(Source: TheNRCC)

Youngster immolates himself; Students clash with police after KCR’s arrest
K. Srinivas Reddy, The Hindu, November 29, 2009

Tension escalated on Osmania University campus after students clashed with policemen repeatedly, even as a youngster resorted to self-immolation after the police in Karimnagar foiled the attempts of K. Chandrasekhara Rao, chief of the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) to launch a fast-unto-death demanding separate statehood for Telangana on Sunday morning.

At least two dozen students and policemen were injured in the free-for-all battle on the Osmania Unversity campus where students reacted violently to the arrest of Mr. Rao in Karimnagar. Even as the police was grappling with the situation on the campus, another youngster, later identified as Srikanth immolated himself with kerosene near LB Nagar cross roads.

Srikanth attended in a private hospital for first aid and was later shifted to Gandhi Hospital where his condition was stated to be critical.

Mr. Chandrasekhar Rao, who was on his way to Siddipet to launch his indefinite fast was intercepted by a heavy contingent of police on Karimnagar outskirts and taken into custody.

The repercussions were instant on the Osmania University campus in the State capital where more than 1000 students demonstrated denouncing the arrest. The heavy posse of policemen in riot-gear on the campus became their target. There was heavy stone pelting on the police from Krishnaveni hostel side and initially, police exercised some restraint, but as the numbers of students swelled and stone hurling intensified, police used force.

That signalled the beginning of several rounds of see-saw battle with students, mostly living in the campus hostels attacking policemen and the policemen freely using their lathis and stones too to disperse the agitated students. Live coverage of the stone hurling and the lathicharge had further incensed the students in other hostels, who too rushed out onto the roads.

Rumours of a student injured in the lathicharge on OU campus led to a fresh round of serious confrontation with the police around noon. Despite the police announcing that no student injured in the lathicharge died, students went on a rampage attacking the policemen.

Police said Venkanna Nayak, a student of political science in PG College, suffering from epileptic seizures died in the morning. His roommates called an ambulance, but by that time had already died. He had no connection with the protests after Mr. Chandrasekhara Rao’s arrest, it was clarified repeatedly.

Source: http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article56854.ece

Scuffle in OU after KCR’s arrest
IANS November 29, 2009

At least 10 students were injured on Sunday as clashes broke out between police and students at Osmania University here following the arrest of Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) president K. Chandrasekhara Rao in Karimnagar before he was to begin a ‘fast unto death’ demanding separate statehood for the Telangana region.

Tension prevailed on the Osmania University campus as students supporting the demand for a separate Telangana fought pitched battles with police.

Police said some students climbed onto the terrace of one of the hostel buildings and threatened to jump down. Another student was seen pouring petrol on himself, demanding that the police stay away from the building.

As the news of KCR’s arrest broke out, students took to the streets in the campus and pelted stones at policemen deployed in large number since Saturday.

Some students were injured when the police chased them into one hostel building and beat them up. Protesting the police action, students gathered at other points in the campus.

A student leader said they would take a rally to the state secretariat to protest both KCR’s arrest and the police action against the students.

Source: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/hyderabad/scuffle-ou-after-kcrs-arrest-546

Tension prevails in Telangana area following KCR arrest
Siasat, Sunday, 29 November 2009

Karimnagar, November 29: Tension prevailed in north Telangana Districts when the police arrested the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) President K Chandrasekhara Rao near Alagnoor Cross Roads when he was proceeding to Siddipet to commence ‘fast-unto-death’ on the demand for a separate Telangana state.

TRS activists and students resorted to dharnas, road blockades and even damaged buses in various places in Adilabad, Nizamabad, Medak and Karminagar protesting against the arrest of their leader, demanding separate Telangana in the wake of Supreme Court declaring Hyderabad ”as a free zone” for posting of policemen in Andhra Pradesh.
TRS MLA T Harish Rao who started his fast in Siddipet along with the former MLAs Padma Devender Goud, Satyanarayana Rao and others called for Telangana Bandh tomorrow following the arrest of Chandrasekhara Rao and appealed all including the business people and students to cooperate with the bandh.

As Chandrasekhara Rao along with entourage left Telangana Bhavan in a cavalcade car of TRS supporters, Greyhound, the anti naxalite elite police source in battle fatigue isolated K Chandrasekhara’s vehicle as it slowed down near the cross road, and escorted him in the waiting vehicle and raced towards Warangal where the TRS president is likely to be lodged in central jail at Warangal.

Along with Chandrasekhara Rao, former minister N Narasimha Reddy and Dr Vijayarama Rao, former TRS floor leader in the assembly, were also arrested and taken away as they tried to stage sit-in at the cross road itself along with Chandrasekhara Rao, police moved swiftly encircled the group and took them away while the heavily deployed stationed policemen kept the TRS supporters at bay.
”Chandrasekhara Rao is likely to begin his fast even in jail in the changed scenario,” TRS leader said.
——Agencies

Source: http://www.siasat.com/english/news/tension-prevails-telangana-area-followig-kcr-arrest

E-Mail Mocking Obama Is ‘Exhibit A’ in Wrongful-Firing Suit

* By David Kravets Email Author
* October 13, 2009 |
* 3:30 pm |
* Categories: The Ridiculous, cyberbullying

*

obamaexhibita_pdf_400xThe president of a Midwest office supply company is in court after a salesman claimed the boss’ pre-election e-mail rant against Barack Obama amounted to an edict: Vote for Obama and you’re fired.

The lawsuit (.pdf) claims the president of KK Office Solutions’ pre-election e-mail criticizing Obama to company employees was no joke and instead resulted in the firing of a pro-Obama salesman, Elliot Snell, who openly made it known he supported and voted for Obama.

“Mr. Snell was terminated for voting for his presidential candidate of choice. Voting for a president is acting in a manner that public policy would encourage as it is similar to civic duties/opportunities such as performing jury duty, seeking public office or joining a labor union,” Snell’s lawsuit said.

The lawsuit, filed in Kansas state court Oct. 6, highlights that there is no federal statute directly protecting private workers from being retaliated for their votes. “There’s not really a federal statute that would cover this. It’s just not there. It has to be a public policy argument that is covered by state law,” said Snell’s attorney, Lawrence Williamson of Kansas.

What’s more, it’s an open question of whether Snell and his colleagues were being cyberbullied by president Matthew Brandt’s e-mail – underscoring that office humor in the digital age might get lost in translation — especially when undertaken by the boss.

“It was an ill-advised attempt at humor. Obviously, the better practice is to confine the use of company e-mails for business,” said Bill Tretbar, the company’s attorney, in a telephone interview.

