The insurance folks let me know on Saturday that they'd unhappily pay 1/4 of the cost of an MRI, and 1/2 of the cost of an x-ray. I can't afford either, so I left the hospital with a handful of pill that I didn't want, but had to take, and went home to borrow a boatload of money that I can't afford to pay back.
I live paycheck to paycheck, and there are several days where we hold our breath waiting for the next check to arrive. I don't want to, but, as I've written about before, sometimes there are holes in my employment because Democrats are only nice to you when there's a campaign on, and Republicans are never nice to Democrats, no matter how often the LDS Church leadership tells them to be.
So, I beg family and friends on Saturday to see if I can cover the costs of either an x-ray or the MRI. The hospital wont do the scans or pictures unless they can be guaranteed payment. The only rich folks I know are the same ones who like to tell me that I'm going to hell for being a Democrat). When I finally get a commitment for a loan, on Sunday, we load up in the car and head back to the hospital.
That's when things got really stupid.
Back to the hospital last night where, calling the insurance company again to confirm their part of the payment, the hospital is told that they wont pay any portion of the MRI or the X-Rays because of a preexisting condition. The pre-existing condition being that I was in the hospital the day before with a neck pain that felt like my head was on fire.
So last night and this morning I'm back on the phone to borrow more money that I can't afford to pay back so that I can get the damn picture that, if history is any example, will result in a shrug of the shoulders and another handful of narcotics that don't work and that I don't want.
So, to my friends in the GOP, you'll excuse when I get angry at your continued blathering about letting the market forces shape the health insurance industry without federal regulation or a patient's bill of rights that actually means something.
You'll hopefully excuse me while I wish America had a system where a guy who pays a boatload of taxes can actually go to a doctor or a hospital and get fixed, as opposed to sitting stagnant waiting for his head to explode from either pain or frustration.
You'll excuse me if I pray to God to damn all of you supply siders to hell.
You'll excuse me if I beg you all to buy a coupe of t-shirts for Christmas so that I can cover the cost of the damn MRI and still give my kids something of a Christmas.
And, I hope you'll excuse me for any bad spelling or iffy grammar, due to the fact that I'm writing this on a Blackberry in the hospital's waiting room.
From the International Herald Tribune:
"We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915," Bush said in a brief statement from the White House. "But this resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings and its passage would do great harm to relations with a key ally in NATO, and to the war on terror."
Um ... ok. It breaks down like this, in Bush's "Long War on Words and Proper Usage." Almost 100 years ago, a bunch of folks from Turkey killed an estimated 1.5 million Armenians. But, says Turkey, not so fast:
Turkey has acknowledged Armenian deaths over a period of several years beginning in 1915, as the Ottoman Republic was falling apart. But it vehemently rejects any effort to classify them as genocide. It says that many Turks were also killed at the time.
Um ... ok. The fall of the Ottoman Republic was a pretty messy time but I fail to see how you classify the murder of more than a million people as anything less than an attempted genocide. Societal tizzy-fit just doesn't seem to cover it in the seriousness it deserves. So, why is the Bush administration against the resolution? Easy: We're kinda busy running around the middle of a three sided attempt to depopulate a country at the hands of the people who live there, among other things.
Turkey has been a vital way-station for fuel and material shipments to U.S. forces in Iraq, and the administration has spared little effort to lobby against the resolution.
Um ... ok. We need gas and bullets in Iraq. Setting aside how this President has ignored the lessons of Truman on oversight and honesty, he also seems to forget that the American military can do some amazing things with aircraft. Such as resupplying the combat theater with ares and munitions, for example. Or, fly tens of thousands of sorties to deliver food to Germany because the Russians were being asshats after WWII. You know, stuff like that.
Now, much like America tried to ignore the genocide of the Native Americans and our shameful and prolific involvement in slavery, so to do the Turks want to remain in denial about the proper descriptive of mass murder in an attempt to wipout an ethnic class of people by other people in the neighborhood. You know: Genocide.
