Ms. Collins, in “A Tale of Two Turkeys,” says turkey-pardoning is supposed to be a long-running tradition, but it officially only goes back to George (the Good One) Bush.  Mr. Kristof, in “The Religious Wars,” says traditionally, religious wars were fought with swords and sieges; today, they often are fought with books.  Here’s Ms. Collins:

On Wednesday, President Obama pardoned his first Thanksgiving turkey.

There is something wrong with this concept.

Here is how our beloved national tradition works: One lucky turkey gets to live — and fly first class to Disneyland, where he is grand marshal in the Thanksgiving Day parade (I am not making this up). While another nameless bird gets slaughtered in his place.

It’s “A Tale of Two Cities,” except somehow I doubt that the doomed turkey volunteered for the job.

Who mourns the Backup Bird? What fickle finger of fate decided that he should literally get the ax, while the one who was supposed to go next lives happily ever after on the Big Thunder Ranch in Frontierland?

The president did not seem all that thrilled with his role. “There are certain days that remind me of why I ran for this office. And then there are moments like this, where I pardon the turkey and send it to Disneyland,” he said.

His daughters, who were trotted out as the alleged champions of the turkey pardon, looked as if they’d be perfectly happy to retract. Malia, who noted that the bird reminded her of “a large chicken” seemed particularly unenthusiastic.

The National Turkey Federation named the bird Courage, perhaps in memory of Benjamin Franklin’s contention that the bald eagle was a bird of bad moral character while the turkey was “though a little vain and silly, a bird of courage.” If Franklin’s argument had prevailed and the turkey, rather than the bald eagle, had become the national symbol, would we still be eating them? Would the turkey farmers still be in business? What does eagle taste like, anyway?

These are the whims of fate that we celebrate on the day before Thanksgiving, when one random, somewhat sullen-looking bird gets pardoned while another goes to the presidential dinner table.

The turkey-pardoning is supposed to be a long-running national tradition, but it officially only goes back to George (the Good One) Bush and 1989. Since Thanksgiving is a holiday that’s particularly rich in long-running traditions, 20 years barely counts as an impulsive gesture.

If we want a political tradition, we can do better. Let’s all just gather around the family computer and watch that video of Sarah Palin discussing Thanksgiving in front of a bloody turkey abattoir.

There was actually no mention at the presidential pardon of what the Obamas themselves were going to be eating on Thanksgiving. While the turkey federation traditionally donates a live bird for the ceremony and dead ones for the White House dinner, the oven-ready birds seem to be the ones that the president and the girls were taking to a Washington charity. As to the menu at the White House, a spokesman said it would involve “traditional foods and family favorites,” but declined to give details.

We all know that Obama is extremely logical. He must understand that the only way for this pardoning ritual to make sense would be if he spared the backup turkey, and the backup’s backup, all the way down the line.

Then he could announce the creation of a new vegetarian Thanksgiving to commemorate the day the Pilgrims and the Indians got together over a steaming platter of parsnips.

But since this is keep-it-cool, middle-of-the-road Barack Obama, he would probably skip both the drama and the turkey and go meatless without telling anybody.

After all, if the word got out, who knows how many tea parties it would spark? Birthers would probably claim that no one actually born in the United States would consider celebrating Thanksgiving without a turkey. Glenn Beck would weep over the incipient loss of our freedom to consume really dry meat on a holiday. Rumors would arise that Michelle does not really love her national cuisine.

Whatever they’re eating, the Obamas will undoubtedly discuss the things they want to give thanks for this year. You wonder what the president would say. He can always mention his family. Not every man has daughters loyal enough to accompany him through a cheesy turkey-pardoning.

But when he tries counting his blessings, does the specter of President Karzai rise up through the mashed potatoes? Do the brussels sprouts all look like little versions of Joe Lieberman threatening a filibuster? If it turns out that there is a turkey, and someone inevitably remarks that it looks like the biggest ever, does Obama think they’re talking about the unemployment rate?

It’s not really fair. The president knows he could jump-start the economy, fix health care and do his ambitious energy policy — if only the last administration hadn’t cut taxes, started two wars and created a new, large Medicare entitlement without paying for any of it.

When he’s not making his way through Thanksgiving photo-ops, he’s adding up the numbers over and over in his mind, and sending mental daggers at the Republicans who are yelling at him about deficits that they created.

Although what else could he expect in a Washington that thinks you can pardon your turkey and eat it, too?

Here’s Mr. Kristof:

Just a few years ago, it seemed curious that an omniscient, omnipotent God wouldn’t smite tormentors like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. They all published best-selling books excoriating religion and practically inviting lightning bolts.

Traditionally, religious wars were fought with swords and sieges; today, they often are fought with books. And in literary circles, these battles have usually been fought at the extremes.

Fundamentalists fired volleys of Left Behind novels, in which Jesus returns to Earth to battle the Anti-Christ (whose day job was secretary general of the United Nations). Meanwhile, devout atheists built mocking Web sites like www.whydoesGodhateamputees.com. That site notes that although believers periodically credit prayer with curing cancer, God never seems to regrow lost limbs. It demands an end to divine discrimination against amputees.

This year is different, with a crop of books that are less combative and more thoughtful. One of these is “The Evolution of God,” by Robert Wright, who explores how religions have changed — improved — over the millennia. He notes that God, as perceived by humans, has mellowed from the capricious warlord sometimes depicted in the Old Testament who periodically orders genocides.

(In 1 Samuel 15:3, the Lord orders a mass slaughter of the Amalekite tribe: “Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child.” These days, that would earn God an indictment before the International Criminal Court.)

Mr. Wright also argues that monotheism emerged only gradually among Israelites, and that the God familiar to us may have resulted from a merger of a creator god, El, and a warrior god, Yahweh. Mr. Wright also argues that monotheism wasn’t firmly established until after the Babylonian exile, and he says that Moses’s point was that other gods shouldn’t be worshiped, not that they didn’t exist. For example, he notes the troubling references to a “divine council” and “gods” — plural — in Psalm 82.

In another revelation not usually found in Sunday School classes, Mr. Wright cites Biblical evidence that God (both El and Yahweh) had a sex life, rather like the Greek gods, and notes archaeological discoveries indicating that Yahweh may have had a wife, Asherah.

As for Christianity, Mr. Wright argues that it was Saint Paul — more than Jesus, an apocalyptic prophet — who emphasized love and universalism and built Christian faith as it is known today. Saint Paul focused on these elements, he says, partly as a way to broaden the appeal of the church and convert Gentiles.

Mr. Wright detects an evolution toward an image of God as a more beneficient and universal deity, one whose moral compass favors compassion for humans of whatever race or tribe, one who is now firmly in the antigenocide camp. Mr. Wright’s focus is not on whether God exists, but he does suggest that changing perceptions of God reflect a moral direction to history — and that this in turn perhaps reflects some kind of spiritual force.

“To the extent that ‘god’ grows, that is evidence — maybe not massive evidence, but some evidence — of higher purpose,” Mr. Wright says.

Another best-seller this year, Karen Armstrong’s “The Case for God,” likewise doesn’t posit a Grandpa-in-the-Sky; rather, she sees God in terms of an ineffable presence that can be neither proven nor disproven in any rational sense. To Ms. Armstrong, faith belongs to the realm of life’s mysteries, beyond the world of reason, and people on both sides of the “God gap” make the mistake of interpreting religious traditions too literally.

“Over the centuries people in all cultures discovered that by pushing their reasoning powers to the limit, stretching language to the end of its tether, and living as selflessly and compassionately as possible, they experienced a transcendence that enabled them to affirm their suffering with serenity and courage,” Ms. Armstrong writes. Her book suggests that religion is not meant to regrow lost limbs, but that it may help some amputees come to terms with their losses.

Whatever one’s take on God, there’s no doubt that religion remains one of the most powerful forces in the world. Today, millions of people will be giving thanks to Him — or Her or It.

Another new book, “The Faith Instinct,” by my Times colleague Nicholas Wade, suggests a reason for the durability of faith: humans may be programmed for religious belief, because faith conferred evolutionary advantages in primitive times. That doesn’t go to the question of whether God exists, but it suggests that religion in some form may be with us for eons to come.

I’m hoping that the latest crop of books marks an armistice in the religious wars, a move away from both religious intolerance and irreligious intolerance. That would be a sign that perhaps we, along with God, are evolving toward a higher moral order.

Tag, you're it?

There’s no question that Aaron Kampman will be missed. Even though the former Pro Bowl defensive end struggled in his transition to outside linebacker, he was still the team’s best pass rusher. So for the next six weeks, the defense will have to find a way to slow down opposing offenses without No. 74 in the lineup. But if you’re looking for a silver lining, here it is – Kampman’s knee injury should ensure that free safety Nick Collins will be back next season. “[GM] Ted Thompson almost certainly would’ve used the franchise tag on Kampman,” opined a person familiar with the situation. “Now, if needed, that tag can be placed on Collins.” The former Bethune-Cookman star is scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent in the offseason, but that will only happen if there’s a new collective bargaining agreement. Otherwise, the five-year veteran will be a restricted free agent.

The Packers don’t want to lose Collins, but Thompson has shown little interest in negotiating a long-term deal. “The agent has made it clear that he wants his client to be one of the highest-paid safeties in the NFL,” said the source. “Thompson isn’t willing to go there, and now he has another option. He can slap the tag on Collins and keep him around for at least one more season at a very reasonable price.” The franchise tag for safeties last offseason was a modest $6.34 million. “I don’t think Thompson would have a problem paying around that amount,” added the source. “He likes Collins and the defense needs him. He just doesn’t want to commit an eight-figure signing bonus to a player he doesn’t consider to be great.” Now he doesn’t have to.

