [is] our most obvious example."
Vitter was right -- but he was also "in denial" about his own culpability: Just weeks before, he and his Republican colleagues voted for a brand new business tax cut package, costing the federal government $43 billion in revenues that could have gone to fill the budget gaps Parker identified. And those tax cuts were targeted specifically to the GOP's biggest financial backers. According to the Houston Chronicle, the White House-backed legislation was a windfall for Big Business, "reducing total corporate tax collections by 21 percent."
Inadvertently foreshadowing just how closely tied the tax cuts and budget infrastructure negligence really would be, Bush signed this new tax cut two days after firing Parker.

2003: A new flood of cuts

In October 2002, politicians and emergency planners from 10 Louisiana parishes convened a critical meeting with the Bush administration's Army Corps of Engineers to discuss the increasingly precarious position the region found itself in. A month before, a surge from Tropical Storm Isidore -- a storm far tamer than even the weakest hurricane -- came dangerously close to breaching levees in New Orleans. That wasn't necessarily surprising to local residents -- the Times-Picayune had recently completed a five-part series about how budget cuts were allowing the region's hurricane and flood control infrastructure to crumble.
At the meeting, the chairman of Louisiana's Levee Board made things clear to the Bush administration: "If [a hurricane] hit us today, we'd see more water in more places and more lives lost." If there wasn't a serious investment of new resources, he said, "then we're losing our past and our future."
The Army Corps told the levee board that the necessary improvements could cost up to $2 billion -- a large figure, indeed. But not compared to the new tax cut package that President Bush unveiled just three months later.
On January 7, 2003, Bush gave a speech in Chicago outlining a $600 billion tax cut proposal. It was a plan that centered around eliminating taxes on stock dividends. "Nearly two-thirds of the tax benefits would flow to the most affluent five percent of households," noted the Christian Science Monitor. "The top one percent -- with incomes averaging $1 million -- would get 42 percent of the tax-free-dividend goodies [while] only 13 percent of this tax cut would go to people with incomes below $50,000."
For the Gulf Coast in particular, the plan was a disaster. According to the nonpartisan Citizens for Tax Justice, three out of the five states that would receive the least from the new tax cuts were Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Perhaps more importantly, the package would cost cash-strapped states tens of millions of dollars in lost revenues, because many state tax rates were tied to the federal tax code. The Baton Rouge Advocate soon reported that the proposal "could cost the Louisiana state treasury up to $30 million in tax revenues" -- money needed to address the state's infrastructure problems.
Those concerned about Louisiana's safety may have seen the new tax proposal as a reason for optimism. If the White House believed it could afford hundreds of billions of dollars of new tax cuts for the very wealthy, surely it would not plead poverty when it came to spending a few million to plug infrastructure deficiencies its own experts said were critical.
But four weeks after the dividend tax cut plan came Bush's new budget, and another half billion proposed cut to the Army Corps of Engineers. That included a proposal to slice about two thirds of SELA's budget -- such a massive cut that it would effectively halt projects that were reinforcing flood control infrastructure.
By the late spring, the tax and budget cut contrast came into full relief. On May 28, President Bush signed his tax cut into law. Though the overall package had been pared back, the dividend tax break alone would cost $125 billion.
Two days later, the Times-Picayune reported that the administration's own officials announced "that they don't have enough cash to pay for major drainage and hurricane protection projects under way in at least five local parishes" in the New Orleans area. Additionally, the paper noted that "four other major construction projects also will run out of money within the next month," including the Lake Pontchartrain hurricane protection project and two other major levee reinforcement projects. Though Congress ultimately restored some of the money, the message from the White House was clear: Tax cuts would supersede everything.