The State Department secured the signatures of the eight living former secretaries of state on a letter opposing the resolution. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have been speaking out against it for months.
The Turkish president, Abdullah Gul, wrote to Bush to thank him for his efforts opposing the resolution and to draw "attention to the problems it would create in bilateral relations if it is accepted," according to a statement from Gul's office.
Um ... ok. President Gul sent a note to the President of America that basically said: "Don't talk about that thing that happened, or I'll get pissy," and the President starts working his ass off to keep Congress from passing the resolution. Now, after all that, after watching our president pussy foot around this, I have a couple of observations and a question:
Observations:
1.) There are at least two current "genocide" - like situations going on the world right now, with several more on the tipping point, inches from numbers of deaths in the hundreds of thousands;
2) This mentality by the administration underlines and defines, partially, the "why" of "why aren't we [the US] doing something about all of these people being slaughtered?" We blew it in the Congo, in Rwanda, we're blowing it in Burma, Darfur, Somalia, and on and on, mostly, it seems, because either we're afraid of words or we don't care about dark skinned people;
3) We're in a couple of different wars in a couple of different countries in this very same region, that are looking more and more like a rejected script for "Laurel and Hardy Go To War In The Middle East" co-staring the Keystone Cops;
4) Genocide, mass murder, whatever you want to call it is bad, very, very bad and, if at all possible, should be intervened upon to make it stop, especially the ones happening right now this very moment;
So, here is my question:
With everything we know about what happened then and everything we know about what is happening now, all over the world; and everything we're involved at this point in time, what the hell is the Democratic Congress doing trying to define a 100 year old genocide a genocide?
From Iraq to SCHIP; from Afghanistan to Burma, to Darfur, to Katrina, to failing infrastructure, to Korean nukes, to the slipping dollar, to the rising Euro, to Linsay Lohan staying in Utah, to the fact that working over 70 hours a week I still can't make ends meet; to everything in the world that is happening RIGHT NOW:
What in the hell is going on up there?
This is an important issue in the abstract. It's something we can do in 2009 when we're running the show. So, please, knock it off and get back to work.
- From TIME.com - V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame
It' s hard to imagine an American weapons program so fraught with problems that Dick Cheney would try repeatedly to cancel it â�" hard, that is, until you get to know the Osprey. As Defense Secretary under George H.W. Bush, Cheney tried four times to kill the Marine Corps's ungainly tilt-rotor aircraft. Four times he failed. Cheney found the arguments for the combat troop carrier unpersuasive and its problems irredeemable. "Given the risk we face from a military standpoint, given the areas where we think the priorities ought to be, the V-22 is not at the top of the list," he told a Senate committee in 1989. "It came out at the bottom of the list, and for that reason, I decided to terminate it." But the Osprey proved impossible to kill, thanks to lawmakers who rescued it from Cheney's ax time and again because of the home-district money that came with it â�" and to the irresistible notion that American engineers had found a way to improve on another great aviation breakthrough, the helicopter.
After decades of trouble-plagued development, the V-22 Osprey is headed for Iraq.
Now the aircraft that flies like an airplane but takes off and lands like a chopper is about to make its combat debut in Iraq. It has been a long, strange trip: the V-22 has been 25 years in development, more than twice as long as the Apollo program that put men on the moon. V-22 crashes have claimed the lives of 30 men â�" 10 times the lunar program's toll â�" all before the plane has seen combat. The Pentagon has put $20 billion into the Osprey and expects to spend an additional $35 billion before the program is finished. In exchange, the Marines, Navy and Air Force will get 458 aircraft, averaging $119 million per copy.
Read the REST HERE
I guess in a few weeks I'll be able to cash in all these annoying Canadian coins I have in a jar in the basement.
Oh, and, to add a little spice to your day, China is about to call in our multi-trillion dollar deficit loans because we're pissed about poison children's toys. And so it begins: China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales.
Welcome, America, to the beginning of Great Depression II: How the Republicans Fuc*ed Up America Again.