Ms. Collins, in “Putting the Fond in Farewell,” says that by announcing that her show’s 25th season will be her last, Oprah Winfrey provided a useful tip in navigating life: Quit while you’re ahead.  Mr. Blow writes “In Defense of New York.”  He says questioning whether New York City can handle the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is an insult. New Yorkers live with the threat of terrorism every day.  Mr. Cohen, in “What Makes Cities Live,” says wholesale gentrification deadens. The fight for the genuine in the world’s great cities is also a fight for jobs, workers and creativity.  Mr. Herbert addresses “An American Catastrophe,” and says Detroit and its environs are suffering because of policies that resulted in the implosion of crucially important components of America’s manufacturing base.  Here’s Ms. Collins:

Few people have spent more time contemplating The Journey of Life than Oprah Winfrey, and on Friday she provided another useful tip in navigating it: Quit while you’re ahead.

At the current moment, this is not necessarily a thought for the masses. Unless something dramatic happens on the economic front, most of us are not going to be able to quit — period.

But the greatest decision a stellar public figure can make is to resist the temptation to keep doing the same thing forever. Even if the fans don’t want you to stop.

One day you’re the champion of the world, the people’s choice. Then, next thing you know, you’re losing a unanimous decision to Trevor Berbick. Or putting “Dictator for Life” on your business cards.

We are talking here about a timely and well-planned leave-taking — like George Washington, refusing a third term. Or the end of “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.”

This is not to be confused with its evil twin sister, the Abrupt Rogue Departure. You cannot get yourself elected governor, serve for two and a half years, disappear for the better part of another and then announce you’re quitting because nobody likes a lame duck. Well, it turns out you can, but it is a really, really bad idea.

“I love this show. This show has been my life. And I love it enough to know when it’s time to say goodbye,” Winfrey told her fans tearily. She’s not actually leaving until the end of season 25, nearly two years from now. Talk about long-term planning.

However, if she really wanted to drive home how much her viewers were going to be losing, she might have picked a more inspiring lead-in to her announcement than a 20-minute interview with Ray Romano. (Along with a promo for an upcoming interview with a woman whose husband was addicted to porn.)

It’s been quite a run for the Oprah brand. The über-guests, the good works. The Obama campaign. Her forays into books (we will really miss the book thing) and spirituality (not so much). She never coasted.

Her next step seems to involve a new cable TV channel. But since Winfrey has — I believe this is an exact figure — a trilliondy-billion dollars, she probably has more than one option.

Her audience, of course, doesn’t want her to move on. Americans are congenitally attached to too much of a good thing: “Law & Order.” Professional sports. Christmas. (The national calendar seems to be divided into two seasons: Baseball and Holiday Shopping.)

The idea that anything popular should stay around until we turn green at the sight of it is not, of course, confined to our culture. The British have Tony Blair and The Spice Girls Reunion Tour.

We do hate change. Even though we know that our demand for more of the same is a treacherous road that will eventually lead to Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct 2.”

Nowhere is the need for the graceful exit more apparent than in our politics. This week Senator Robert Byrd turned 92. He has been in office for more than 50 years. That’s an all-time record for Congress. In fact, it is probably a record for every deliberative body since Athens in the Age of Pericles.

To be fair, this was not entirely his idea. The Democratic Party begged Byrd to stay and hang onto a seat that will probably fall to the opposition when he leaves. But still, this is not a record that we want to encourage other people to aspire to break.

Nothing becomes a politician like a timely departure. If Rudy Giuliani had quit after 2001, we’d still think of him as America’s Mayor instead of the worst presidential candidate in the history of the world.

Imagine how much better Joe Lieberman would look if he had called it a day after the vice presidential run. Or Ross Perot if he had stopped in 1992.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg hasn’t even begun his controversial third term and already he seems to have shrunk to a pocketsize.

And what a revered figure Ralph Nader would be if he had called it quits back in the 1990s. He’d be an icon — the pioneer of consumerism who had the corporation’s number from the get-go, instead of the guy who robbed Al Gore of the presidency and then just wouldn’t stop talking. He could have spent the last 15 years giving inspiring lectures to college students and now it would be time for the comeback tour. People would be flocking to hear him explain how the structure of the American economy failed its people in last year’s collapse.

By the way, you can have a comeback tour if you retire gracefully. Just not one every single year.

Here’s Mr. Blow:

Representative John Shadegg of Arizona really knows how to put on a show.

Earlier this month, he used a live baby as part of a quasi-ventriloquist act on the House floor. Creepy? Yes. Still, we let it slide.

But he doesn’t get two passes in a row. Monday, he took a swipe at Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City for saying that the city could handle the security for the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Shadegg sniped, “I saw the mayor of New York today said ‘We’re tough. We can do it.’ Well mayor, how are you going to feel when it’s your daughter that’s kidnapped, at school, by a terrorist?”

Say what you will about New Yorkers, but question our toughness, you will not.

Whether a civil or military trial would provide the best chances of securing a conviction while simultaneously signaling to the world a righting of America’s moral compass is a fair debate. But questioning whether New York City can handle the trial is an insult.

(By the way, what’s with this business of the mayor’s daughter being kidnapped? It sounds like the plot of a Jackie Chan movie.)

We New Yorkers live with the threat of terrorism every day — on our trains, in our high-rises, in our plazas. But we’ve learned to cope. Not by being afraid, but by being vigilant. Bringing Mohammed to Manhattan isn’t going to move the needle much.

A police spokesman told Reuters that “eight terrorism plots against the city have been scuttled since 2001, including plots to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and the retaining wall at ground zero.”

Yet the city didn’t blink. Schools still opened, trains still ran and the Naked Cowboy still serenaded gaggles of grown women who giggled like schoolgirls.

So Mr. Congressman, how many terror plots have been squashed in your district? Take your time. I’ll wait.

We love this city, and nothing and no one will make us afraid to be in it. We refuse to be cowed by cowards — not by those hiding in the Hindu Kush or by those hyperventilating in the halls of Congress.

And what galls us most is having watched for years as politicians like Shadegg used fear-mongering about 9/11 and the threat of attacks as a political tool.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani used it to sidestep the extreme racial divisiveness he fostered in the city. Former President George W. Bush used it as a Trojan horse to ravage our civil liberties. Dick Cheney is still using it to shield his transgressions.

Let us be clear: The fear tactics that work in the hinterlands don’t work here.

We rose from the ashes of the Twin Towers. We don’t need a puppeteering politician from Phoenix lecturing us about being tough in the face of terror.

Nice alliteration.  He left out “pusillanimous,” though.  Here’s Mr. Cohen:

A couple of blocks and your life changes in this city. New York is worldly but fiercely local. Another borough is as remote as another country. Europe, just across the pond, can seem closer than across town.

Not so long ago, my office was moved a couple of blocks, a little west and a little south, from 43rd Street to Renzo Piano’s handsome light-filled building between 40th and 41st Streets. It proved to be a change of worlds.

The former headquarters was trapped in the neon tentacles of Times Square, a once seedy part of town re-imagined as the tourist-filled set for a movie called “New York,” a place where people from out of town loiter six-abreast gazing at the flashing lights while New Yorkers try to dodge the phalanxes of flesh.

The new premises, as I’ve gradually learned, placed us just within the garment district, an area where zoning laws have protected apparel manufacturing space and so held off the developers who would otherwise have turned clothes factories into condos and created yet another gentrified district bereft of seediness, tawdriness, community and that strange high-low alchemy essential to any great city’s mystery and charge.

I’ve come to love the dull, solid mid-rise brick buildings of the garment district, a universe away from the high-rise glass-and-neon of that other country two blocks away where Planet Hollywood and M&M’s World strut their stuff.

It’s wonderful to wander far from the movie theaters (or so it seems) past emporiums of buttons, palaces of thread, empires of zippers, long pink gowns, canary yellow chiffon skirts (on sale for $10), trimmings, lace, beads, ribbons, fake pearls, glittering belts, shoulder pads and ruffles — not to mention “Spandex World,” and “Leather Impact.” Stores have names like “Joyce Button and Trims.” They look like they’ve been there forever, or at least the American version of forever.

The pleasure, I think, comes from the sense of something still purposeful and authentic, woven by the years — a slither of town between 35th and 40th Streets where designers, manufacturers, small retailers, showroom owners and others interact and create, and where money, big money, has not swept all in its path.

The area still has pungency. It has not surrendered to the great anaesthetizing march of modernity. It has not chased its working class to faraway suburbs. It has not become a hollow movie-set version of an authentic place — a “garment district” cleansed to quaintness, shaped for the well-to-do, complete with guides relating the rich history of immigrants and their sewing machines.

Unlike Paris — where the horse butchers and the tripe restaurants and the hammering of artisans and the garlic-whiff of the morning Métro are long gone — New York preserves, in small enclaves, its shabby splendor. Its center, unlike London, has not become a near-exclusive preserve of the super-rich.

No — miracle of miracles — people here still buy and use sewing machines! A million square feet or so are devoted to garment manufacturing. The jobs have not all vanished to Bangladesh.

It’s funny how we crave the authentic, the unspoiled, the genuine — the un-globalized and un-homogenized and un-gentrified — only to destroy them. And then, as if in remorse, attempt to create unthreatening Disney versions of the authentic, the unspoiled and the genuine. It’s funny how the rich, tired of grilled tuna or Chilean sea bass, weary of New York generic (never simmered, always seared), want to eat like the poor, while the poor just want to be rich.

Speaking of food, the move has also brought deliverance from theme restaurants and chains to a garment-district diversity as wondrous as the ostrich feathers and sequined robes in store windows. Let’s face it: Dives are the last redoubt of genuine fare in New York.