2004: Tempting fate

The Washington Times headline on January 20, 2004, told it all: "Bush Wants Tax Cuts to Stay." The article reported that even with a war, record budget deficits and dangerously crumbling infrastructure, the president would make a new, $1 trillion tax cut plan the centerpiece of his State of the Union address.
And once again, just days after the speech, the White House on February 2 released a budget with another massive cut to infrastructure and public works projects -- this time to the tune of $460 million. As the Denver Post later reported, "the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control project sought $100 million in U.S. aid to strengthen the levees holding back the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain, but the Bush administration offered a paltry $16.5 million." The Chicago Tribune noted that the Army Corps of Engineers had also requested $27 million to pay for hurricane protection upgrades around Lake Pontchartrain -- but the White House pared that back to $3.9 million. Meanwhile, budget cuts forced the corps to delay seven projects that included enlarging critical levees.
These latest cuts came just as the previous ones were starting to wreak havoc. Five days after Bush's budget was released, the Times-Picayune reported that "the Army Corps of Engineers doesn't have money to keep its dozen major flood-protection projects going" simultaneously.
More bad news arrived in the spring. Gaps in levees around Lake Pontchartrain, which were supposed to be filled by 2004, would not be filled because of budget shortfalls. Corps officials told the Times-Picayune in April "that the lack of money will leave gaps in the structure, weakening its effectiveness and pushing back its completion date." Worse, because budget cuts had been compounding for three years straight, "even after all the gaps are closed, the levee must settle for several more years until it reaches its final height." By June, the newspaper reported that "for the first time in 37 years, federal budget cuts have all but stopped major work on the New Orleans area's east bank hurricane levees."
"We are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us," Jefferson Parish emergency manager Walter Maestri said at the time, desperately begging the Bush administration to reevaluate its budget decisions. As he noted, the budget cuts meant that levee gaps would accumulate and "we'll end up so far behind that we can't catch up. ... And the further behind we get, the more critical the safety of the city becomes."
But almost no one in Washington was listening. Ten days after the Times-Picayune story, the U.S. House passed a $155 billion White House-backed bill to cut corporate taxes. The Senate had passed a similar bill the month before. Republican lawmakers from the Gulf Coast -- who purported to be concerned about infrastructure budget cuts -- all supported the new tax cut.
In September, as congressional negotiators were ironing out the final details of the corporate tax cut, Hurricane Ivan came within a hair of directly hitting New Orleans. The near miss was a bright red flag warning Washington to get its priorities straight, fast. Knight Ridder newspapers reported that Ivan was a very real reminder that "a direct hit by a very powerful hurricane could swamp [the region's] levees and leave as much as 20 feet of chemical-laden, snake-infested water" in its wake. The city's director of emergency preparedness said "it's only a matter of time" unless infrastructure was quickly improved.
Yet, a month later, Bush signed the corporate tax measure into law, draining more revenue from the federal treasury that could have gone to infrastructure upgrades. The tax cut measure, of course, could have included additional provisions to provide money for infrastructure improvements, if that was a priority. But it did not. Instead, Congress attached language written by corporate lobbyists to shower taxpayer cash on special interests. As the Washington Post reported, the bill was larded up with 170 smaller measures that benefit "restaurant owners, filmmakers, brewers, distillers, bow-and-arrow manufacturers, tackle-box companies, native Alaskan whalers, NASCAR track owners, and importers of Chinese ceiling fans." It was about as responsible as buying a home near a forest fire zone and refusing to spend the hundreds needed for fireproofing, but shelling out thousands to install a jacuzzi and add a skylight.

2005: Catastrophe strikes

The weeks and months leading up to Hurricane Katrina were more of the same. The White House focused on a multi-trillion dollar plan to privatize Social Security, and a plan to repeal the federal estate tax.
Meanwhile, as the Financial Times reported, the president proposed a budget that "called for a $71.2 million reduction in federal funding for hurricane and flood prevention projects in the New Orleans district, the largest such cut ever proposed." In addition, "the administration wanted to shelve a study aimed at determining ways to protect New Orleans from a Category 5 hurricane." This, in the face of a March 2005 report by the American Society of Civil Engineers that warned 3,500 dams were at risk of failing unless the government spent $10 billion to fix them.
By the time Katrina struck on August 29, the disaster was already a fait accompli. Though politicians feigned shock and outrage at the federal government's hurricane preparations, there was nothing to be surprised about. The disaster was the consequence of years of putting tax cuts above everything else -- even above a catastrophe we knew was coming.