“Having said that,” Tretbar added, “nobody in their right mind would interpret this e-mail as serious. The message here is even if the claim is utterly without merit, which we claim it is, my client is going to incur thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees to get rid of it.”

Among other things, the Oct. 29 2008 e-mail said if Obama is elected, changes would be made: sales personnel would pool commissions to give underachievers a “fair shake.” Hourly wage earners will pool wages and overtime to “help those who are ‘too busy’ for overtime.” Tretbar maintains the company president did not write the message but instead forwarded it on to employees.

What’s more, the e-mail, “Exhibit A” in the case, said top managers would be referred to as “the government.”

“We will not participate in this ‘pooling’ experience because the law doesn’t apply to us,” the e-mail said.

The linchpin of the fired worker’s argument hinges on a few of the final lines in Brandt’s e-mail.

“The last few people who are hired should clean out their desks,” the e-mail said. “Don’t feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he’ll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can’t pay your mortgage.”

The e-mail ended: “If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.”

Snell, in his lawsuit, claims he was the last salesman hired, so the e-mail proved true when he was terminated two weeks after Obama was elected.

“I’m sure they’re going to argue that they didn’t mean anything by it, but their actions ratified what the e-mail was,” Snell’s lawyer, Williamson, said in a telephone interview. “Mr. Snell was very verbal about his support for Obama and he was terminated.”

For its part, the company said Snell was fired for legal cause, which Snell disputes.

“All we wanted him to do was to sell copiers. He was terminated, after giving him ample opportunity, because he couldn’t meet expectations,” Tretbar said. “We don’t care if he was a Democrat or Republican or a Libertarian Buddhist. We just wanted him to sell our gear.”

See Also:

* Bank Sends Sensitive E-mail to Wrong Gmail Address, Sues Google …
* Appeals Court Backs Prison for E-Mail Obscenity
* NSA-Intercepted E-Mails Helped Convict Would-Be Bombers
* Palin E-Mail Hacker Says It Was Easy
* NSA Secret Database Ensnared President Clinton’s Private E-mail …
* Encrypted E-Mail Company Hushmail Spills to Feds

THANK YOU AUTHOR DAVID KRAVETS FOR A GREAT ARTICLE, FIRST TIME I FOUND THIS SITE AND THAT WAS THANKS TO EFFECTOR. GREAT WORK AND THANKS ONCE MORE.

Healthcare reform is a necessity.

 The Center for Disease control recently concluded a study finding that for every 1,000,000 people without 1,000 people will die as a result of lacking coverage.  Under the current proposed healthcare legislation, over 20 million people will remain uninsured.

 There is an argument to be made that something is better than nothing.  However the plan up for debate right now is too flawed and insufficient.

 The president has a mandate to enact reform.  He was right to make this a focus.  However, it is a mistake to press a problematic piece of legislation for the sake of simply passing something.  The bill in the senate right now should be scrapped before is mistakenly passed.

 In addition to a great number of Americans remaining uninsured, there are several other flaws that render this plan failed.

 More restrictive abortion coverage represents several problems with the bill.  Abortion coverage is part of the push for reform.  Coverage should be more open, not more restrictive. To adhere to the latter is antithesis to the purpose of the reform and sets our country’s progress in backward motion.  Furthermore, to concede to such a demand is adds a depreciative characteristic to our legislative process.  James Madison once said that compromise is the most appropriate word to sum up the job of congress.  The compromise he was referring to was accepting degrees of opposing views in an effort to enact to best legislation possible for the broadest sample of citizens.  The abortion rider in the current bill is not such a compromise.  It is the allowance of a Trojan horse insult to the legislation and a desperate political deal lacking all integrity.

 Additionally, a tax on cosmetic surgery is misplaced.  Our congress has the constitutionally given power to tax as it sees fit to provide for the welfare of the population; a power they should rightly have.  But the belief that cosmetic surgeries are reserved for the wealthy as an unnecessary and narcissistically driven procedure is incorrect.  Many people finance cosmetic surgery.  And many of the patients’ lives are catapulted into productive motion as a result of increased self-esteem.  These are the ones who cannot afford to pay an additional 5 percent on an already expensive procedure with an even higher interest rate.  Cosmetic surgery shouldn’t necessarily be included in coverage, but it certainly shouldn’t be taxed.

 There should also be no penalty for not having coverage.  If there is a penalty is should be for denying coverage.  Some people may not be able to afford healthcare.  Those people, and those families, are the ones who cannot afford to pay a penalty.  Those who can afford coverage, but choose not to purchase a plan, are more than likely able to pay for a great deal of visits and procedures on their own.  A happy-medium can be reached in mitigating the risk of government funding of care for individuals that are capable of purchasing a plan, but a penalty is not the answer.

 Finally, the public option.

 The public option is touted as giving Americans the option to shop for cheaper coverage.  Not everybody will be eligible for the government plan.  Regardless, it has been tried in Tennessee, Oregon and Massachusetts…and failed.  It doesn’t make healthcare any cheaper or more efficient.  It is right-wing and corporate “narcotic” of an idea that misleads the working class into believing that their interests are being put first.  The insurance industry keeps it monopoly and profits and the representatives and senators keep their seats by feigning constituent interest.  It is a sham.  And to whatever degree the efforts are legitimate; they’re not enough.

 The only real answer is a single-payer system.  Healthcare is a right.  No one would argue that people have a right to live.  Therefore, no one should argue against people having reasonable access to the resources that ensure the continuation of life.  Fire departments used to comprise a private industry.  You had to pay to play.  But it was realized that to deny someone the service of the fire department because they could not afford it was cruel and inhumane.  That reality is even more present in healthcare.  In comparison to other industrialized nations we are taxed relatively low.  We can afford a tax to cover the cost of that care.

 Ask yourself; if you had a loved one ding on the street, would you be angry if someone wouldn’t pay $100 to get them care?

Fred Barnes, editor over at the Weekly Standard, has hit it right in the dot concerning why Obama has failed to change business as usual in the District. In a recent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, he boils President Obama’s mishaps to three solid and very articulate reasons.

1. Barnes asserts that President Obama mistook his election as a mandate for bringing a one-sided, leftist-leaning political agenda to American politics. In pushing for such policies, Obama excites his base but also alienates independents. On top of this, poll after poll shows that the country is for the most part conservative.

From the way I see it, President Obama’s failure to take these voter demographics into account could hurt him in the 2012. In politics, it’s fundamental that you pay attention to the political tone of the country as a whole. That way you can know how to best represent the people on the issues having the most significance in their daily lives. To not do so is downright absent- minded if not arrogant.

Arrogance is befitting of a king. Given the Founders’ desire to get away from a king type of mentality, Obama acting in such a way does a disservice to the original intent of American government. Furthermore, President Obama showcases political incompetence at best especially when he’s up for another term 2012.