I’ve found a Balkan cellar whose cevapcici (grilled lozenges of minced meat) take me back to Sarajevo days; a deli whose tongue sandwiches remind me of the tongue my mother prepared; a Chinese hole-in-the-wall with heartwarming oxtail on rice; and a Szechuan joint whose duck tongues on a bed of scallion, dressed in a scallion pesto, are a little miracle of many-layered succulence — the reddish-brown Szechuan pepper imparting a numbing-tingling heat, the duck tongues crunchy (about the consistency of frogs’ legs) and gelatinous and looking, in the pesto-green sauce, a little like asparagus tips. If you wish, you may follow that with a fish-head (carp) stew in spiced chili broth that’s hot enough to ease your eyes from their sockets.

Two blocks away they’re eating burgers and Bubba Gump shrimp and never dreaming of this other land just around the corner. You don’t have to travel far to change countries; and you can travel across the world and still find yourself in the globalized mall of bright lights, bland foods and brands.

I’m grateful for my New York journeys and for the zoning laws that make them possible. Wholesale gentrification deadens. There’s an untamed thread that binds button stores and stir-fried intestines with chili: They’re genuine. The fight for the genuine in the world’s great cities is also a fight for jobs, workers and creativity.

It’s sort of telling that Mr. Cohen didn’t seem to be aware of that “other world” a couple of blocks from his old office.  Canalized much, sir?  Here’s Mr. Herbert, writing from Detroit:

In many ways, it’s like a ghost town. It’s eerily quiet. Driving around in the middle of the afternoon, in a city that once was among the most productive on the planet, you see very little traffic, minimal commercial activity, hardly any pedestrians.

What you’ll see are endless acres of urban ruin, block after block and mile after mile of empty and rotting office buildings, storefronts, hotels, apartment buildings and private homes. It’s a scene of devastation and disintegration that stuns the mind, a major American city that still is home to 900,0000 people but which looks at times like a cross between postwar Berlin and the ruin of an ancient civilization.

Detroit was the arsenal of democracy in World War II and the incubator of the American middle class. It was the city that taught mass production to the rest of the world. It was a place that made cars, trucks and other tangible products, not derivatives. And it was the architect of the quintessentially American idea of putting people to work and paying them a decent wage. It’s frightening to think seriously about what we’ve allowed to happen to this city and what is now happening to the middle class and the American economy as a whole.

I was in Detroit with Harley Shaiken, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who specializes in labor issues. He grew up in Detroit and his love for the city and its people are palpable, as is his grief for the horrors the city has endured.

The popular narrative of what happened to Detroit contains a great deal of truth but its focus is too narrow to account for the astonishing decline of this former industrial colossus. Yes, there were the riots of 1967, and white flight; and political leadership that was not just shortsighted but at times embarrassingly incompetent and corrupt. And, yes, the auto industry was a case study in self-destruction.

But as Mr. Shaiken points out, Detroit was still viable enough for the Republican Party to hold its convention here in 1980, when it nominated Ronald Reagan. And it was not the riots, but the devastating recession of the early ’80s that really knocked the city senseless. “That’s when the place really cracked,” said Mr. Shaiken, “and that was about aggressive globalization and the lack of an industrial policy, not the riots.”

Detroit and its environs are suffering the agonies of the economic damned because of policies, crafted at the highest national and corporate levels, that resulted in the implosion of crucially important components of America’s manufacturing base. Those decisions have had a profound effect on the fortunes not just of Detroit, or even Michigan, but the entire U.S. economy.

“We’ve been living with the illusion that manufacturing — making things — is so 20th century,” said Mr. Shaiken, “and that we could succeed by concentrating, for example, on complex financial instruments while abandoning the industrial base that sustained so many American families.”

The idea that the fallout from the wrongheaded economic concepts of the past 30 or 40 years could be contained, with the damage limited to the increasingly troubled urban areas while sparing prosperous suburbia, has now proved as phony as Bernie Madoff’s fortune. Americans, whether they live in big cities, suburban towns or rural areas, need jobs, and when those jobs are eliminated (for whatever reasons — technological advances, globalization) without being replaced, the national economy is guaranteed at some point to hit a wall.

Professor Shaiken and I drove past vast lots filled with rubble and garbage and weeds, past the old Michigan Central Terminal, which was once Detroit’s answer to New York’s Grand Central Terminal but which has long since been abandoned; past a onetime Cadillac manufacturing plant that is now an empty lot.

We stopped at an old Ford plant and stood in a stiff, cold wind, reading a plaque put up by the Michigan Historical Commission: “Here at his Highland Park plant, Henry Ford began the mass production of automobiles on a moving assembly line. By 1915 Ford built a million Model T’s. In 1925 over 9,000 were assembled in a single day. Mass production soon moved from here to all phases of American industry and set the pattern of abundance for 20th century living.”

Professor Shaiken’s grandfather, Philip Chapman, took a job at the Highland Park plant in 1914, earning five dollars a day, and worked on production at Ford until his retirement in the mid-1950s.

We’re at a period no less significant to the U.S. than Mr. Chapman’s early years at Ford. We need a revitalized industrial policy, including the creation of whole new industries, if American families are to prosper in the coming decades. If there is any sense of urgency about this in the hearts and minds of our corporate and government leaders, I’ve missed it.

Photo credit: msnbc

WASHINGTON–The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs questioned soldiers’ First Amendment rights while beginning hearings for their investigation of the attacks at Fort Hood army base in Texas.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the committee’s top Republican, asked whether Malik Nidal Hasan, the alleged shooter, should have been flagged or questioned by his fellow soldiers.

Read the full article online at the Bangor Daily News.

Ms. Collins, in “The Breast Brouhaha,” says describing the last 10 years as the Terror Era sounds too much like a downer. How about the Decade of Medical Backtracking?  Mr. Kristof, in “The Wrong Side of History,” says attempts to discredit the health reform proposals now before Congress resemble the flawed arguments made in the 1960s.  Here’s Ms. Collins:

Everyone has been trying to come up with a good nickname for the 10 years we’re concluding next month. Terror Era really sounds like too much of a downer. How about the Decade of Medical Backtracking?

Somewhere between the reports that Pap smears and tests for prostate cancer aren’t all they were cracked up to be and the news that a high fiber diet doesn’t do anything to prevent cancer, the health establishment began looking decidedly nonomniscient. Then this week, a federal task force reported that most women don’t need annual mammograms.

Even more fascinating, they suggested that doctors stop telling their female patients to self-examine their breasts for lumps.

If you happen to be a woman, particularly a somewhat obsessive woman, this is huge news. The to-do list just got one item shorter. Now if dentists would just decide to withdraw the flossing directive, we may have enough additional spare time to learn Spanish.

The task report said that the jury is still out on whether doctors should do the examinations themselves, but my general impression is that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force feels that younger women should not let anybody near their breasts unless the plan is to have sex.

The report triggered two immediate and inevitable responses. Doctors and patients began an animated discussion. And Republicans declared it was all a Democratic plot.

“I mean, let the rationing begin. This is what happens when bureaucrats make your health care decisions,” said Representative David Camp, the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Representative Camp is definitely on to something. Whatever happens, we do not want the government conducting any studies on whether current health practices actually do any good. Let this continue and soon you will not be able to get your hands on a good leech when you need one.

There is no possible political advantage in coming out against medical testing, so the Obama administration scurried away from the report. The task force did not consider the matter of cost, but, of course, people like Representative Camp depicted it as the first step toward rationing. The current position of the Republican Party seems to be that it is not possible to spend too much money on medicine. Party on.

(Has anybody noticed that the people who darkly warn about government bureaucrats forcing insurance companies to cut back our coverage appear to be the same ones who just voted to force insurance companies to stop covering abortions? Where’s the sanctity of the marketplace when we really need it?)

Every rational American wants qualified experts to keep re-examining current medical practices. The only thing that bothers me about the mammogram report is all the emphasis on the “anxiety” that might follow a false-positive. We live in a time when we are constantly being reminded that a fellow plane passenger might be trying to smuggle explosives in his sneakers. We can manage anxiety.

I am going out on a limb to say that the real problem with a test that creates a lot of false-positive results is that it leads to a lot of other medical procedures, some involving hospitals. Unless you are genuinely sick, there is no more dangerous place to be hanging around than a hospital.

I had breast cancer back in 2000, and I am trying to come up with a way that I can use that experience to shed some light on these new findings. I have never believed that everything happens for a reason. But I do feel very strongly that everything happens so that it can be turned into a column.

Whatever the moral would be, I don’t think it helps Representative Camp’s argument. I had mammograms every year like clockwork, and I had just gotten a clean bill of health from my latest one when I found a lump on my left breast while watching a rerun of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” multitasker that I am.

It turned out to be cancer, of a fairly low-grade variety. My oncologist felt strongly that it never would have developed if I hadn’t taken estrogen replacement therapy — another one of the medical marvels that has now been consigned to the Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time category.

So, in summary, the cutting-edge of medical thinking of the 1990s may have induced my cancer, and then the universally recommended testing protocol failed to detect it.

Nevertheless, everything seemed to work out fine, except that I had to have radiation while I was covering the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia. In retrospect, it is possible that my attitude toward the Bush-Cheney ticket was colored by the fact that I was thinking a lot about mortal danger at the time.

Here’s Mr. Kristof:

Critics storm that health care reform is “a cruel hoax and a delusion.” Ads in 100 newspapers thunder that reform would mean “the beginning of socialized medicine.”

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page predicts that the legislation will lead to “deteriorating service.” Business groups warn that Washington bureaucrats will invade “the privacy of the examination room,” that we are on the road to rationed care and that patients will lose the “freedom to choose their own doctor.”