The Administration has had people kidnapped and tortured in countries all over the world; they have pushed for legislation calling for torture to become SOP in cases of detained brown-skin peoples; and they have been consistent in messaging that, if you don't like the illegal and "Jack Bower" style of "shoot from the hip and damn the consequences" government that Bush Co. and Friends provides: "well then, pardner, ya'll are a freedom hatin', jihadist blowing, candy assed sissy, now, ya' hear?"
Now, I throw into the mix the following from the Politico:
Congressional Democrats searching for legal ways to force President Bush's senior advisers to testify before their committees have few good options and one really odd one.
"The sergeant at arms could stick [former White House counsel] Harriet Miers in the basement, lock her up and wait until she's ready to talk," said University of Missouri-Columbia law professor Frank Bowman, describing the little-known legislative power called "inherent contempt."
With all that in mind, consider the recent Contempt of Congress acts perpetuated by Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, Josh Bolton, and others for no-showing their subpoenaed appearances before Congress, committing perjury, etc. etc. and you begin to see that the White House is almost begging the Congress to start flexing its Constitutional Muscle.
Democrats are left with two equally improbable options: Jail the officials or sue the administration. Either option would put two relatively obscure Hill lawyers, House General Counsel Geraldine Gennet and Senate General Counsel Morgan Frankel, at the center of a political circus.
In July, the House Judiciary Committee found Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in criminal contempt for failing to respond to the committee's subpoenas. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has suggested that she supports the idea of contempt, so the resolution could move to the full Congress.
So, consider, if you will, that Congress sacks up and initiates "inherent contempt" and jails these lawless chuckleheads. These guys have information on serious breeches of Constitutional Law, violations of basic, American Rights, and other diabolical schemes that we, as a law abiding public, can only imagine in our darkest thoughts. Got that all in your head. Good. Add this:
These folks all think that torture is a fantastic method for extraction of information. They love torture. Torture is what makes their Onanism reach fruition, if you know what I mean, and, if we arrest them (which we should) and then we DON'T torture them, say, with dogs, humiliation, water-boarding, electrical shocks to their reproductives, and beating the hell out of them, then, 1.) They will continue to have no respect for Congress; 2.) They'll hold onto their information; 3.) They'll never learn their lesson about what happens when you mess with America.
Sound good? Hell no it doesn't, bit I think, personally, that it'd work.
Democrats have the majority in both the House and the Senate, but, those majorities are near meaningless in the House and completely meaningless in the Senate. In the House, Democrats are unable to drum up a veto- proof majority on important legislation and in the Senate; Democrats are in a tie, with one Senator in a coma, and unable to garner the 60 needed votes to get stuff done.
Therefore, the President is still doing whatever the hell he wants to (with Cheney pulling the strings).
With all that in mind, as I watched the Democrats pass modified versions of the 100 Hours legislation, I started thinking that maybe impeachment wasn't a bad idea. I kicked the idea around, hesitant because of the lesson of violent backlash the GOP suffered from the Clinton impeachment, and knowing that Democrats were vulnerable.
Then I saw the Hannity / Anderson "debate," I was horrified to realize that a high percentage of Americans are in the advanced stages of voluntarily enacted mental retardation. Hannity spent his time insulting half of the audience and talking in bumper stickers. Anderson gave a well researched and, for the most part, logically delivered case. A case, if you will, that could be presented in court, as compared to Hannity's "case" which you could only present on the back of a giant 4Ã--4 SUV or Ford 350.
So, with Congressional approval ratings in the tank because they havn't done anything to halt the Administration's lawless rampaging and a President operating with derisive and condescending premeditation in violating the law, I think we're screwed and that there is only one way to fix it.
Impeachment.
For my right wing friends that shit themselves in anger every time they hear the word "impeachment" I know I can't change your mind, but, do me a favor: Watch the presentation with an open mind and consider the argument. I know it won't make you support impeachment, but, it's good food for thought.
At the very least, maybe you'll get to the point where you can all apologize for impeaching Clinton for having consensual relations with a chubby intern. You know, when weighed in the balance with this:
VIDEO: Link
From the N.P.R.:
NPR.org, August 6, 2007 · U.S. military officials have lost track of at least 110,000 AK-47 rifles and 80,000 pistols sent to help Iraqi security forces fight insurgents, according to federal report.