2. Barnes asserts that President Obama misread the public by promoting his policies in a pre-election campaign style. Again, this is fundamental politics. In campaign speeches, people are so caught up in a honeymoon mindset that they’re not really expecting the candidate to be specific.

My response? Totally right. When the gentleman is actually in office, that’s where the rubber meets the road. Now that the guy actually has some power to affect the everyday citizien’s life, people are actually starting to listen to what the guy says and to what the guy does. Getting away with vague generalities (and downright lying) is no longer an option…especially when you have representatives like Joe Wilson verbally holding the president accountable for his words.

3. Barnes asserts that President Obama misread Republicans, saying that the President should have worked to have been more bipartisan with them. In Barnes’s words, the president should have offered “concessions” to Republicans in implementing his policies. Giving a little would have gotten Obama a lot. But the Republicans’ early silence in calling out the president combined with his failure to reach across the aisle  showed Obama as being overly partisan (something he campaigned strongly against). Before you know it, tea partiers started popping up all over the country, the conservative movement picked up strong momentum, and the Democrats started playing on the defensive (something their leader Saul Alinsky would have disapproved of).

So again, two words sum up the Obama Presidency right now: political absent-mindedness and downright arrogance.

This one quote sums up the way we SHOULD be doing health care reform:

“…do health care the right way — one reform at a time, each simple and simplifying, aimed at reducing complexity, arbitrariness and inefficiency.”

The stated reason of the democrats to undertake this massive takeover of the health care system was to “insure the 40 million uninsured.”

That number is misleading and inaccurate, but let’s assume for a moment that there are 40 million people who can’t afford insurance.  Tort reform and competition are the BEST ways to make it affordable, but let’s assume again for the sake of argument that the government needs to step in.

A family of four can get a pretty decent health insurance for about $400 per month.  That’s $4,800 per year for a family of four.  Now let’s assume an even worse case that the cost is $4,800 per person per year.  Multiply that times the 40 million claimed by the democrats to be uninsured and that comes out to $192,000,000,000.  That’s 192 billion dollars.

So if the government simply wrote those 40 million people a check to buy a PRIVATE insurance policy, it would be over 13 times LESS EXPENSIVE than the plan the democrats are pushing, and that’s using the most conservative estimates of the overall costs of $2.5 TRILLION.  Most think it will be much, much higher.

Again, looking at THE ORIGINAL STATED GOAL OF INSURING THE UNINSURED, I have to ask how can we possibly be going down this road and remotely think it’s a good way to go about it?

November 27, 2009

Kill the Bills. Do Health Reform Right

By Charles Krauthammer

November 5th, 2009
Two Battles Won: PATRIOT Reform AND State Secrets Reform Bills Pass House Committee
Deeplink by Kevin Bankston

November 5th, 2009
Two Battles Won: PATRIOT Reform AND State Secrets Reform Bills Pass House Committee
Deeplink by Kevin Bankston
After a long two days of legislative battle, the House Judiciary Committee just finished its second day of debate on Chairman Conyers’ PATRIOT reform bill, HR 3845 (see our wrap-up of the first day). Thanks in no small part to those of you who used our action alert, the Committee rejected almost all amendments that would have weakened the bill’s reforms and voted to recommend the bill to the House floor by a vote of 16 to 10.

Even better, the Committee kept going after it was finished with PATRIOT to consider Representative Nadler’s State Secret Protection Act (HR 984), which would reform the state secrets privilege that the government has repeatedly used to try and throw EFF’s warrantless wiretapping cases out of court. After an impassioned defense by Mr. Nadler, who described how the government has used the privilege like a “magic incantation” to cover-up wrongdoing and warned that state secrecy “is the greatest threat to liberty at present,” the bill passed with even better numbers than the PATRIOT bill, 18 to 12!

It was, to say the least, a busy couple of days in the House Judiciary Committee. If you want the entire blow-by-blow of both day’s meetings, check out our Twitter stream at @EFF.

Admittedly, the PATRIOT bill isn’t all we had hoped for — as we described yesterday, it’s been weakened in a number of ways due to quiet pressure from the Obama Administration — but it passed through the Committee with most of its major reforms intact, and it is a substantial improvement over the PATRIOT bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month. Meanwhile, the state secrets reform bill made it through the committee without being watered down at all, with only a few technical changes. Thanks and congratulations to the representatives and activists that worked so hard to make that happen.

Eyes now turn to the Senate, where the Senate Judiciary Committee’s PATRIOT Bill (S. 1692) will soon land on the floor, and to the House Intelligence Committee, which will soon be marking-up its own competing PATRIOT bill with much fewer reforms (HR 3969). So, the war is far from over. But two important battles were won today.

Just think on that day not too long ago when he was Senator Obama, he promised us a Nay on H.R.6403 he lied. Yea he electronically voted since the Senate could give two S**TS about our Fourth being redacted. i despise them for that.

But a bigger indicator of peril comes from a new survey question added the DK tracking poll for the first time this week. The poll now includes a rather simple indicator of baseline voter enthusiasm for the year 2010. The question offered to respondents is a simple question about their intentions for 2010:

QUESTION: In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?

The results were, to put it mildly, shocking:

Voter Intensity: Definitely + Probably Voting/Not Likely + Not Voting

Republican Voters: 81/14
Independent Voters: 65/23
DEMOCRATIC VOTERS: 56/40

Two in five Democratic voters either consider themselves unlikely to vote at this point in time, or have already made the firm decision to remove themselves from the 2010 electorate pool. Indeed, Democrats were three times more likely to say that they will “definitely not vote” in 2010 than are Republicans.

This enormous enthusiasm gap, as well as some polling analysis done by PPP (and analyzed well here by Nate Silver), seems to make passing legitimate health care reform an absolute political necessity for Democrats. This polling data certainly should be something for Congressional leadership to consider, as they move along the legislative path.

Tension grips T region as KCR gears up for fast-unto-death
PTI 29 November 2009, 01:50am IST

HYDERABAD: Tension gripped regions in Telangana on Saturday ahead of the proposed fast-unto-death by TRS president K Chandrasekhar Rao demanding immediate grant of statehood for the region even as security was beefed up to thwart any untoward incidents
Rao is scheduled to start his fast on Sunday in his home town Siddipet in Medak district.

Alleging that the state government was using repressive methods to thwart his proposed agitation, the TRS chief said chief minister K Rosaiah would be held responsible for any eventuality. “You (Rosaiah) can’t stuff food into my mouth and break my fast. We have seen enough so far and we shall not cow down any longer” the former Union minister said in an angry tone even as police apprehended scores of party workers in different districts of the region for canvassing support for his fast.