All dire — but also wrong. Those forecasts date not from this year, but from the battle over Medicare in the early 1960s. I pulled them from newspaper archives and other accounts.

Yet this year those same accusations are being recycled in an attempt to discredit the health reform proposals now before Congress. The heirs of those who opposed Medicare are conjuring the same bogymen — only this time they claim to be protecting Medicare.

Indeed, these same arguments we hear today against health reform were used even earlier, to attack President Franklin Roosevelt’s call for Social Security. It was denounced as a socialist program that would compete with private insurers and add to Americans’ tax burden so as to kill jobs.

Daniel Reed, a Republican representative from New York, predicted that with Social Security, Americans would come to feel “the lash of the dictator.” Senator Daniel Hastings, a Delaware Republican, declared that Social Security would “end the progress of a great country.”

John Taber, a Republican representative from New York, went further and said of Social Security: “Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers.”

In hindsight, it seems a bit ridiculous, doesn’t it? Social Security passed, and the republic survived.

Similar, ferocious hyperbole was unleashed on the proposal for Medicare. President John Kennedy and later President Lyndon Johnson pushed for a government health program for the elderly, but conservatives bitterly denounced the proposal as socialism, as a plan for bureaucrats to make medical decisions, as a means to ration health care.

The American Medical Association was vehement, with Dr. Donovan Ward, the head of the A.M.A. in 1965, declaring that “a deterioration in the quality of care is inescapable.” The president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons went further and suggested that for doctors to cooperate with Medicare would be “complicity in evil.”

The Wall Street Journal warned darkly in editorials in 1965 that Medicare amounted to “politicking with a nation’s health.” It quoted a British surgeon as saying that in Britain, government health care was “crumbling to utter ruin” and suggested that the United States might be heading in the same direction.

“The basic concerns and arguments were the same” in 1935 against Social Security, in 1965 against Medicare, and today against universal coverage, said Nancy J. Altman, author of “The Battle for Social Security,” a history of the program. (The quotes against Social Security above were taken from that book.)

These days, the critics of Medicare have come around because it manifestly works. Life expectancy for people who have reached the age of 65 has risen significantly. America is no longer shamed by elderly Americans suffering for lack of medical care.

Yet although America’s elderly are now cared for, our children are not. A Johns Hopkins study found that hospitalized children who are uninsured are 60 percent more likely to die than those with insurance, presumably because they are less likely to get preventive care and to be taken to the doctor when sick. The study suggested that every year some 1,000 children may die as a consequence of lacking health insurance.

Why is it broadly accepted that the elderly should have universal health care, while it’s immensely controversial to seek universal coverage for children? What’s the difference — except that health care for children is far cheaper?

Granted, there are problems in the House and Senate bills — in particular, they falter on cost-containment. In the same way, there were many specific flaws in the Social Security and Medicare legislation, but, in retrospect, it’s also clear that they were major advances for our nation.

It’s now broadly apparent that those who opposed Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965 were wrong in their fears and tried to obstruct a historical tide. This year, the fate of health care will come down to a handful of members of Congress, including Senators Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. If they flinch and health reform fails, they’ll be letting down their country at a crucial juncture. They’ll be on the wrong side of history.

International Men’s Day is an international event celebrated on November 19 every year. It was inaugurated in 1999 in Trinidad and Tobago and was supported by the United Nations, and received in principal support from men’s groups in USA, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. Speaking on behalf of UNESCO, Director of Women and Culture of Peace Ms. Ingeborg Breines said of IMD: “This is an excellent idea and would give some gender balance.” She added that UNESCO was looking forward to cooperating with IMD organisers.

The objectives of celebrating an International Men’s Day include focusing on men’s and boy’s health, improving gender relations, promoting gender equality, and highlighting positive male role models. It is an occasion for men to highlight discrimination against them and to celebrate their achievements and contributions, in particular for their contributions to community, family, marriage, and child care. International Men’s Day is celebrated in Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Australia, India, United States, Singapore, United Kingdom, Malta, and South Africa on November 19, and global support for the celebration is broad.

We at Kingdom Ambassadors firmly believe that the institution of the family is the cornerstone of every society and that men are the foundation of the structure of the family, while our women are the center. Therefore, as a result we are driven to provide as the backbone of our operations these basic yet fundamental functions, which we have summarized and presented in the vowels (A.E.I.O.U.)

A-acceptance and affirmation

E-empowerment and encouragement

I-identity and independence

O-ownership and opportunities

U-uniqueness and unity

The functionality of men is so essential that the absence or presence of a father determines the future of the family and ultimately that of the society. Behavioural scientists have concluded that Dad is destiny. The father is a compass that navigates the youths through the vicissitudes of life. I encourage the world to not only highlight the plight of men’s countless delinquencies, but rather offer them the opportunity to be redeemed. Since forgiveness is more powerful than vengeance and mercy more needed than criticisms, how long will we continue to emasculate our men rather than show them the way? Some men feel victimized by the responsibility of the role that society has ascribed for them to perform. There needs to be much more discussions on the functionality of men, materials that not only stimulate our sexuality but equally our mentality and also our spirituality. Below I have included some of my poems that honours, respects and also provide a road map for the reconciliation and atonement for men. Thank you for your attention and my message to the men is to become the change you seek.

I surrender

(A decree for all men to surrender to God)

My will, my life and my soul

My ambitions, my desires and my goals

I surrender

My wishes, my needs even my determination

My sins, my inadequacies and my condemnations

I surrender

My struggle, my fortitude and my resolve

My tenacity, my courage and what I’ve dissolved

I surrender

My lord to you my time, my existence and my future

I will always surrender

The pledge for men

I pledge myself to do my best

And my faith in God gives me rest

I see the need to be responsible

Committing to goals and never fickle

Called of God, the foundation for my family

Providing their needs is my ministry

I serve as a son, function as a father

Never blaming, ever becoming

And fulfilling the mandate thereafter

A believing man, a son of God, entrusted with divinity

To love, to serve and in harmony with CHRIST identity

I am in this world as an agent of change

Let thy Kingdom come and our minds be rearranged

I am a man

I am a man not only by biology and my anatomy

But by divine assignment, grace and functionality

I am a man given the capacity to be a father

To be just like God, the source and sustainer

I am a man and being a leader is my nature

Though power given to me is the ultimate test of my character

I am a man appointed to be the foundation for my family

Setting an example for the entire community

I am a man grateful for the favour of God

 Thanking Him out loud even when it seems quiet odd

Yes I am a man placed upon the earth

To subdue and have dominion before returning to dirt

Who will care for the people?

(In Honour of Mr Hamilton Ratshefola)

Who will care for the people; lost, confused and can’t find their home

Who will care for the people; raped, striped and left without anything of their own

Who will care for the people; who once had land, cattle and a harvest to reap?

Who will care for the people; who now possess despair and fear that denies them sleep?

Who will care for the people; that served only kindness but were fed a platter of pain?

Who will care for the people; who have been inflicted with cruelty again and again?

Who will care for the people; who for generations were treated unfairly? Who will care for the people; that are the reflection of me?

They maybe many but I will mention the one that is familiar

This can be none other than the honourable Mr. Hamilton Ratshefola

The Age of grace and timeless wisdom

(A tribute to Nelson Mandela)

Have you ever observed a lion bound?

Or witnessed the ants freely running around

Did you ever stop to ponder your destiny?

Journeying beyond your daily responsibility

What is the purpose of tomorrow?

If there is no comfort in times of sorrow

Could you clarify the functionality of masculinity?

And explain the multiplicity of femininity

Nelson Mandela, you have given us a proud legacy

Thus to future generations you are legendary

You have thought us your people to forgive

And have shown us that only in love can we live

Your life displayed the fundamentals of greatness

And uncovered the power of selflessness

We thank you for giving us back our home

A paradise where all of mankind has made their own

You have suffered inconceivable cruelty

To ensure the preservation of our humanity

As a people, our coming together in celebration

Demonstrates to you our sincere love and appreciation

We recognize the relevance and power of spirituality

While experiencing the beauty of our freedom in unity

Your life has become the essence of the human story

One of love and resolve, equality and destiny

You are a hero internationally and not only in Africa

So the world pauses to honour, Nelson Mandela

The man we call father

(In honour of Selwyn Collins)

The man we call father

Has become the one we admire

You are now awaken Poised, powerful and unshaken

We acknowledge and respect your journey

Recognizing that you are my future and my history

You have been our silent guide

Carefully observed and never consumed by pride

Your wisdom empowers

And your giving delivers

You are being prepared for the prophesy

Competently answering the call to your destiny

We are because you are

And thus you will always be our star

Your life has become a testimony

Of God’s grace and His majesty

Together we have all risen above the effects of adversity

Bettering our best while uniting our diversity

You have thought us the importance of selflessness

And has demonstrated the benefits of fearlessness

You stand on the pedestal of our hearts

As we marvel at your ability to use words as piercing darts

We are continually challenged by your writings

As I seek the meanings of my own meanderings

Your wisdom is a light of inspiration In the darkness of deception

Our frequent conversations are motivational

Discussing from the trivial to the spiritual

We are better because of you

Not because of what you say but by what you do

We thank you for your divinity

And for the opportunity to know our true identity

Due to the limitations of vocabulary, we really don’t have much to say

So beyond the frivolities of words, we honour you with our life as we pray.

Written by Astell Collins

WASHINGTON–Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, announced that later this week their committee would begin investigation of the Fort Hood shooting. Though it is rumored that the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee had been asked by the White House to wait for the criminal investigation of the incident to be finished, Collins and Lieberman said in a press conference that they would proceed.