In a July 31 report to lawmakers, the Government Accountability Office revealed that its analysis of Defense Department and Multinational Force-Iraq records showed at least 190,000 weapons issued from June 2004 through December 2005 are missing.
The GAO, Congress' investigative arm, also said protective gear for Iraqi police and security forces cannot be accounted for. The analysis of Multinational Security Transition Command-Iraq property records showed that 135,000 pieces of body armor and 115,000 helmets are also missing, the report said.
"DOD and MNF-I cannot ensure that Iraqi security forces received the equipment as intended," the report stated.
Read the REST
This is what is known, in military circles, as a bad thing. You would have thought, if you were paying attention, that the theft of several thousand pounds of munitions in 2004, that are currently being used in IEDs against Americans, would inspire the REMF's to keep a pretty tight eye on the arsenal.
You would have thought that, and, it turns out, you would have wrong as hell.
Thursday and Friday nights were hosted by Republican Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Republican Congressman Chris Cannon, so, whatever the reasons, KSL is putting up against some pretty title heavy guys.
It's been about 12 years since I've done anything on the radio aside from an interview, so, the potential for me to suck out loud at 50,000 watts is pretty big. I hope you'll spend a couple of hours with me tonight. I'm sure it's going to be a lot of fun.
There are a few different ways to listen:
Salt Lake Area: 102.7 FM
Greater Utah / Idaho / Wyoming: 1160 AM
The rest of the planet: www.ksl.com for live streaming content in a variety of formats.
Podcast: Link
I hope you all have a little time to tune in.
--
Jeff Bell
www.jmbell.org
Nearly every aspect of my life involves using the Internet, from spending time with far away family down to the very living I make to support my family.
I pay for my access and I pay for my hosting and then, like everyone else, the Internet is what I make it, based on my own hard work and dedication. It is, in it's quintessential nature, a more level playing field than any other aspect of American Life.
America is already behind most of the world in Internet technology and access because of the very same companies that want to add their own "pay more to play less" restrictions on what is becoming the last free speech zone available to a nearly global audience.
I need the Internet neutral to survive and provide for my family. AT&T, Verizon and Comcast don't much care about those sort of things.
Net Neutrality is essential to free speech, equal opportunity and economic innovation in America. Since the FCC removed this basic protection in 2005, the top executives of phone and cable companies have stated their intention to become the Internet's gatekeepers and to discriminate against Web sites that don't pay their added tolls.
This fundamental change would end the open Internet as we know it. It would damage my ability to connect with others, share information and participate in our 21st century democracy and economy. The FCC must ensure that broadband providers do not block, interfere with or discriminate against any lawful Internet traffic based on its ownership, source or destination.
*I poached a little language from Save The Internet in the last two paragraphs. You should pop over there and share your stories. You can find a link here: www.jmbell.org/blog
Reading a little Bob Geiger today, as I do so often, and it made me think of Congressperson Jim Matheson in a sad way. It also made me think of Congresspersons Cannon and Bishop in a head shaking, �you bastards� kind of way. Let�s see if you can figure out why.
From Geiger via Crooks and Liars:we hear a little missive from Sherrod Brown (D-OH),
Audience Member: �In 2006, when you were still a member of the House of Representatives you voted for the Military Commissions Act, which had as one of its elements, the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Given your recent efforts to restore Habeas Corpus, would you still cast that same vote today.�
Brown: �No, I was wrong.�
Period.
Now that wasn�t so hard, was it?
There was a splendid little get together at the White House last night, and boy does it sound like it was a great time. Members of Congress stopped by the South Lawn for a little New Orleans themed Bar-be-Q, complete with famous NOLA Chef Paul Prudhomme and music by also famous New Orleans jazz band Kermit Ruffins and the Barbeque Swingers. Everyone was having a wonderful time, I am told, until the President decided to have a little chuckle:
South Lawn
June 19, 2007
8:10 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for coming. Laura and I welcome you to the South Lawn. This is an opportunity to thank the members of Congress and their families for serving the United States.