Meanwhile, prohibitory orders under section 144 CRPC have been clamped in Karimnagar where Rao is currently camping. A large posse of police personnel virtually laid siege to TRS Bhavan in Karimnagar where Rao was closeted in a meeting with his party leaders. There were indications that the police may place the leader under house arrest in Karimnagar itself and prevent him from reaching Siddipet.
Six IPS officials and hundreds of policemen have been moved to Siddipet, Karimnagar and other places in Telangana for maintaining law and order with intelligence inputs indicating that the TRS cadre may resort to violence.

“We have put everything in place to ensure that the situation does not go out of hands. Our focus is on preventing violence in view of the threat issued by the TRS,” a top IPS official overseeing the operation said.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Tension-grips-T-region-as-KCR-gears-up-for-fast-unto-death/articleshow/5280547.cm

KCR may be arrested
November 29th, 2009 Deccan Chronicle
By Our Correspondent

Hyderabad/ Siddipet, Nov. 28: The Telangana Rashtra Samiti chief, Mr K. Chandrasekhar Rao, is likely to be arrested before he begins his fast-unto-death demanding statehood for Telangana on Sunday in Siddipet at 11 am.

Police tightened security across the region and the elite Greyhounds were pressed into service. Around 3,500 policemen were deployed in Siddipet alone, said Warangal region IG Mr J. Purnachandra Rao.
Dozens of TRS leaders and activists were being picked up from dawn itself.

An indication of Mr Rao’s likely arrest came when Siddipet ASP Ms Jayalaxmi said no permission was given to him for the hunger strike. The Chief Minister, Mr K. Rosaiah, left it to the police “to act in accordance with the situation.”

“You have a free hand to maintain law and order and peace. You can take any action you feel is necessary, we won’t come in your way,” Mr Rosaiah told the police after a high-level review of the situation, according to sources. When an official asked if Mr Rao should be taken into custody before he proceeds to Siddipet, Mr Rosaiah reportedly replied: “It is for you to take a decision.”

Mr Rao asserted that he would go ahead with the fast as he was unable to see the injustice done to the people of Telangana. Even if he was arrested, he would continue his fast in jail till his demands are met, he said.

He plans to start from his residence in Karimnagar at 9 am, offer prayers at the Venkateswara temple at Polepally and reach the venue of his fast at Siddipet. “I believe in God. I was advised by pundits to launch fast between 11 am and 12 noon. I will make sure I will launch on time,” he said.

Mr Rao launched a bitter attack on his opponents, terming Congress leaders as “barking dogs” for making fun of his fast and calling the former Congress minister, Mr T. Jeevan Reddy, the “shani” of Karimnagar.

He said, “The Chief Minister must rush to New Delhi and get an assurance on Telangana from the Centre instead of wasting money on deploying police forces in Telangana to foil my fast.”

Criticising the government for the massive police deployment, he fumed: “Am I Osama bin Laden holding a wireless set? Do I have links with international terrorists? Why should 6,000 cops tail a weakling like me? Why should nearly 1,000 cops tail the frail, 75-year-old (Telangana ideologue) Prof. Jayashanker?”

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/hyderabad/kcr-may-be-arrested-504

MP flays KCR
Staff Reporter, The Hindu November 29, 2009

TRS chief trying to provoke innocent people on sentiment issue, he alleges

KARIMNAGAR: Karimnagar MP Ponnam Prabhakar has said that TRS president K. Chandrashekhar Rao should own responsibility if there was any kind of violence during his fast-unto-death programme in Karimnagar district in general and his parliament constituency in particular.

Talking to newsmen here on Saturday evening, he flayed Mr. Chandrashekhar Rao for camping in Karimnagar district and provoking the innocent people of the district on the sentiment issue.

“If he (KCR) is doing his fast-unto-death programme against the declaration of Hyderabad as free zone, he should do the same in the State capital in Hyderabad and not in Siddipet town and gain sympathy for his party in the region”, he maintained.

He said that Mr. Rao had no right to stay in Karimnagar district as he neglected his constituency people during his tenure as MP in spite of being elected on three occasions.

Condemning the remarks made against the Congress leaders on the Statehood issue, he said that the Congress party has its own strategy and Mr. Rao could not dictate terms to the party.

Source: http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/29/stories/2009112957090300.htm

Telangana issue: Chandrasekhar Rao on fast-unto-death
NDTV Correspondent, Saturday November 28, 2009, Hyderabad

Telangana Rashtra Samiti supremo K Chandrasekhar Rao will once again try to mount pressure on the UPA government to grant statehood to Telangana.

His modus operandi this time is to sit on a fast-unto-death from Sunday.

“In spite of our repeated requests to the highest offices at the Centre and the state, the response was very poor. Ultimately, that led to my decision to undertake this fast-unto-death,” said Chandrasekhar Rao.

Chandrasekhar Rao will be surrounded by TRS activists to prevent the police from disrupting his fast. The build-up has caused concern in the Congress camp.

“Any fast-unto-death will create law and order problem. I think it will be resolved. He will have to reconsider his decision,” said P.Laxmaiah, Andhra Irrigation Minister.

The TRS fared poorly in the Lok Sabha and assembly elections in April-May this year. This desperate and dramatic gamble by KCR is an attempt to regain some of the credibility and political space he has lost in the region.

In August 2006, he sat on a fast in New Delhi over the same issue. He was persuaded to call it off after two days.

Source: http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/telangana_issue_chandrasekhar_rao_on_fast-unto-death.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ndtv%2FLsgd+%28NDTV+News+-+India%29

From The Houston Chronicle:

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s decision to shift the production of Army trucks from Texas to Wisconsin after 17 years caught Texas’ elected officials by surprise, raising questions about overconfidence, a loss of political clout and the impact of economic incentives provided to the winning company by Wisconsin’s Democratic governor.

Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry and the 34-member Senate-House delegation are rallying to salvage a deal for BAE Systems that could be worth $2.6 billion and sustain 10,000 direct and indirect jobs around the sprawling truck manufacturing plant in Sealy.

But as one Democratic operative puts it: “That’s like having a party in the corral after all the horses have run out.”

Original DVD cover

The 92-year-old Oshkosh Corp. undercut BAE Systems’ bid by roughly 10 percent. The Wisconsin company had support by a predominantly Democratic congressional delegation that helped Barack Obama carry the state last November. And the truck builder reaped the benefits of state assistance crafted by Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle.

Elected officials in Texas assumed the contract would remain in their state, relied on networks of support built up during Republican control of the White House and Congress and did not provide BAE Systems any state assistance.

…snip…

“It sounds to me like complacency may be the biggest factor in Texas losing this contract,” says political scientist Paul Light of New York University. “The Army made a decision to give the contract to the lowest bidder. If I were an elected official from Texas, I’d stop whining and start asking questions about why Texas didn’t put up the dollars to help the company keep that contract.”