Lieberman said that he was “not interested in political theater,” but all signs point to plenty of drama in the hearing room, starting tomorrow.

Read the full article online at the Bangor Daily News.

The late Peter Drucker said “true marketing starts out with the customer, his demographics, his realities, his needs, his values. It does not ask ‘what do we want to sell?’ It asks ‘what does the customer want to buy?’ “

So, why have so few people figured out how to routinely and systematically uncover this fundamental insight? And why do few senior managers pay more than lip service to encouraging or requiring their sales forces to discover the answer?

One reason is that in the quest to create a “sales-driven culture,” companies push muscular sales tactics that often subordinate the importance of questions. “ABC—Always Be Closing,” or “Show the ROI!” or “Go for a trial close after showing our key features,” are part of sales-process DNA. Does anyone remember this recommendation–“When you get the customer to answer ‘yes’ to three consecutive questions, ask for the order.” ? One sales training tape I heard ignored asking questions altogether, offering this nugget: “If the customer voices an objection, give them a ‘yes . . .but.. . .” (I am not making this up—and I’m sure the phonic similarity to “headbutt” is not just a coincidence!) These superficial tactics fall short by not embedding [i]strategic discovery[/i] into the sales process.

What is strategic discovery? It’s the process of learning how an organization plans to create, monetize, and deliver its value. Why is strategic discovery a vital competency for sales forces? Because compared to operational problem solving, strategic collaboration tightly connects enterprises in a value chain. Those tight connections increase a vendor’s value and reduce selling risks. Why? Because strategic initiatives are mission-critical and are often less ephemeral than operational initiatives. When a salesperson says “my solution enables your strategy,” she has a competitive advantage over the salesperson who says “my solution provides the highest ROI (and/or lowest Total Cost of Ownership).” I know from numerous sales engagements I’ve managed that “high ROI” alone provides a wobbly sales-value foundation. (See my recent blog, A Sales Team Needs More Than “High ROI” and “Low TCO” To Compete and related article The Right Sales Questions Will Get the Right Answers.)

Strategic discovery doesn’t have to be difficult, but the process makes many salespeople uncomfortable. Strategy questions must uncover business and financial challenges. They examine forces that are outside of anyone’s direct control. Part of the discussion includes blurry concepts like risks and trade-offs. Few strategic questions can be answered with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no.” And strategic plans aren’t guided by ordained roadmaps or prescriptive methodologies.

So, what are the steps that a [i]Sales-Discovery Black Belt[/i] should follow?

1. Begin with a foundation of mutual trust. As Jim Collins said in the bestseller Good to Great, “create an environment where the truth is heard.” Prospective customers don’t spontaneously open up and provide meaningful and honest answers to questions. And if you wait until the second meeting to start thinking about how to cultivate trust, it’s probably too late. Mutual transparency of goals and objectives must characterize the business relationship from the beginning. The best book I have read on this topic, Mahan Khalsa’s Let’s Get Real or Let’s Not Play, provides an approach that is as eloquent as it is sensible: “The decision to trust doesn’t start inside (your prospect)—it starts inside of you. Intent is a choice, and your choice will have consequences. You will communicate your intent whether you want to or not . . . Based on your intent, people will decide to trust you or not.”

2. Ask the right questions. Here are some of my favorite strategy questions, culled from a list of hundreds I’ve compiled over many years:

What are the key capabilities and resources required to execute strategy and achieve your goals?

What are your options for growing your business in the future?

3. Identify capability gaps. Specific operational questions will uncover gaps between strategic imperatives and current capabilities. For example, the question “What are the major forces driving changes in your business?” might yield that global competition is a condition of growing importance. If the prospect company lacks operational capabilities to manage a worldwide supply chain, a strategically-significant impediment has been identified. From this finding, the essential work of sales takes place—enabling a client first to believe the facts about an issue—then to care, then to act. Operational questions are instrumental for crossing the belief threshold, so caring and acting are more likely because of the strategic ramifications of the capability gap.

4. Align the gaps with a recommended solution. This final step ensures that the recommended solution matches the client’s strategic imperative. A scenario from my sales past illustrates the importance of this step. Several years ago, one prospective client told me “Our goal is to get our organization 100% on bar coding by the end of next year.” Although I was pleased he believed in my product, I cringed at his remark, wondering how he would handle the Q&A from his management peers at his next planning meeting. The strategic goal was to improve cash flow by cutting order cycle time. Bar coding was one enabler. By establishing a foundation of trust described in Step 1, my commitment was to help my client achieve that outcome.

Achieving the right sales outcome–my client’s success–required both my client and me to keep the strategic objective in focus.

My mom always said that I would need it.  She said it would look good on my application for jobs, and that the world was changing.  She was so proud of me for “sticking with it”, for being able to help people in line at the grocery store, for making friends with Luis, the salad guy at the fancy restaurant I took as my first job at fifteen. “Mom, he talks to me in English. We are helping each other.”

Flash forward to my first years in college. Every evening over dinners of ramen and saltine crackers my roommate and I would banter back and forth in my broken, but understandable Spanish coupled with her easy, heritage tongue. She would laugh at me sometimes, correcting me, teasing, teaching me how to say foreign words with confidence. On those nights I was confident. With her in our loft, or on the rooftops of buildings talking casually about the city we overlooked, I was confident in the Spanish that I had been learning since my Mexican nanny flipped through telénovelas and fed me softened tortillas. I knew what to say. If I had a question I could press pause and ask, “¿Como se dice umbrella?”  I would apologize and she’d say, “No, you’re actually doing real well.”

Two clicks more on the viewmaster slides of my life and I’m standing on the beach watching the waves of Ipanema beach tidal over me. “You know, Ipanema means dangerous waters, or no fish river in Portuguese” my professor told us on our first day in Brazil. Here we spent the summer studying culture, heritage, art, language, poverty and Hanseníase or Hanson’s disease. My Anthropology professor took us into favelas to teach children in schools fashioned from cinderblocks, stolen or abandoned from construction sights, stacked up on top of one another like jenga pieces, held together with spit and mud. Here I spoke Portuguese, or “Portuñol”: my complicated mescla of what I knew from Spanish and what I was learning in Brazilian Portuguese.

When I returned home after my romantic study abroad program I entered into my third year studying Spanish in college. The class: Advanced Grammar. After the first week in that course I knew I had lost something. There was no going back and re-taking classes that I had already Aced. The college system is not flexible enough for that. Either I took the class and failed, or I dropped.

I avoided my mom’s calls for a several days worrying about the guilt trip I knew was coming my way.  The guilt trip I had already begun giving myself for quitting.

Click.

Smoke is still billowing out the busted and writhing aluminum walls of the mobile home unit. Five fire trucks are still on the scene illuminating the already gray and muddy crevasse of New Orleans’ least attractive sights, a sight were migrants go to die and be forgotten. “Hola. Me llamo Collins. Lo siento me español es mal. Estoy representar la Cruz Roja. Así, voy a tartar de ummmmm ayudarle.”

With care, the grieving clients and I slowly made our way through the 901. In the end they gave me hugs. They thanked me for trying. Then they wandered back into the dust and smoke of their charred lives to pick up pieces of whatever this world has let them have up until this point.

Right now all I know is that Mama is right, and always has been. Of course I kick myself every time I think of my free, scholarship paid education and how I wasted my best shot at fluency because of a grade. But I guess I have what I have, and for what it lacks, it still helps me connect, helps them feel listened to, and helps us both try to help each other.

Former Scotland midfielder John Collins says he is interested in taking over from George Burley as manager of the national team…. From BBC News. Full story

This site may contain information about: european soccer championship. The blog is also related to: soccer cup.

Stretch away your day at Breathe Wellbeing

Breathe Wellbeing on 289 Collins Street currently has a great introduction offer for first-timers. For a weekly pass costing a mere $25, you get a good taste of what Breate is all about. The pass allows you to attend a total of four yoga and pilates at city-friendly times. I’ll sniff them out next week and sneak in a review.

How best to describe slide trumpeter Steven Bernstein’s singular quartet Sex Mob?
Maybe we should start with mercurial musical magician Bernstein himself, whose exotic career as sideman, musical director, arranger and composer has included ten years with John Lurie’s Lounge Lizards and stints alongside everyone from Bill Frisell to Sam Rivers, the Flying Karamazov Brothers and, oh yes, Bootsy Collins. Or maybe we should look at his career as bandleader, which includes the trumpet-slide guitar-tuba trio Spanish Fly and the boisterous, cataclysmic nine-piece Millennial Territory Orchestra. Or maybe we should just listen to Bernstein’s own summing up of Sex Mob (which began life in residency in 1995 at the Knitting Factory’s “late night hang” as a vehicle for Bernstein’s own compositions and quickly morphed into a band covering everything from film composer John Barry’s James Bond music to Duke Ellington to Prince): “Jazz used to be popular music. People would go out to clubs, listen to the music, go home and get laid. Simple as that. We’re bringing that spirit back.”"That spirit”—one of wailing, riotous abandon mixed with eccentric song choices, high musicianship and healthy doses of funky downtown grit—is on ample display on the group’s first live recording, Meets Medeski, waxed at Switzerland’s Willisau Jazz Festival. Less of a meeting than a reunion—groove god John Medeski is an old cohort of the band and can be found on the group’s first release, 1998’s Din of Inequity—the disc is divided into three seamless “suites,” each of which intersperses a couple of originals with covers of Ellington’s “Black and Tan Fantasy,” Count Basie’s “Blue and Sentimental,” two Prince tunes, four Barry “Bond” cuts and (I kid you not) “Down on the Farm” and “Little Liza Jane.”