The aftermath

In the wake of Katrina, the D.C. political establishment has tried desperately to prevent any discussion of tax cuts and budget priorities as the culprits in the disaster.
At first, President Bush claimed, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" -- an insult to the experts in his own administration and elsewhere who had been warning about exactly that for years. When that line fell flat, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan did his best impression of Saddam Hussein's information minister during the Iraq War, insisting, "Flood control has been a priority of this administration from day one."
On Capitol Hill, Republicans simultaneously criticized those who were "playing politics" with the disaster, while pointing fingers at Democratic state and local officials.
Democrats -- many of whom had voted for some of the Bush tax cuts -- attacked the pathetic government response to the catastrophe, but largely refused to hammer the underlying tax and budget decisions that created the conditions for disaster. And the media ate it up, without putting any of it into the context of tax and budget decisions.
To be sure, even if the Bush administration had fully funded basic infrastructure improvements on the Gulf Coast, Hurricane Katrina would have caused serious damage. And most agree that the Army Corps of Engineers has in recent years made some very poor spending decisions, and that the agency is in need of reform.
However, it is downright criminal for Congress and the media to pretend that the Bush administration's tax cut binge and subsequent budget cuts had nothing to do with the catastrophe. The fact is, experts roundly agree that had the administration made different budget decisions, the impact of the hurricane could have been reduced.
For instance, take Joseph Suhayda, an emeritus engineering professor at Louisiana State University who has worked for the Army Corps of Engineers. He told the Chicago Tribune that the reason levees weren't as high as they were designed to be "was a result of lack of funding."
"I think they could have significantly reduced the impact [of Katrina] if they had those projects funded," Suhayda told the Tribune. "If you need to spend $20 million and you spend $4 or $5 million, something's got to give."
Similarly, Mike Parker told the Washington Post, "You have watched during a period of 72 hours a modern city of New Orleans [become] a Third World country, and it is all because of the disintegration of infrastructure." He told the Tribune that "had [the infrastructure] been totally funded, there would be less flooding than you have."
Sour grapes from a disgruntled ex-employee? It is echoed by the president's current Army Corps chief. The Associated Press reported that Lt. Gen. Carl Strock "acknowledge[s] that more funding for the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Project would allow the Corps to more quickly pump out the floodwaters inundating New Orleans."
Some may try to argue that because of New Orleans' sub-sea-level geography, there was no amount of funding or infrastructure improvements that could have protected the city. House Speaker Dennis Hastert foreshadowed this inane assertion when he callously questioned whether New Orleans should even be rebuilt. But that argument asks us to simply forget places like the Netherlands -- one of the oldest industrialized countries in the world that has thrived right on the banks of the tempestuous North Sea, even though half of the country sits below sea level. After a powerful storm breached dikes there in 1953, the Dutch launched a massive project to upgrade its infrastructure. The Associated Press reported that the most critical piece of the project cost today's equivalent of $3.1 billion -- one half of one percent of the tax cuts the Bush administration delivered to the richest one percent of America.
The difference between the Netherlands' prudent investments and our government's tax-cuts-before-everything policies can be seen in the most basic comparisons. USA Today reported that "few levees anywhere in the [United States] are built to more than a 100-year standard -- capable of withstanding a flood so bad that its probability of occurring is once in a 100 years." Better-funded Dutch levees, by contrast, are built to a 1,250-year standard. And while the Netherlands' infrastructure is built to withstand some of the strongest storms, the New York Times reported in September 2005 that "Congress authorized a flood control system to handle only a Category 3 storm"--most likely to save on cost. Additionally, "as a result of federal budget constraints" (that came as the Bush administration was handing out ever-increasing numbers of tax breaks) the flood walls that broke during Katrina "were never tested" and never built to the strength experts made clear was necessary.
Still, even after Hurricane Katrina, none of these facts has shocked conservatives into reevaluating their tax cut zealotry. Instead, they continue to push forward with the insanity, as if nothing happened. In his first interview just days after the disaster, President Bush made sure to tell ABC's Diane Sawyer that he will not consider rolling back his tax cuts to deal with the disaster or beef up infrastructure.
The next week, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) reassured reporters that GOP plans to repeal the estate tax and pass a new $70 billion series of tax cuts were only being postponed temporarily. "There's plenty of time to do everything that we want to do," he said -- not a surprise coming from the same man who, just before the Iraq invasion said "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes."
Make no mistake: This tax-cut-at-all-cost orthodoxy is not supported by the public. Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans support rolling back tax cuts to deal with pressing national priorities. And yet, the political establishment now regularly makes passing tax cuts its sole objective.
If you think that is hyperbole, think again. New Orleans provides only one example of how tax cuts are routinely put ahead of the most pressing public priorities. For proof, just look at the Detroit News' special report before the most recent presidential election. The newspaper reported that in 2004 alone, the richest 10 percent of Americans received tax cuts that were "twice as much as the government will spend on job training, $6.2 billion; college Pell grants, $12 billion; public housing, $6.3 billion; low-income rental subsidies, $19 billion; child care, $4.8 billion; insurance for low-income children, $5.2 billion; low-income energy assistance, $1.8 billion; meals for shut-ins, $180 million; and welfare, $16.9 billion."
And that prompts a critical question: When will this madness end? If a city submerged under water can't shock the insulated political establishment into reevaluating its tax and budget priorities, what can?
The answer is patently clear: The only thing that can prompt a serious debate about taxes is a political opposition that is willing to step forward and draw the tax cut contrast--an opposition that has not yet coalesced. As In These Times goes to press, most high-profile Democrats have refused to explicitly connect the dots. Instead of explaining how Bush's tax cuts contributed to the Katrina disaster, Democrats have proposed a blue-ribbon commission to investigate the government's (albeit pathetic) response--a position that buries the broader debate about priorities.
True, John Kerry did talk about repealing some of the Bush tax cuts during the 2004 campaign. And true, some Democratic voices, including Bill Clinton and even the conservative Democratic Leadership Council, have now started talking about repealing tax cuts to pay for reconstruction and upgrades to America's infrastructure. But as yet there has been no coordinated campaign by the Democratic Party to intensely focus on tax cuts. Instead of calls for repealing the $336 billion in additional tax cuts that will go to the richest 5 percent of Americans in the next five years, most Democrats have mustered only a call for a delay in new tax cuts -- something the GOP agreed to temporarily, but will ignore in a matter of weeks.
These split-the-difference tactics -- which have marked the party's electoral decline over the last decade -- are once again preventing the party from explaining how Democratic leadership would lead to vastly different results for America.
Politicians love to put signs up next to the projects they created saying "your tax dollars at work." The only way for the United States to have the desperately needed debate over budget priorities is if Democrats find the courage to plant a figurative sign in New Orleans' flood-drenched streets that says "your tax cuts at work." Then, and only then, will America's tax debate transform from a theoretical one that features terrific-sounding promises into a concrete one that highlights the very real consequences of a political system that seeks only to enrich the already rich, no matter what the cost to society.