The congressional watchdog, the Government Accountability Office, expects to decide by mid-December the outcome of BAE Systems’ appeal of the Army decision.

…snip…

“We are hopeful the government will reverse the decision in the interests of the U.S. military and the U.S. taxpayer,” says BAE spokesman Michael Teegardin.

The setback for Texas illustrates just how far the state’s political leverage has plummeted since Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, D-Houston, helped BAE’s predecessor win the initial contract in 1991 under President George H.W. Bush, and Sens. Phil Gramm, R-College Station, and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Dallas, helped the company retain the contract in 2001 under President George W. Bush.

“We never saw this coming — we were completely blindsided,” says a top aide to Sen. John Cornyn, R-San Antonio, a former member of the Senate Armed Services Committee panel with jurisdiction over military vehicles.

Lawmakers and BAE officials alike felt “sucker punched,” added David Davis, a top Hutchison aide.

I’m not so convinced that KBH (Kay Big Hair) is freaking out over this. Is she going to use this in her campaign against Governor Goodhair? I can imagine her saying, “Hey y’all, I got that durned contract for Texas, and Little Ricky screwed it up for all of us!”

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, whose Austin-to-Houston district includes the plant, learned of the Army’s decision while driving to an appearance in his district in late August. He and press secretary Mike Rosen immediately diverted to visit BAE officials in Sealy.

“In a time of war, terminating a relationship with a proven manufacturer does not seem to be a prudent choice,” McCaul subsequently wrote Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a letter signed by 25 members of Texas’ 32-member House delegation.

One congressional aide said Texas lawmakers should have been more alert to the possibility of losing a contract that Oshkosh had tried to win in 2001.

…snip…

Some Texas Democrats have seized upon the lost contract to criticize GOP officials. “Job protection is really job No. 1 for a member of Congress,” says former Democratic Rep. Chris Bell, a former Houston City Council member who served one term in the House before losing in 2004.

McCaul failed to enlist Democrats in Texas’ congressional delegation such as Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, to help protect the contract in a Democratic administration, says Matt Angle, a longtime Democratic operative who heads the political action committee known as the Lone Star Project.

Some members of Texas’ congressional delegation suspect political interference. There was “a political push that was inappropriate,” said one Senate aide

…snip…

McCaul, a former Justice Department prosecutor and former Texas deputy attorney general, said Pentagon contracts should be awarded “based on quality, realistic cost and how quickly the product can get to our troops on the battlefield.”

But Jay Kimmitt, head of the winning company’s Washington office, says Oshkosh won the contract on the merits without “inappropriate and unnecessary” intervention by the governor; Sens. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold; or Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Ellis Brachman, spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said the powerful chairman played no role.

…snip…

The $35 million in tax breaks and the economic assistance provided Oshkosh over 12 years signal that “Wisconsin is open for business,” Doyle said. But the truck manufacturer says the assistance “did not make the difference” in the outcome of the bidding.

…snip…

But Light, the political scientist, noted: “It doesn’t sound like Texas has much maneuvering room in the bid protest — a 10 percent difference in price is huge on a multibillion-dollar contract.”

I don’t know why the Rethugs are so up in arms about this. After all, Texas is recession-proof. Right, Little Ricky? And it’s not like those 10,000 workers will have to worry about losing their health insurance or anything.

Tension grips T region as KCR gears up for fast-unto-death
PTI 29 November 2009, 01:50am IST

HYDERABAD: Tension gripped regions in Telangana on Saturday ahead of the proposed fast-unto-death by TRS president K Chandrasekhar Rao demanding immediate grant of statehood for the region even as security was beefed up to thwart any untoward incidents

Rao is scheduled to start his fast on Sunday in his home town Siddipet in Medak district.

Alleging that the state government was using repressive methods to thwart his proposed agitation, the TRS chief said chief minister K Rosaiah would be held responsible for any eventuality. “You (Rosaiah) can’t stuff food into my mouth and break my fast. We have seen enough so far and we shall not cow down any longer” the former Union minister said in an angry tone even as police apprehended scores of party workers in different districts of the region for canvassing support for his fast.

Meanwhile, prohibitory orders under section 144 CRPC have been clamped in Karimnagar where Rao is currently camping. A large posse of police personnel virtually laid siege to TRS Bhavan in Karimnagar where Rao was closeted in a meeting with his party leaders. There were indications that the police may place the leader under house arrest in Karimnagar itself and prevent him from reaching Siddipet.

Six IPS officials and hundreds of policemen have been moved to Siddipet, Karimnagar and other places in Telangana for maintaining law and order with intelligence inputs indicating that the TRS cadre may resort to violence.

“We have put everything in place to ensure that the situation does not go out of hands. Our focus is on preventing violence in view of the threat issued by the TRS,” a top IPS official overseeing the operation said.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Tension-grips-T-region-as-KCR-gears-up-for-fast-unto-death/articleshow/5280547.cms

BHussein: “Let MY People Go”

Lieberman: Barghouti Will Not be Released
Article: Israel National News

Speaking Thursday morning, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said he could “guarantee” that arch-terrorist Marwan Barghouti would not be released from prison in any deal to exchange terrorists for kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit. “We have no intention to free the head of the murderers, a person who has been sentenced to four life terms in prison. There are red lines, and this is one of them,” Lieberman said.

In response to U.S. demands that Israel free an additional 1,000-some terrorists as a “gesture” to Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas, Lieberman said that previous releases of Fatah terrorists “have not proven themselves. The Olmert administration did this several times and it did not work, and we do not plan to allow it to happen,” Lieberman said.

Why can’t BHussein be smart enough to know that freeing RADICAL TERRORISTS does NOT PRODUCE POSITIVE RESULTS?! Oh. I guess “brotherhood” has a lot to do with it.

BHussein with Palestinian President Abu Mazen as he demands that Israel releases an additional 1,000 terrorists as a “gesture”to “moderate” “Palestinians”.

So; even the terrorists who are holding the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit captive demand only 450 Palestinian terrorist prisoners that are being held in Israeli jails be released in exchange for Gilad Shalit.

A big thank you to our friend DangerB for posting this, please visit and read the rest of his take on it.

WTF is it with B. Hussein and Islamist terrorists? WTF is it with all of his actions since being “elected”? He is systematically destroying our Republic, stripping us of our freedoms. He needs to be gone along with all of his cohorts. WAKE UP AMERICA.

I have not verified the accuracy of this, nonetheless Obama must go.

The mining practice called fracking is coming under new scrutiny by the EPA.