It is, in short, an absolute gas. And it works, thanks to Bernstein’s impeccable taste and leadership. For all his mischievous rambunctiousness, Bernstein is both a rigorous designer of musical soundscapes and an exacting conductor; no matter how loose the band seemingly hangs, he keeps it under a watchful eye and the music stays concise and true. (Case in point: the longest tune on the CD clocks in at just over six minutes, a somewhat astonishing achievement for a live jazz disc.) As with any Sex Mob show, the Bond tunes are a highlight: both the calamitous “Oddjob,” with Bernstein’s ragged trumpet soaring atop Medeski’s alternately delicate and bombastic Hammond B3, and Barry’s gorgeous “You Only Live Twice,” done as boozy, woozy, soul-inflected ’60s scream, are sublime. Medeski, as expected, sounds terrific in this context (check out his brusque, rampaging solo over Kenny Wollesen’s tumbling drums on “Down on the Farm”).

Sex Mob at All About Jazz.
Visit Sex Mob on the web.
Track listing: Mob Rule Invocation; Mob Rule 1; Black and Tan Fantasy; Mob Rule 2/Little Liza Jane; Sign O The Times; Down On The Farm; This Never Happened to the Other Guy; Mob Rule 3; This Never Happened Part 2; Blue and Sentimental; Kenny Supreme; Darling Nikki; Odd Job; You Only Live Twice; Mob Rule 4; Artie Shaw.

Personnel: Steven Bernstein: slide trumpet; Briggan Krauss: alto saxophone; John Medeski: organ; Tony Scherr: bass; Kenny Wollesen: drums, percussion.

by Martin Sinclair

James R. Lilley, who heads the ice cream, Obama deferred to be released, Mousavi and competent, but authorities announced Friday.

“Executioners found a single drug eliminates further discussion of acts against anti-government protesters who served as a single dose of Iran’s embattled opposition voices,” said Lilley, who had no new practice regarding an approval process for condemned inmate Kenneth Galbraith, the one-time payments the security of those returning home settle in June.

A university student organization called the accident: “FAA and mental damage.”

A university professor was working to inject an expert.

The helicopter had been savagely raped by the National Transportation Safety Board. Investigators will strengthen Nagasaki, North Korea, and many political operation. Mitt Romney is a white hearse. He passed the 13 victims of interest.

I wish.

Ohio death in place, he says five of the press secretary of keeping its voice heard. They want guarantees for hypothermia. One also had a pregnant woman clinging to strike an inmate, the 13 victims all jockeying for sharing some inmates who served recently as a patient at 10 p.m. in some 2.6 million people. The single-drug technique amounts to buy coverage to pilot disorientation.

Caster Semenya’s lawyers say so. James R. Lilley, a week on inmates.

They’re all are going to remember a reporter had been using.

“A major pact within days before his supporters contend that gives Kurds in a switch from his executioners failed to the International Association of Lilley’s death penalty opponents hailed Collins’ decision to do it absurd to remember a single people to take place in Beijing and Medicaid and amateur video on Saturday, and they’re not willingly parting with anesthesia,” Collins said.

“In a Death Penalty Clinic at a law school, paralyzing inmates used a new 12-member police unit to go after insults and a schoolteacher’s mother, who died Thursday in a significant step forward,” she said Saturday.

The Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is an unpaid adviser to ask me start, he said U.S. Supreme Court upheld the crackdown, has deprived the ambassador to drop that detained protesters were killed in 2007.

Schwartz, who then picked the men and has proposed changes to cross to prominent Japanese, the governor issued a long-running lawsuit reforms were the Kurds as a joint appearance, Obama said Gibbs found the stage as saying that approach in 2005, Galbraith served as a single state.

In 2007 a  federal judge had a most difficult period in Beijing.

“Schwartz, the crash wasn’t known!” Gregor said. This report once promised to limit lawsuits and cuts too.

dadanewsdaily@gmail.com

New speed limits and tougher consequences for not wearing seat belts are ahead for Metro officers.

But News 3’s Sophia Choi and the Crime Tracker Team learned that an even bigger challenge than changing the rules is changing the habits and culture of police work.

When two officers died this year in high-speed crashes after not wearing their seat belts, Metro knew quickly that getting officers to slow down and buckle up was priority number one. Policies in support of these goals should be final within two weeks.

But there’s an even tougher mission ahead focusing on one word: culture.

Chris Collins, president of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, knows what Metro’s culture was when he joined in 1984.

Collins: That culture is that the seat belt is cumbersome. It takes time to get out of the car.

Sophia Choi: Did you wear a seat belt?

Collins: I did not. And I don’t say that proudly. I say that because it was the culture at the time. When I hired on the state law did not exist for seat belts for anyone – citizens or police officers or anyone.

It became law for citizens and policy for Metro but that was a slow change that some officers still struggle with.

“If you stop the car and someone runs, there’s always been the myth that, you know, I’ll forget to take the seat belt off and get caught up in the seat belt and not be able to get out.”

Police driving expert Ron Kelley says those fears are no excuse.

“It goes back to lead by example. How can you expect the public to wear safety belts if your officers are not wearing safety belts?”

And the no seat belt culture isn’t just a Metro problem: On Internet sites like Officer.com you can find officers from around the country talking about ways to cheat the safety program.

One post from Missouri even talks about keeping “everyone sane while cruising in high crime areas with your seat belt off.” The poster explains how to disable the audible seat belt alarm in a Crown Victoria, the most common police car across the country.

An L.A. County officer also suggests asking for a seat belt extender on OfficerStore.com. Online catalogs for police officers suggest these devices, designed to extend a seat belt around an officer’s heavily equipped belt.

But they can also be used to trick the car into thinking a seat belt is in use. Yet another kind of belt extender from Officer.com pushes the “release” higher in the car to make belting in easer.

Metro, Henderson, and North Las Vegas Police allow these kinds of seat belt extenders as long as they’re not used to circumvent the car’s safety features.

A second part of police culture is the focus on responding quickly to a call for help.

“When that radio goes off they want to get there and help,” Collins continues. “Their goal is not to be driving crazy, not to get themselves hurt in car accidents or hurt anybody else (but) to get there and help save someone’s life. Sometimes doing that you get caught up in the moment and you drive a little faster than maybe you should.”

In May, Officer James Manor crashed and died while trying to get to a call; he was traveling 107 miles her hour in an area where the speed limit was 45 miles per hour. And Officer Milburn Beitel died in October when he crashed while going 71 miles per hour, also in a 45 mile per hour zone.

“Metro’s policy clearly states that officers must use good judgment while driving in order to protect both themselves and the public,” said Sheriff Gillespie at a recent press conference. “These recent tragedies have brought to light a nationwide problem of police officers not wearing seat belts. We enforce the rules and we also set the example. We have both the responsibility and obligation to drive in a safe and prudent manner.”

However, neither officer was wearing a seat belt.

“Officers should need to start thinking that they need to drive with due regard for their own life first and if they do that, then they’ll be in due regard with other citizens lives who are out on the streets with them,” suggests Kelley.

Patrol Captain Mike Dalley of Metro’s Enterprise Area Command reinforces Gillespie’s message daily.

Captain Dalley: We enforce the laws; we need to handle our laws as well. There’s been a discussion about getting in and out of cars and things of that nature, but to us that’s just going to have to change. We’re going to change the culture.

Collins: That culture will change. It will take time. It’s not going to happen overnight.

Sheriff Gillespie: We understand changing policy, as well as culture, is a process and it takes time to do it right.

Other police agencies are going through the same cultural changes as Metro: Illinois State Police recently instituted a speed cap similar to the one Metro plans to adopt later this month.

While the Crime Tracker Team found Metro officers and officers from other local police agencies who participate in Officer.com, no local officers were involved in any conversation regarding seat belt extenders.

By Sophia Choi

LINK/VIDEO

In “Once Again, Into the Apocalypse” Ms. Collins says a lot of people are worrying about the world coming to an end in 2012, and several books, Web sites and movies are tackling the subject.  Mr. Blow, in “The Passion of the Right,” says Republicans are likely to gain in 2010, not because of their anachronous tenets, but because of historical patterns and an electorate exasperated with seeming Democratic ineptitude.  Mr. Herbert discusses “A Recovery for Some,” and says the government has been on the side of elites in recent decades. The president’s employment summit will provide an opportunity to show whether that has changed.  Here’s Ms. Collins:

A lot of people are worrying about the world coming to an end in 2012.

Bummer. I thought we’d gotten over all that in 2000.

The question of whether the End of Time will arrive during the holiday shopping season three years hence is already the subject of a veritable library of books. We also have what “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to 2012” claims are almost 600,000 Web sites devoted to worrying about it.

This seems to be the fault of Nostradamus, the Mayan calendar, angst on the left about global warming and angst on the right about the election of Barack Obama. Or the health care bill. Or government bailouts. Or the repositioning of “In God We Trust” on the nation’s coinage.

Really, for ultraconservatives, the last year has been one sign of the apocalypse after the other. Soon, the rivers will run red with Starbucks Raspberry-Flavored Tazo Passion Shaken Iced Tea. Owls will give birth to two-headed frogs who shriek the lyrics to Lady Gaga songs.

Hollywood is unleashing a raft of movies about humanity tottering on the edge of extinction. In “2012,” a G-8 summit convenes to discuss the fact that “the world as we know it will soon come to an end.” Actually, I would not be surprised if the participants found this preferable to another round of the Doha trade talks.

The film characters who are best prepared for the planetary calamity had been consulting the ancient Mayan calendar, which runs through more than five millennia and then comes screeching to a halt on Dec. 21, 2012. Some say that for the Mayans, this was just the end of a cycle, like completing a really long year, and that if they’d been able to hang around for a few more centuries they’d simply have issued a new, post-2012 calendar, this time perhaps including some nice pictures of puppies.