David Sirota was the top spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee. He is currently writing a book on the middle-class economic squeeze for Crown Publishers. Contact him at Davidsirota.com.

Moore and the big Ten

So, Roy Moore wants to be governor of the great state of Alabama. Well he will not be getting my vote, and that is just one of many. Let’s just set the facts out as they are, no Christian overtones, or how great he is.

In the late nineties, Moore was a cicuit judge in northeast Alabama when he fought a lawsuit seeking to remove a woode plaque depicting the commandments from his courtroom. The leagal battle was well publicized, and he championed the suit.

Using his notoriety from this case this republican ran for statewide office in 2000, campaigning as the “Ten Commandments Judge.” This campaign was an easy battle for him, and he was elected to chief justice.

Then in 2001, Roy Moore had a 2.6 ton granite monument made, depicting the ten commandments and placed it in the rotunda of the court house.

A lawsuit was soon filed for its removal, arguing that the marker constituted a government endorsement of Christianity.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled the granite carving was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Moore refused to obey the order but was overruled by his eight colleagues on the state Supreme Court.

"God has chosen this time and this place so we can save our country and save our courts for our children," Moore said.

With Thompson threatening to fine the state $5,000 a day for defying his order, Attorney GeneralBill Pryor and Gov. Bob Riley refused to support Moore.