A just-passed Interior Department spending bill includes a provision that encourages the agency to study whether fracking is polluting groundwater. Fracking – short for hydraulic fracturing – has made it easier for companies to drill for natural gas in energy-rich states like Colorado.

A similar study during the Bush Administration concluded there was no threat to groundwater. But that was widely criticized by environmentalists and some members of Congress who said the government's analysis was based primarily on input from Halliburton and other energy companies.

via KUNC: DeGette Continues Push for Federal Fracking Law (2009-11-19).

A Dolighan political cartoon

Health care reform is a hot topic!   The problem is that there are far too many politics involved and too few constituent’s desires being honored.  Our statesmen are in office because we chose them.  We have the option not to choose them again if they do not listen to the voices of their people.  In my humble opinion, a political representative can not stand for his people if he or she does not stand with them.  They have to hear the opinions of their constituents in order to act on their behalf.

Healthcarevote.com has created a balanced survey on heath care reform available for the public to complete and send on to their statesmen. The website takes the survey information and forwards it on to each individual’s representative at no cost. After completing the survey you are given the option to keep a short three sentence or so memo that is attached to your questionere or to write your own. I chose to write my own, highlighting my position on the exorbitant costs required by healthcare providers, thus passed on through the insurance companies (the main cause for healthcare’s HIGH costs,) pre-existing conditions, the right of choice for care, abortion, the coverage of illegal residents, and more.  This is an opportunity for each individual to express their opinion and have it heard by their elected official.

The site is associated, from what I can find, with Zogby, an individual that contacts their statesman via the site has the opportunity to opt out of any information sharing for future political surveying purposes.

This article in the Wall Street Journal by Edward Pinto describes the fuse that was lit by the 1992 GSE Act. Mr. Pinto chief credit officer at Fannie Mae from 1987 to 1989, so has some knowledge of this act and its impacts on the underwriting process of loans securitized by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Groups like ACORN were invited by House Banking Committee Henry Gonzalez to -

draft statutory language setting the law’s affordable-housing mandates. Interim goals were set at 30% of the single-family mortgages purchased by Fannie and Freddie, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development has increased that percentage over time.

This eventually led to zero percent down mortgages, the (continued) bailout of Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac, and our current credit difficulties. Make no mistakes about it. The economic problems that we suffered over the last 18 months, and continue with today, have their roots in Congressionally-mandated actions to rewrite the standards for credit-worthiness to help facilitate home ownership.

While these were (are) admirable goals, the road to economic hell is paved with good intentions.

In Chaffetz We Trust

Saturday, November 28, 2009. I didn’t care much for my last Congressman, Chris Cannon (R-Utah, 3rd District). Every time I tried to get his help with a problem he ignored me. So when the opportunity came to oust him at the primary level in 2008 I did the unthinkable: I declared myself a Republican so I could participate in the primary. He was soundly defeated by Jason Chaffetz who went on to win the seat in the general election that November (which came as no surprise since District Three is overwhelmingly Republican).

Chaffetz seemed like a nice enough guy and I do admire his media acumen. His choice to sleep on a cot in his Washington office was a nice symbolic gesture, a way to show his constituents that he’s tightening his belt as an example to the rest of Washington. (Of course, had he rented a small apartment in D.C., he would have done more to at least help the local economy but I digress.)

Chaffetz, like many of his Congressional colleagues, has also made extensive use of social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter as well as producing his own “Cot-Side Chats,” in which he discusses policy and bills that he’s going to vote on. As a filmmaker and video blogger myself, this is something I especially liked until the day I decided to leave a comment on one of his “Chats.”

It should be noted that before I started to give Chaffetz my two cents, he had already been receiving comments on his videos all the time and they all pretty much said the same thing: “Good job, Jason,” and, “Keep up the great work,” etc. It was one particular chat in which he criticized the President for signing into law a spending bill with over 9,000 earmarks (congressional pet projects) on which I left a comment pointing out that around 40 percent of those earmarks were placed there by Republicans. Chaffetz’ response to my comment was to disable the comments feature on this and all subsequent video posts including his “Cot-Side Chats.” I was not pleased by this and made it known to the Congressman with a post to my video blog, The Angle.

Chaffetz responded to me via e-mail saying:

Joe Puente-
Thank you for your message and your video. I watched it and was very impressed with your talents in making the short film. I appreciate your request and input, however, the House Republican Conference has asked all the members that are on You Tube to turn the comments off. I believe the Democratic Caucus is doing the same. Although, I wanted to let you know that you are more than welcome to email me your comments on each of the videos. I would appreciate your input.
Thanks again,
Jason Chaffetz
Member of Congress

It was nice hearing back from my Congressman, a welcome change from being ignored by his predecessor and I took him at his word. Then I got one of his mass e-mails in which he accused the Obama Administration of breaking a major campaign promise by raising taxes on all Americans. I did a little research and discovered that Chaffetz was referring to the Cap and Trade program which, according to its opponents, would drastically raise the cost of energy for all Americans and that it’s this theoretically-large spike in energy prices to which Chaffetz was referring, not an actual levied tax.

Four days later, Chaffetz published an essay on CNN.com titled, “Why We Shouldn’t Use Tax Law as a Weapon.” Apparently using the word “tax” to scare one’s constituents is perfectly acceptable. Seeing the lengths that Chaffetz was willing to go to misrepresent the Obama administration, to bend the truth and massage facts for his own political purposes, I did a little research into his claim that he was under orders from his party caucus to turn off the comments on his You Tube Channel. Sure enough, of the four leaders of the Republican and Democratic caucuses, three of them have You Tube channels and all three allow comments.

I soon learned of Chaffetz’ Facebook account and asked to be his “friend.” On this Facebook page I discovered an entire community of people actively engaged in what appeared, only at first, to be serious discussion of political issues. Unfortunately, the more I read, the sooner I realized that almost everyone in this forum was reading from the same script. There was no dialogue, just a lot of repetition and virtual backslapping, and so, of course, I would offer a different point of view. I’ll speak more of those who voice their opinions and their reactions to my views in Part Two of this treatise. Right now, suffice it to say that many of these people haven’t even a hint of civility when it comes to sharing ideas or hearing different solutions to problems. What concerns me most about these attitudes however, isn’t the general lack of balance in what’s being shared in the forum, but the silence of the forum’s founder, the “honorable” Jason Chaffetz.

On more than one occasion I have asked the congressman to speak to his Facebook friends (later called “fans” when his followers passed the 5,000 mark.) But does Chaffetz speak to them? Does he ask that they be courteous, open-minded and polite? No. Instead he fans the flames himself by posting every fear-mongering op-ed or collection of “good information” that he has been given by “Leader Boehner.” (He actually calls him that. I don’t know if that’s how one is supposed to address the minority leader in the House of Representatives, but every time I read it I can’t help but think of “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-il of North Korea).