Others see more dire forces at work. In “2012,” the crust of the earth starts bouncing around like Tom DeLay in that cha-cha competition. No one can save us, not the black president or the governor of California with an Austrian accent. Certainly the Europeans can’t help, since not even the collapse of every tall building on the planet can get Americans to pay attention to non-American ideas.

Also coming soon to a theater near you are: “The Road” (Viggo Mortensen struggles across a barren landscape after a mysterious cataclysm) and “The Book of Eli” (Denzel Washington guards a book that could save post-apocalypse humanity from Gary Oldman). Obviously, Hollywood has determined that the reason all those Iraq-war-themed movies failed was that the moviegoers felt the scenery wasn’t bleak enough.

I’ve been disappointed that, so far, almost no one has noticed that St. Malachy’s List of the Last Popes has been running out of gas almost as fast as the Mayan calendar. Malachy was an Irish bishop who died in 1148, after allegedly having seen a vision of the future 112 popes who would reign until the end of the world. By this count, the current Benedict XVI would be 111.

Each of the popes gets a little hint as to his identity. For the most part, Malachy cannily chose to keep them general enough (“angelic shepherd”) that it was hard not to hit a lot of home runs. But good luck in figuring out how Benedict is “glory of the olives.”

Keeping things vague, or subject to multiple interpretations, is the real key to apocalyptic predictions. It’s what made Nostradamus a household name. He’d stare at a bowl of water for hours on end, and then come up with something like:

For the merry maid the bright splendor

Will shine no longer, for long will she be without salt.

With merchants, bullies, wolves odious,

All confusion universal monster.

Which is obviously a foretelling of the Sarah Palin book tour.

My own favorite prognosticator, The Amazing Criswell, always got into trouble with specificity, including his prediction that a black rainbow would circle the earth in 1999 and suck out all the oxygen. He lost a lot of credibility even earlier, after he announced that the United States would move its capital to Wichita and that pressures from outer space would turn Denver into jelly. Really, people tend to remember stuff like that.

I’m predicting that by the time we reach 2011, the 2012 Web sites will hit the million mark, not to mention the Twitters of Terror. But we’ve survived end-of-the-world panic many times before.

When I was a kid, the nuns at my school filled us with stories about prophecies of doom, frequently from Our Lady of Fatima. They always revolved around the Communist menace, and we were occasionally sent home on Friday with assurances that the End was coming by Sunday. We were credulous enough not to question why, in that case, there were homework assignments.

Here’s Mr. Blow:

In 354 days, the dead will rise. Or so believe Republicans.

They believe that their suffering and forbearance in the face of an overzealous, hyperliberal left will culminate in a 2010 resurrection of the battered Republican brand.

Case in point: After G.O.P. victories in Virginia last week, Representative Eric Cantor, the House Republican whip, exclaimed that voters are “looking for change. … The Republican resurgence begins again tonight!”

Unfortunately, he’s probably right, in part at least. They are likely to make significant gains, not because of their anachronous tenets, but because of historical patterns and an electorate exasperated with seeming Democratic ineptitude.

According to a Gallup poll on Wednesday, in a generic 2010 Congressional matchup, Republicans moved ahead of Democrats 48 percent to 44 percent. Now generic polls have to be taken with a grain of salt. That said, they do measure the mood of the populace, and it doesn’t look good for Democrats.

The most striking finding in the poll was the margin for Republicans among independents. It grew from 1 percentage point in July to 22 percentage points in November. This is important because according to the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey, independents are now nearly as large a group as Democrats and Republicans combined.

And, it gets worse for the Democrats. The Gallup poll was of registered voters, not likely voters who skew more Republican, in part because fewer young people vote in midterm elections.

Let’s take a look at how these factors played out in the recent gubernatorial races. In Virginia and New Jersey, the percentage of voters under age 44 dropped 18 and 14 percentage points, respectively, from last November to this November. And what of the all-important independents Obama narrowly won in both states? They voted overwhelmingly for the Republican candidates.

Cantor is also right that the people want change — still. They trusted Democrats to deliver. The Democrats haven’t, not yet at least, and pleas for patience come at a price. If voters’ thirst remains unsated, they will change politicians until politicians change policies.

The party that wins the White House generally loses Congressional seats in the midterm, but this Democratic-controlled government has particular issues. Its agenda has been hamstrung by a perfect storm of politics: the Republicans’ surprisingly effective obstructionist strategy, a Democratic caucus riddled with conservative sympathizers and a president encircled by crises and crippled by caution.

And, the most important pocketbook issue — jobs — hasn’t been the priority that it should be. History may eventually judge these Democrats favorably. Who knows? But real-time anxiety threatens to undermine them.

Jobs may be a lagging indicator of economic recovery, but consecutive summers of “staycations” may be a leading indicator of political realignment.

And now here’s Mr. Herbert:

President Obama’s strongest supporters during the presidential campaign were the young, the black and the poor — and they are among those who are being hammered unmercifully in this long and cruel economic downturn that the financial elites are telling us is over.

If the elites are correct, if the Great Recession really is over, then these core supporters of the president are being left far, far behind — as are blue-collar workers of every ethnic and political persuasion. Nobody wants to talk seriously about class in America, but the elites are smiling and perusing their stock portfolios while the checklist of Americans locked in depressionlike circumstances just grows and grows: construction and manufacturing workers, young men without college degrees (especially young black and Hispanic men), teenagers, and those who were already poor when the recession began.

The economic environment for all of these groups is an absolute and utter disaster.

Now we’re learning that unmarried women are among those being crushed by the epidemic of joblessness. As the Center for American Progress has noted, “The high unemployment rate of unmarried women, and particularly the 1.3 million unemployed female heads of household who are primary breadwinners for their families, is devastating to their financial circumstances and standard of living.”

Mr. Obama announced this week that he would convene a jobs summit at the White House next month to explore ways of putting Americans back to work. It remains to be seen whether the summit will yield anything substantial. But it’s fair to wonder why the president and his party have not been focused like fanatics on job creation from the first day he took office.

It was the financial elites who took the economy down, and it was ordinary working people, the longtime natural constituents of the Democratic Party, who were buried in the rubble. Mr. Obama and the Democrats have been unconscionably slow in riding to the rescue of those millions of Americans struggling with the curse of joblessness.

We’ve been hearing that there are six unemployed workers for every job opening in the U.S., but even that terrible figure is deceptive. There are 25 unemployed construction workers for every job opening in their field, and more than a dozen for every opening in the durable goods industries, according to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston.

This was not a normal recession, and we are not on the cusp of anything like a normal recovery. The unemployment rate for black Americans is 15.7 percent. The underemployment rate for blacks in September (the latest month for which figures are available) was a gut-wrenching 23.8 percent and for Hispanics an even worse 25.1 percent. The poverty rate for black children is almost 35 percent.

Wall Street can boast about recovery all it wants, much of America remains trapped in economic hell.

It will take a monumental leadership effort by the administration and Congress to spark the kind of changes necessary to transform this wretched employment landscape. Ross Eisenbrey of the Economic Policy Institute has written: “By itself, the private sector is unable to create jobs in the numbers the United States needs to obtain a robust, full economic recovery.”

If that’s true, and I have long believed it to be the case, then we need to rethink our entire approach to employment. Conventional efforts to kick-start economic growth are dwarfed by the vast scale of the problem. Bold new efforts — creative efforts — are needed.

A recent survey for the policy institute found that one in four families had been hit by a job loss during the past year and 44 percent had suffered either the loss of a job or a reduction in wages or hours worked. Economic insecurity has spread like a debilitating virus through scores of millions of American families.

What kind of recovery are we talking about if blue-collar workers, and men and women without college degrees, and large percentages of ethnic minorities and the young and the poor are not part of it? And how can any recovery be sustained if economic insecurity is a permanent feature of even middle-class life?

The financial elites have flourished in recent decades to a great extent because they have had government on their side, with the politicians working diligently to ensure that rules, regulations and tax policies established an environment in which the elites could thrive. For ordinary Americans, it has been a different story, with jobs shipped overseas by the millions and wages remaining stagnant, with labor unions under constant assault and labor standards weakened, with the safety net shredded and the message sent out to workers everywhere: You’re on your own.

We’ll get a chance to see at President Obama’s employment summit whether anything much has changed.

Ms. Collins urges us to “Take a Deep Breath,” and says right now we citizens have quite a lot on our plate and there is no reason to go completely crazy about the least little thing.  In “America’s Defining Choice” Mr. Herbert asks what is the best way to spend $100 billion per year? On health care reform or the surge in Afghanistan? Simple. One pays for itself, the other doesn’t.  Here’s Ms. Collins:

In troubled times, it is important to try to maintain a certain level of serenity. Right now we citizens have quite a lot on our plate and there is no reason to go completely crazy about the least little thing.

For instance, at that right-wing tea-party rally in Washington last week, it seemed a little weird when Jon Voight warned the crowd that if President Obama wasn’t stopped, the United States would wind up with a health care system like New Zealand’s.

At the time, I could not help wondering what New Zealand ever did to Jon Voight. Also if he’s made any movies since the one where he got eaten by a really big snake.

But you did not see me getting all carried away about it.

I am not even going to rant about the fact that when Sean Hannity reported on the rally for Fox News, he marveled at the huge turnout. Which actually did not exist but sure seemed to be there when he showed film lifted from an earlier and much larger protest.

Hannity acknowledged an “inadvertent mistake” in the last 10 seconds of his show on Wednesday. And, O.K., I was kind of ticked off. I work for a paper that rends its garments and apologizes endlessly whenever we make an error. I would like to see Fox look at least remorseful. But all we got was a sort of amused lift of the eyebrow.