Moore continued to defy what the higher courts ruled, as a result Moore was suspended by the Judicial Inquiry Commission, which charged him with six ethics violations for refusing the order. (note he was fired for disobeying, not for professing his beliefs.)

Now Moore is going to compete against the very Governor who would not support him for the republican ticket for governor. Siegleman will probably be the democratic horse in the race.

Now, I say do you really want a Governor who has shown utter disregard to authority, a complete disdain and contempt for the court system of which he was bound to? Should a man of such narrow vision, that he reads only from one book, and ignores what his superiors say, get a chance at the helm of the highest position in a state. I say no, this man has demonstrated complete and utter contempt for authority, he has demonstrated a stuborness that our president is using to ruin this fine country.

Sadly, the sheeple will probably vote him in, just due to the bible connection. This is where it gets bad. Seperation of church and state is there to keep government officials from pushing their religion on others. What if I don’t want my daughter to be exposed to the fanaticism of religion in her formative years. What if I plan to let her decide if she wants to believe in faith on her own. Should it be up to these fanatics, I won’t get a say so, and if she doesn’t join in on the prayer, she is an outcast, and that just should not be an issue in school, or much less, our court system!

In the end, I lose. I lose for being the minority in beliefs, opinions, and finacial clout. I lose because I choose not to be a sheep led to the slaughter and accept the mistreatment of bad leadership as “His Will”. I lose because, I can’t pass go and collect two hundred dollars, I an stuck in jail and can’t roll doubles.

Anybody got a get out of jail free card I can trade a copy of the Ten Commandments For?

Brian

Bill Bennett on reducing crime

From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett'sMorning in America:

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about theloss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security,and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that theabortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from thepeople who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fundSocial Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- nevertouches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, itwould be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. Ithink as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue forthe pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cutsboth -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that theymake is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with thishypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up.Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either,because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I doknow that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if thatwere your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country,and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous,and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think,tricky.

Bill Bennett's Morning in America airs on approximately 115 radio stationswith an estimated weekly audience of 1.25 million listeners.


I don’t listen to Mr. Bennett’s show but heard of the comment and I wanted to investigate myself and read the context it was in. Clearly we can take someone’s words, quote them out of context, and make them sound like they said something entirely different. He chose a poor example to explain his point. Let’s say he used caucasion babies, rather than black babies to demonstrate his point, the result would be the same. Hind - sight being 20/20, he should have said that if you allowed every considered abortion, the crime rate would go down.

The guy screwed up with his choice of words, but I think the media is jumping on this due to the recent mess some republicans are finding themselves in. Other than him not being thoughtful about his choice of example, the other beef I have with this situation is the media choosing one sentence, and highlighting only that. Part of this is a result of the media trying to give a story in less than 15 seconds. Not every story is a sound-bite, and not every sound-bite is a story. Being one who tends to be politically left of center, it pains me to say that I think the media is running with this due to the sensationalistic matter that is being featured. You know that old saying, “if it bleeds, it leads”, well, I don’t think there were any bleeding victims that day. Honestly, I would have gone on more about Tom “the Hammer” DeLay a little more.

To sum it up, though what he said was racially insensitive, race should have had nothing to do with what he was trying to discuss. Whether it be a Freudian slip, or just a boneheaded example, he just plain screwed up. Seems to me he is in line with his fellow republicans.

Brian

Hank Erwin

The Storm, Katrina, that was sent by God to kill the sinners who enjoy gambling.

Hank Erwin Republican Senator from my hometown in Montevallo. The biggest ignorant jackass I have ever seen that can read or write. Since the Hurricanes he wrote in a column, the following;
"New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast have always been known for gambling, sin and wickedness. It is the kind of behavior that ultimately brings the judgment of God."
"Warnings year after year by godly evangelists and preachers went unheeded. So why were we surprised when finally the hand of judgment fell?"

