It’s been a long while since I last saw a porn video, I’ve forgotten what I like and dislike. I’ve just watched a few on the internet and reached ’self-gratification’ quite easily and relatively quickly. Now I have a feeling that perhaps I am not cut out for BDSM after all. The scenes in BDSM take a longer time I assume. I may be wrong, of course.

But at least I remember now what it is that I like and dislike. I like seeing people who are fit, or at least who seem fit, in such scenes, regardless of their age. Although the idea of a septuagenarian male slave is rather off-putting. I like beautiful women, not butch women, either as Mistresses or as slaves. And strangely enough (or perhaps not so strange after all), I like gay Master and slave scenes, which makes me wonder what is really going on in my head.

I like bondage quite a lot, but not so much on a male slave. I suppose I’m still traditional in this sense, I believe a man ought to be the dominator, not the dominated. Although, the idea of pretty boys being dominated is alluring. Note: pretty boys, not macho brutish young men. Perhaps because pretty boys remind me of pretty girls.

And the most important thing is, I like clean, hygienic and tasteful scenes. A lot of videos I’ve seen always eek of tackiness. I prefer sensual scenes to blatantly sexual ones. I don’t think I am one for exhibitionism. I’m more voyeur.

I know I should talk about Obama sending troops to Afghanistan in a “surge” like the one he and the Democrats pissed all over several years ago.

And how mugh fun it would be to see the far left anti-war wingnuts just rip Obama a new one.

But I’m not.

Not after I found this quote on MSNBC for the coming Sith Lady of Health Care, Kathleen Sibelius, she who must be obeyed if the Health Care Reform passes.

“Relying on fossil fuels leads to unhealthy lifestyles, increasing our chances for getting sick and in some cases takes years from our lives,” U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said. “As greenhouse gas emissions go down, so do deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. This is not a small effect.”

Fossil fuels- Evil

Green house Gases- Evil

Crush Cap & Trade Taxes and massively higher energy costs – Saves Lives. Good.

And this, from the lady who will be in charge of your Health Care when the “reforms” pass.

Gives you the warm fuzzies, don’t it.

Add to that:

Reuters: Delegates meet in Copenhagen for a December 7-18 talks to try to work out a new U.N. pact to address global warming.

The head of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) Change, Rajendra Pachauri, told Reuters last week that the leaks do not affect findings in 2007 that it was more than 90 percent certain that human activities were causing climate change.

“This private communication in no way damages the credibility of the … findings,” he said, saying that all conclusions were subjected to rigorous review.

I was intrigued by the pause…

Some CRU researchers contribute to the IPCC’s reports which pull together data from scientists around the world in an attempt to give a consensus view on climate change. “Opposition groups are taking passages out of context to try to undermine public confidence in climate science,” the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a statement on Wednesday.

“Even without data from CRU, there is still an overwhelming body of evidence that human activity (is) triggering dangerous levels of global warming,” it said.

IBD: “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.” New York Times’ Andrew Revkin.

All the news that’s fit to print, my ass.

The Washington Post on Nov. 25 pre-emptively editorialized about the revelations: “None of it seriously undercuts the scientific consensus on climate change.”

Orwell: Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc (the Party line), and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.

And boy do we have it in spades.

In regard to one particularly pesky FOI (Freedom of Information) request, Phil Jones (CRU) said: “About 2 months ago I deleted loads of e-mails, so have very little — if anything at all.” Yet in an interview published last Tuesday in the Guardian, Jones told another story: “We’ve not deleted any e-mails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit — I would categorically deny that.”

Doubklethink: The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

In one exchange, Jones tells Penn State’s Michael Mann: “If they ever hear there’s a Freedom of Information Act in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” He even asks Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about an IPCC assessment report: “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re: (the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report)?”

Duplicity, thy name is “Consensus”.

And then the game was reveled:

“Most Americans are convinced that climate change is real — a necessary prerequisite for the kinds of huge economic and behavioral adjustments we would have to make.” Pulitzer-winning columnist Eugene Robinson,Washington Post.

It’s not save the enviroment, it’s CONTROL THE PEOPLE!