He will also share links to articles on conservative web sites or by conservative pundits from major publications adding little more to the article than, “I agree with this” or, “They got this right.” I would like to know what Chaffetz actually thinks of these articles, assuming he thinks about them at all. The impression I get from his posts is that whenever he finds something that tells him what he wants to hear, he posts it.

From time to time he does write more than a simple sentence but it’s usually a link attachment to an obviously biased platform such as his favorite source for “information,” gopleader.gov.

The real paradox with Chaffetz, however, is that he claims to be a media-savvy politician who has mastered social networking and navigated the rough seas of the internet. Yet, he treats his constituents as if they have no other source of information about what’s going on in Washington than himself. Unfortunately, a lot of his Facebook followers are more than happy to let him tell them what to think–which in and of itself is ironic since he seems to rely on the Republican Party leadership to tell him what to think.

On occasion, Chaffetz will send out an e-mail updating his constituents about an important piece of legislation or criticizing the Democratic majority for treating Republicans the same way that the Republican majority treated Democrats when they were in power. He will also include statistics, graphs and figures to back up his arguments but rarely does he offer a source for this information. Of course if he did include a source, the people he was trying to manipulate would see that he usually took said statistics, graphs and figures completely out of a context, This would undermine the very argument he was trying to make, one such being a popular GOP claim that President Obama “promised” that unemployment wouldn’t rise past 8 percent. Of course, the President never said this, but Chaffetz and his GOP colleagues like to make use of a graph from a report titled “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan” (emphasis added), released on January 10 and prepared in part by Christina Romer, then Chair Nominee Designate of President-elect Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors. Not only does this report, and the graphic contained in it predate the Obama Administration by at least 10 days, it was written over a month before anyone even knew what the final details of the stimulus package would be. And the statistics used in it were most likely based on economic forecasts from the last quarter of 2008, when we were only just beginning to realize that we were even in a recession. During the following month the language and fiscal details of the stimulus bill went through so many changes and adjustments that the data and the graph presented in that January 10 report were rendered completely inapplicable to the final legislation. But what really blows my mind is that in the age of online news archives, Wikipedia, and public records being posted on the internet, Chaffetz thinks no one will bother to fact check his claims. Oh, sure, he has his base that will always give him a pass, but I do not count myself among them.

The real tragedy about Chaffetz and Utah’s third district is the stranglehold that the Republican party and conservatives in general have on Utah politics. Chaffetz is just another GOP demagogue in a state controlled by a single party and does little to embrace fair political practices or give more than a token few Democrats a place at the political table. Democracy only works when a diversity of views is allowed to be expressed and healthy duality of political parties can be engaged in the process. For the most part, this doesn’t exist in Utah and is unheard of in District Three. It is one party rule with only a patina of the real values of a democracy.

———
Joe Puente is a writer, actor and filmmaker from Utah and manages JasonWatch.org.
Puente’s online resume can be found at JoePuente.net. His community action page is at JoePuente.org, where you can also follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Read “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan”

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Watch Puente’s take on Cap and Trade:

http://www.jasonwatch.org/critique.htm#capandtrade

Eight months ago an emergency session of congress met with the sole purpose of addressing the AIG bonus issue. In what can be called a knee jerk reaction, congress passed legislation prohibiting the payment of bonus monies that were part of the companies employment contracts. This action then and now broke the law as it is written in the constitution, at the time little if any press interest was given to this history making moment.

Dateline: 11/28/09 ACORN can receive pending federal payments justice department says. “David Barron, the acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in a memo last month that the ban “should not be read as directing or authorizing HUD to breach a pre-existing binding contractual obligation to make payments to ACORN or its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations where doing so would give rise to contractual liability.”

Double standard, clearly.  Where the Democratic congress in an effort to save face broke the law and the Constitution to “punish” AIG for its lowly capitalistic ways, they and the Obama administration have been busy behind the scenes developing ways to circumvent the intent of congress and it’s finding, “no more federal dollars should flow to ACORN.”

The clear politicization of the Justice department and payback to Acorn is shameful and amounts to nothing more than old-fashion cronyism states Rep Darrell Issa. What is clear is that depending on needs of the Obama administration their view of law is subjective to the benefit of the continuation of their causes.

ACORN has been shown to be a front and a fraud for numerous scurrilous causes, they have been accused of voter registration fraud, several of it’s founders have been accused of bilking millions of federal dollars, and at the very least based on the consistency of the released tapes by O’Keefe and Giles they at the very least have a serious human resource issue.

Also apparent, the Obama administration could not risk exposing their concern for the attacks on their golden goose ACORN, and what is becoming an obvious pattern for this administration they twist the law to their interpretation and protect what has been shown to be a highly corrupt organization.

To the Obama administration, “truth is what you make it” and will use every latitude in the Constitution to prove that point, this tact reveals that we have high powered attorneys running our country whom are hellbent on using the law to achieve there means. This is nothing new in the political world, what is novel is the ease in which the administration pulls off the blatant favoritism for some, and alienation and attack for others, all with a smile, Chicago style.

ATLAS SHRUGS –Muslim groups shut down free speech at ivy leagues

CONSERVATIVE BLOG NETWORK

DOUG ROSS JOURNAL   Brilliant: White House posts party crasher photos to its Flickr feed

FLOPPING ACES     ObamaCare Cost Will Be Closer To 6 Trillion Dollars

GATEWAY PUNDIT   Figures, Obama’s personal physician friend was a Marxist, Too

ED MORRISSEY    DOJ: Federal agencies must honor ACORN contracts

ALLAHPUNDIT   Finally: Red Eye interviews the “queen of conservative media”

LEGAL INSURRECTION  The greatest Celebrity’s Reality Show

MACSMIND   The MacRanger Show is ON THE AIR

NEWSBUSTERS

NEWREAL  Reality TV invades a clueless Whit House

OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY  Republicans Enjoy Enthusiasm Gap

RIEHL WORLD VIEW   Some Beck fans beginning to jump ship.

SAY ANYTHING BLOG   Al Gore wants economic growth measured in terms of global warming

STOP THE ACLU  Obama admin calls for return to Israel’s 1967 borders

TEL-CHAI NATION

THE SNOOPER REPORT

ANIMAL FARM   No Separation of Church and State

FRUGAL CAFE   Outrageously lavish Dubai lifestyle crashing from debt, hits world markets hard.

GOODTIMEPOLITICS  Colorado Springs:  Obama hedging on promises

LISA IN TEXAS  Gore Climate-Gate Deathstar, Tax and Control

ON MY WATCH   Palin’s Timing and Moves Textbook Perfection

VOTINGFEMALESPEAKS  Sara Palin Envy triggers Socialist head spinning, would ObamaCare cover Exorcisms for Socialists..