First, I want to recognize the Speaker. [...]
I want to thank our Chef, Paul Prudhomme, from New Orleans, Louisiana -- one of the great chefs in America. Thanks for coming, Paul. (Applause.) I thank Tony Snow and his bunch of, well, mediocre musicians -- (laughter) -- no, great musicians. Beats Workin, thanks for coming. (Applause.) Kermit, come up here. Kermit, we're proud to have you.
MR. RUFFINS: Well, thanks for having us.
THE PRESIDENT: Kermit Ruffins and the Barbeque Swingers, right out of New Orleans, Louisiana. (Applause.)
MR. RUFFINS: Thank you. Thanks for having us. We're glad to be here.
THE PRESIDENT: Proud you're here. Thanks for coming. You all enjoy yourself. Make sure you pick up all the trash after it's over. [...]
END 8:12 P.M. EDT
Yup. Just like New Orleans. Good Job, POTUS, you certainly nailed THAT Katrina reference.
I was reading the paper and watching KSL "news" this morning and they were both reporting on Linda Mulkey's personal campaign against people talking on the phone while driving their cars.
In case you don't remember, Linda Mulkey lost her daughter earlier this year in a car accident caused by a 19 year old driver who ran a red light because he was talking on his cell phone.
In September of 2005, Mayor Peter Corroon signed an Executive Order banning employees of Salt Lake County from talking on cell phones while driving. I wondered, at the time, why he didn't pass a county-wide ban, but, I didn't wonder very hard. I'd read a few studies showing how much more distracted people get while driving and talking then they do with other task, but, Mayor Corroon was widely praised and I didn't give it much thought.
When Mayor Corroon signed his Executive Order, I imagine it freaked out the cell phone lobbyists. They put in a call to their good buddy Utah State Representative Wayne A. Harper and said, likely, "Do something!"
Harper called his buddy Utah State Senator Michael G. Waddoups, and they crafted HB 423 for the 2006 Legislative session, a sneaky bill banning Utah Cities and Towns from enacting cell phone/driving bans.
HB 423 is sneaky for a reason. It popped up out of the ether and, if you read the time stamps on the bill, was pushed at the most distracting times during the session to make sure that everyone was busy with budgets and taxes, and not paying attention to stealth legislation. That's the Majority way up on Utah's Hill.
When Mayor Rocky Anderson signed his Executive Order earlier this year, he was joined by Linda Mulkey, to pay some small, insignificant tribute to the lesson learned from her daughter's loss of life.
The reaction from the press was predictably less warm than that given to Mayor Corroon two years earlier, but, for Rocky, not too bad. The problem is, they missed the point. Again.
Yes, Rocky wanted to pass a city-wide ban. With information on the dangers that arise from driving while talking, and their near mirror with drunk driving, recent tragic events in the valley where people died, it seemed a no-brainer.
We, as a society, don't allow people to drive drunk with severe consequences (depending on the judge) but, with near identical levels of distraction and loss of ability, we're ok with cell phones.
Additional studies are showing that talking on the phone while driving is a distraction unlike many other driving distractions, but something keeps a majority of the population from believing that they could be dangerous on the road.
"Everyone else talking on the cell is dangerous, but not me, I pay attention." This is, coincidentally enough, much the same belief that a drunk driver holds. Sadly, it's not grounded in reality.
Tomorrow, at 10am at the City / County Building on State Street, Mayor Anderson is having another press conference on the cell phone/driving issue. He's rolling out a program called SLC Cell Safe. This is a voluntary program where businesses, citizens and students between the ages of 16 and 18 can take a pledge to put down the cell phone while driving and receive a fancy decal for their cars.
It seems so small a thing when you look at the statistical reality that is distracted driving, but, hopefully it will help raise awareness and inspire people to change their behavior before, like Linda Mulkey, that behavior impacts a family with devastating effects.
Posts