So he is saying that only the ones who died were gamblers, sinners and those filled with wickedness. Why did the hurricane sent by the lord almighty not get those who were shooting at the rescue helicopters? This must mean that those few were spared to try and kill the sinners who chose to help in the rescue effort.
Mr. Erwin, and I am only showing respect for the mere fact that you are my elder, Think before you write or speak. God did not do this, it is called a natural disaster. The event is called that because it was caused by nature. Should god have sent it, it would have been called divine intervention. You are intelligent enough to know that what you said wasn’t even close to true. I guess, by your statement, past hurricanes that have hit every other mass of land were sent by god to kill the sinners, and only sinners died in these tragedies. NO, your logic does not stand. Not in that one instance, nor in any instance of natural disasters. God does not cause earthquakes; they are caused by tectonic plate shifts in the Earths crust. But yet many sinners were killed by them, as well as innocent victims.

Apparently, Mr. Erwin has never had a relative die as a result of a hurricane. Now, I don’t wish this on anyone, but it is painfully obvious, his statement was made out of ignorance. He really makes me ashamed of being associated to this state.

The Republican Party, as a whole, is slowly self-destructing, and it’s being exposed as the power hungry, greedy group it is. With the recent indictment of Tom Delay, the exposure of, Lewis Libby and Karl Rove revealing the name of Valerie Plame. Then there is William Bennett with his most recent quote, "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose; you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.". These are all self proclaimed Christians who are clearly not following the rules set forth in their religious tome.

I will research more topics more in depth, and share with you in the future. Please share your opinion with me, good or bad.

A sad, sad situation

There have been a few things on my mind I wanted to share with you guys, and it has nothing to do with sex, porn, alcohol or the combination of any of these. Amazingly enough it has to do with our fellow citizens. Many have heard of the recent tragedies and it is sad. I weep for our nation, and the victims of the awful atrocities. We all know that they could have been avoided, of course hind-sight is always 20/20. Make a small change here, should have done that there, but this is the course we chose. Many people are outraged, and rightly so. I join in on this outrage, so there is only one thing we can do, that is roll up our sleeves and take care of business!
You might be thinking I am referring to the Hurricane, and you would be partly right, but the bigger tragedy is the lame ass excuse for a president. Mr. Arbusto himself. I know that may be a shock to some, but he is more responsible for a lot of the tragedy that developed after the storm hit. His tax cuts stopped the work on building up the levees. His appointees, which make up 73% of the FEMA Executives, are not qualified disaster strategists (or storm folks, as Bush would say). Two hours after the Hurricane hit, the power company in Baton Rouge received a phone call from the Vice-Presidents office to divert electricity to some oil companies, causing two hospitals to be without electricity for two hours. Finally, guess who has the contract with FEMA for clean up after disasters..... you guessed it, Halliburton and Bechtel. Led by Joe Allbaugh, lobbyist for KBR, who was director of FEMA the first two years of the Bush administration.
Now you may be asking yourself, if you are on the religious right, "can this asshole be right?" and sir I submit this asshole is right, and I will give you more evidence. Michael Brown, or "Brownie" as Tex so lovingly calls him, was not Bush's first choice as you previously read. Allbough was Brown's college roommate and Bush's chief of staff as Governor and his campaign director in 2000. So I submit to you both of these gentlemen, were not qualified other than helping Bush pull of the most spectacular scams in the history of man.
But, I'm not calling for impeachment, no that's not what we need. We need an intervention!

To think, all the republicans were pissed because President Bill Clinton got a blowjob, and were screaming for impeachment. But you show complete and utter incompetence, start an unjust war, create the largest budget deficit and national debt in the history of civilization, blame others for the bad stuff, then turn around and accept it, only after you popularity drops to the low 40 percentile. He is still lobbying for his damn personal retirement accounts everyone pretty much laughed about. His whole damn family is in the oil industry, and who is showing record profits, the oil industry. Fuck, when are the republican minions going to realize they are sheep being led to the slaughter, with Christianity as a pretty cover for the agenda. Oh God, I better not get started on that shit... Pat friggin' Roberts, what a goddam joke.

So to summarize, 911, 911, evil doers, stay the course, keep our resolve, 911, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, *dumb smirk* Laura, God Bless America.

We will have our troops out of Iraq by November, or at least withdrawal will begin then, you fuckin' mark that on your calendar. This isn't by his plan, it's by nature screwing up his plan. Some say God sent the Hurricane to get the sinners, well, if that is true, he sure exposed the weakness of the sinners, the President and all of his men.