SMALL DEAD ANIMALS  I, for one, welcome Europe’s new communist overlords

YIPIEE!

Very interesting post by Michael Dorf at Dorf on Law:

The recent procedural theatrics over starting Senate debate on the health care bill provide only the latest occasion for reflecting on the oddity of the cloture rule, which effectively requires 60 votes to accomplish anything in our upper house.  A naive reader of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution would think that all it takes for the Senate to act positively on a bill is for a simple majority to vote in favor of it.  Section 7 doesn’t expressly state this point, but that’s the only fair inference from a provision that discusses "yeas and nays," and also specifies a particular super-majority (2/3) for overcoming a veto.

Plus, various other provisions of Article I specify various super-majorities, leading to the only plausible inference that ordinary legislation requires only a simple majority.  The kicker is Article I, Section 3, which only gives the Vice President a vote in the Senate if the other Senators "be equally divided."  This provision makes no sense unless it is meant to give the VP the power to break a tie by creating a bare majority.  And indeed, no one has seriously doubted the simple-majority voting rule for ordinary legislation.  Except, of course, that the cloture rule effectively requires a 3/5 majority to accomplish anything, so long as the minority Senators are willing to translate their votes on the merits into votes on whether to end debate.

I am not interested right now in arguing that the cloture rule is unconstitutional.  Article I also gives each house the power to set its own procedural rules, and so it is at least plausible to contend that adding procedural "veto gates" via procedural rules is simply part of the Senate’s power.  Nor is it obvious to me that the various minority protections in the Senate rules (including not just the cloture rule but various individual privileges and the complex committee system) are, over the long run, likely to favor conservatives or progressives.

One might think that, over the long run, veto gates benefit conservatives more than progressives, as blocking powers tend to lead to gridlock, and conservatives generally want the government not to do things, while progressives want the government to do things (like guarantee health care, combat global warming, etc.)  But I don’t think this analysis carries through.  Given a status quo of no-law, conservatives will systematically benefit more from blocking powers than progressives will (assuming equal likelihood of being in the majority or minority).  However, we do not have a no-law status quo.  We have a status quo of substantial government and so when conservatives come to power, progressives find blocking powers quite useful in trying to stop the formers’ efforts to enact legislation rolling back government.  Another way to put the point might be to say that modern conservatives are not "conservative" in the literal sense of wanting to conserve the status quo: They have an ideology that is generally skeptical of government efforts to regulate the private sector (except when the private sector is actually inside people’s bedrooms or women’s uteri, in which case they’re generally for such regulation, as sardonically explained here).

Even if I’m right about all of the foregoing, one might still think that, on balance, veto gates like the filibuster are a bad idea because, though not systematically favoring conservatives or progressives, they systematically favor the legal status quo, thus frustrating translation of the democratic will into legislative action.  Now the nice point about this criticism is that it’s not vulnerable to the typical rejoinder, which is that a substantial goal of our system of representative government is to frustrate plain old majoritarianism.  The reason that rejoinder won’t wash is that it is usually married to a libertarian argument that the threats from government action are greater than the threats from government inaction.  But we’ve just seen that veto gates can frustrate efforts to get the government to STOP acting as well as they can frustrate efforts to get the government to act…

Continue reading.

It is everywhere today – the healthcare debate.    I did not realize this until we sat down to pay bills this week, but we are in a unique situation in this household when it comes to this issue. 

The state provides us with medicaid for the two youngest girls.  They are covered due to their “foster” status with us.  The rest of the family is privately insured.  We pay not only a monthly bill to remain covered, but we have co-pays, and limited vision and dental coverage.

The girls have it all:  orthodontic, vision, dental, medical and even mental health.  We do not pay a dime for them.  No copays at all – not even on medicine.  We were able to choose from a list of participating doctors and eye care centers.  In many cases the same doctors who offer private care that our family is seeing with our own insurance.  The only “downside” if there is one is more paperwork and we have to “recertify” the girls every six months.

I can see the need for healthcare reform.  Our current cost per month for our family is $600+ before co-pays.  We do pay more due to pre-existing conditions (migraine headaches and a few of us are outside of the insurance weight guidelines), and we opted for  premium plan that resembled what we had while insured while working for large companies.

What I do not see is the need to scrap everything we have today to recreate the wheel.

There are a few points I can agree on.  The majority of people in this country do need affordable prescriptions.  Most people can pay to see a doctor, but the drug expense is so over the top, often preventing them from following the recommended treatment plan.  This is not a healthcare issue, but a big business issue.

We need to stop thinking doctors make more money than the President.  They do not.  Most doctors stopped earning the really big dollars when HMO’s were introduced.  And specialists who do make the big dollars are worth the money.  Would you really want a person who was only earning $45 k a year and worried about paying their bills performing brain surgery or working on your heart?

We need to focus on affordable and accessible well-care treatment.  If we are going to increase spending, increase the investment in public health departments.  These very important local institutes are running on less money with more patients.  If you want to stop the flood of expenses for unnecessary care in ER rooms, increase the staff and service hours at public health departments.  These community centers are better at outreach and are often working in neighborhoods that need the extra care.

We do not need to focus nearly as much about senior citizens being the drain on our healthcare system, but instead worry about the number of unwed mothers and drug addicted children born into NICU centers.  Again, well-care and community centered medical centers can provide the needed support and assistance to families and individuals who need crisis intervention long before they need expensive medical treatments.

We need to also call for a return to common sense.  There is no responsibility for one’s care without an investment in it.   And yes, I think if you weigh more or smoke or are abusing drugs your cost should be higher.  You are an increased risk to spend more and cost more to the overall system.

We do not need “sin taxes” if you want to smoke then you should.  The consequence is a higher insurance cost.  If you want to drink soda, or drive on the second Sunday of every month or even if you want to shoot heroine, this is your right as a citizen of this country.  There are consequences for every action and as such you should expect the fees to be higher for you.

We need a 10 page bill for reform.  Not 1,000 pages or more.  We do not need anything hidden or stuffed into this package.  We need competition for the drug companies and current insurance companies.  We should choose private or public insurance based on what best fits our families needs. 

Doctors should make care decisions, not people sitting behind desks who do not have medical degrees.  If the federal government wants to get into private business, then the government should hire an outside business to manage oversight and look for fraud. 

None of this is “easy”, nor can it be rushed.  We need deliberate and careful thought that is more about the people and less about checking off campaign promises.  Until this pending package if passed, you still have time for your voice to be heard.  If the bill does pass, then I encourage you to think very seriously about who you vote for in the future.