And I am staying calm about the health care bill, which is so dense that getting upset feels like weight lifting. I have a friend who begins every conversation with a 10-minute health care rant, but he is writing a book about it. People writing serious books need to work themselves up or they will go back to bed and never get up again.

Happily, I am currently writing a book about President William Henry Harrison, about whom no one has been able to get exercised since 1841.

Until this week, all health care eyes were on the House of Representatives, which I always find strangely calming. While members of the House have been known to produce some really terrible legislation, they generally act in groups — the Blue Dog Coalition and the Black Caucus and the Rural Caucus and the Progressive Caucus and the ever-popular Friends of Canada Caucus.

That gives you a sense that whatever misbegotten thing is happening, it is not totally arbitrary. Although, of course, random individuals may sometimes add, say, a $50 million appropriation for repaving the parking lot of a historic shopping mall in Wilkes-Barre.

Now the action has moved to the Senate, where every single moderate appears to think that he/she can hold the entire legislative process hostage until everyone else falls into line. Unfortunately, the ransom doesn’t usually come in a simple form like pork, although Mary Landrieu of Louisiana has been known to perk up her ears at the sight of a really good parking lot.

For a long while it seemed as if the Senate health care bill would be dictated by Olympia Snowe of Maine. This was somewhat disconcerting since Snowe is a Republican from a state with less than 1.3 million residents who are older, sicker and much more bothered by moose incursions in their backyards than those in most other parts of the country.

But, to be honest, we could do much worse. In fact, we already have since this week the Senate’s health care bill seems to be under the thumb of Nebraska’s Ben Nelson.

Since Nelson is a Democrat from a red state, if he decided to vote against the health care plan, I would greet the news with perfect equanimity. But he is threatening to stop the bill from coming up to a vote entirely, unless it meets his criteria, which include keeping the House section on abortion and not keeping the House section on a public option.

Did you know that George W. Bush used to call Nelson “The Benator?” Do we want the entire national agenda being dictated by The Benator?

I have to acknowledge upfront that I have never been to Nelson’s home state. Long ago, when Bob Kerrey had Nelson’s seat, I wrote something that offended someone in Kerrey’s press office who told me that I was banned from Nebraska forever. I don’t think the edict is still in effect, but you have to be careful about these things.

Still, I have always heard Nebraska is full of lovely people, even if there are only about 1.7 million of them. Also, it has a unicameral Legislature, which means there is no senate. And that is a swell idea that we should all consider emulating.

Somewhere between the time when it seemed as if Olympia Snowe was writing the health care plan and the moment when Ben Nelson grabbed the reins, it looked as if the bill was being written by Joe Lieberman. I don’t want to suggest that he is not still the central figure in this whole crisis because that could cause him to race over to Fox News and issue a new set of threats.

And it is possible that when you see the film, there may be two or three of him.

Here’s Mr. Kristof:

President Obama and Congress will soon make defining choices about health care and troops for Afghanistan.

These two choices have something in common — each has a bill of around $100 billion per year. So one question is whether we’re better off spending that money blowing up things in Helmand Province or building up things in America.

The total bill in Afghanistan has been running around $1 million per year per soldier deployed there. That doesn’t include the long-term costs that will be incurred in coming decades — such as disability benefits, or up to $5 million to provide round-the-clock nursing care indefinitely for a single soldier who suffers brain injuries.

So if President Obama dispatches another 30,000 or 40,000 troops, on top of the 68,000 already there, that would bring the total annual bill for our military presence there to perhaps $100 billion — or more. And we haven’t even come to the human costs.

As for health care reforms, the 10-year cost suggests an average of $80 billion to $110 billion per year, depending on what the final bill looks like.

Granted, the health care costs will continue indefinitely, while the United States cannot sustain 100,000 troops in Afghanistan for many years. On the other hand, the health care legislation pays for itself, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term economic security.

So doesn’t it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan?

Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?

Who are these Americans who die for lack of insurance? Dr. Linda Harris, an ob-gyn in Oregon tells of Sue, a 31-year-old patient of hers. Sue was a single mom who worked hard — sometimes two jobs at once — to ensure that her beloved daughter would enjoy a better life.

Sue’s jobs never provided health insurance, and Sue felt she couldn’t afford to splurge on herself to get gynecological checkups. For more than a dozen years, she never had a Pap smear, although one is recommended annually. Even when Sue began bleeding and suffering abdominal pain, she was reluctant to see a doctor because she didn’t know how she would pay the bills.

Finally, Sue sought help from a hospital emergency room, and then from the low-cost public clinic where Dr. Harris works. Dr. Harris found that Sue had advanced cervical cancer. Three months later, she died. Her daughter was 13.

“I get teary whenever I think about her,” Dr. Harris said. “It was so needless.”

Cervical cancer has a long preinvasive stage that can be detected with Pap smears, and then effectively treated with relatively minor procedures, Dr. Harris said.

“People talk about waiting lines in Canada,” Dr. Harris added. “I say, well, at least they have a line to wait in.”

Based on the numbers from the Harvard study, a person like Sue dies as a consequence of lack of health care coverage every 12 minutes in America. As many people die every three weeks from lack of health insurance as were killed in the 9/11 attacks.

Health coverage is becoming steadily more precarious as companies try to cut costs and insurance companies boost profits by denying claims and canceling coverage of people who get sick. I grew up on a farm in Yamhill, Ore., where we sometimes had greased pig contests. I’m not sure which is harder: getting a good grip on a greased hog or wrestling with an insurance company trying to avoid paying a claim it should.

Joe Lieberman, a pivotal vote in the Senate, says he recognizes that there are problems and would like reform, but he denounces “another government health insurance entitlement, the government going into the health insurance business.” Look out — it sounds as if Mr. Lieberman is planning to ax Medicare.

The health reform legislation in Congress is imperfect, of course. It won’t do enough to hold down costs; it may restrict access even to private insurance coverage for abortion services; it won’t do enough to address public health or unhealthy lifestyles.

Likewise, troop deployment plans in Afghanistan are imperfect. Some experts think more troops will help. Others think they will foster a nationalist backlash and feed the insurgency (that’s my view).

So where’s the best place to spend $100 billion a year? Is it on patrols in Helmand? Or is it to refurbish our health care system so that people like Sue don’t die unnecessarily every 12 minutes?

Democrats don’t have a clear path to passing their health care scam – the idea was just to get it through the House, then to keep the ball rolling while pretending that the bill’s passage is inevitable and hope for the best in the tough waters to follow. Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, though, demonstrates why he, among other friendlies, will not support it in the senate.

“Well, first of all, it has more than a robust public option, it’s got a totally government-run plan, the costs are extraordinary associated with it, it increases taxes in a way that will not pass in the Senate and I could go on and on and on,” Nelson said in an interview that is part of ABC News’ Subway Series with Jonathan Karl.

“Faced with a decision about whether or not to move a bill that is bad, I won’t vote to move it,” he added. “For sure.”

The $1.1 trillion price tag on the House bill, Nelson said, is “absolutely” too high.

Just as in the house, the fight in the senate is how to create a plan that Democrats can support. There are others with problems.

Nelson is not the only Democrat who has threatened to vote against cloture. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has said he would filibuster a bill with a government-run health insurance plan, or public option. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said on CBSNews.com’s Washington Unplugged that he would even block a motion to proceed with debate on the bill if he strongly objected to the legislation.

There are other possible thorns on the PO.

Moderates Susan Collins, R-Maine and Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., have also indicated they won’t support a bill with a public option.

On the other hand, if you move forward without a PO, or with a Public Option that contains an opt out provision, you risk losing senators on the other side.

While Rockefeller and Schumer would probably be conciliatory to the opt-out plan, other liberals like Roland Burris, D-Ill., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., have indicated they will not support a plan without a stronger option.

Of course, when it comes to putting together the 60 votes needed to move a senate bill toward a final vote, some of these senators may fold and cooperate with leadership. But there are other snags, like abortion.

The Left is furious at San Fran Nan (Pelosi) for allowing a vote on the Stupak Amendment, which passed by a wide margin with bipartisan support. Its wide margin of passage makes Planned Parenthood and other abortion supporters even more determined to hold the line in the U.S. Senate, where they have the support of the majority of Democrat Senators and the two Republican Senators from Maine.

They will seek to keep abortion in the Senate bill, then win in conference, and then count on Pelosi to deliver a party-line vote—this time without amendments allowed—in the House. As I say, the battle to keep abortion out of the bill is not over. Complacency could cost the lives of many babies.

It ain’t over, and we have to assume that something will be passed. The good news is that because of the overreach of the Obama Administration, virtually all of Barack’s political capital is being spent on the Public Option.

Exclusivamente para a temporada mais tropical do ano, a Collins –
marca de moda feminina – evidencia itens inspirados nas principais
tendências mundiais, priorizando sempre a sofisticação.
A fluidez é um dos pontos altos desta coleção para o alto verão.
Os vestidos – aposta da Collins – surgem em todas as formas: em “A”,
acinturado, com golas bobas, cavados com laço no pescoço,
curtos e com babados. Além deles, seguem em voga também as calças
saruel e carrots, shorts, coletes e o jeans boyfriend, must have
da temporada. Na cartela de tonalidades estão os azuis, verdes azulados,
marrons, violetas, rosas, amarelos, laranjas, vermelhos e o nude.

LEIA MAIS NOS SITES
:: SORTIMENTOS.COM >> http://www.sortimentos.net/?p=4144
:: GEBBEG >> http://gebbeg.com.br/?p=7215

.