We’re the evil ones. So we must be controlled. We do bad things. We need a Nanny, like Kathleen Sibelius on Health Care and Obama and his Czars on the Environment.

We can’t be trusted.

We are just unrepentant EVIL.

And they are the Warriors of the Righteous and the Good!!

The “Consensus”!

Those fearless watchdogs of the press?  The “Fourth Estate”? Gone.

“I’m sad to report today a death of a good friend to all of us…..Journalism, the once esteemed 4th estate of our nation and the protector of our freedoms and a watchdog of our rights has passed away after a long struggle with a crippling and debilitating disease of acute dishonesty aggravated by advanced laziness and the loss of brain function.” Gov. Mike Huckabee

Now we just have Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. A propaganda machine for whatever this administration wants. No matter what.

Ministry of Truth (aka ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC, New York Times, et al): Department of the government in charge of all record keeping, history re-writing, and prolefeed (Rubishy “Entertainment” and spurious news which the Party handed out to the masses — like the seemingly never ending “scandal” of the White House party crashers while ignoring Climate Gate almost effortlessly)

Have a heretical thought, well, we’ll just have to “re-educate” you citizen.

All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. “Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death…. The essential crime that contains all others in itself.” (Orwell)

So now, a Little heresy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

Prof Plimer – author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science -of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”

He suggested many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research. He said: “The climate comrades are trying to keep the gravy train going. Governments are also keen on putting their hands as deep as possible into our pockets.

“The average person has been talked down to. He has been treated like a fool. Yet the average person has common sense.”

“If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.”

Unless you have “consensus” and the Ministry of Truth behind you. And will not entertain any crimethink.

“Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now.

“In the past we have had rapid and significant climate change with temperature changes greater than anything we are measuring today. They are driven by processes that have been going on since the beginning of time.”

He cited periods of warming during the Roman Empire and in the Middle Ages – when Vikings grew crops on Greenland – and cooler phases such as the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850.

Which goes with my favourite line: So when the Ice Age ended due to global warming, was that the fault of the Cavemen?? Mammoth Farts??

Well?

But I’m just your humble heretic.

So exams are over, although my work at the institute is not, and I’m finally doing something interesting with Google Wave: Playing RPGs. Specifically, Eclipse Phase, which is a CC-licensed RPG that deals with transhumanist themes:

Eclipse Phase is a pen & paper roleplaying game of post-apocalyptic transhuman conspiracy and horror.

An “eclipse phase” is the period between when a cell is infected by a virus and when the virus appears within the cell and transforms it. During this period, the cell does not appear to be infected, but it is.

Players take part in a cross-faction secret network dubbed Firewall that is dedicated to counteracting “existential risks” — threats to the existence of transhumanity, whether they be biowar plagues, self-replicating nanoswarms, nuclear proliferation, terrorists with WMDs, net-breaking computer attacks, rogue AIs, alien encounters, or anything else that could drive an already decimated transhumanity to extinction.

I’m just getting started playing a one shot scenario, but if I like it, I’m definitely hoping I could continue playing with someone that I already know. (Or not, random commenter, if you are interested!) Do comment if interested. 

Second- and I’ve been wondering about this one for a while, and I’m not really sure how to go about it- I was thinking of writing a post on preference modification and “preference choice”, which is a rather oxymoronic term that I quickly need to find a substitute for. Essentially, it was sparked off my my rather religious friend telling me that I would be much happier if I picked things other than my current preferences to be happy about. This struck me as both obviously true and completely pointless, but I am coming to realize that I may have been wrong about the latter. Of course, this is hardly a revolutionary idea: it’s already preached by any number of religious and spiritual groups, and any number of best-selling self-help authors as well. I am interested in:

a) seeing how far this is actually possible, with what is currently known about human psychology and perhaps any technological assistance. This post seems to imply that it is not.(“One of my Secrets of Adulthood is “You can choose what you do, but you can’t choose what you like to do.” “)

b) Postulating that at some point of time, any amount of self-modification is possible, how far would one want to take it? This is an ontological issue, obviously, relating to how far your preferences dictate your identity- there’s a wonderful quote from High Fidelity* that fits in well here- and you can expect some amount of philosophy to be thrown about. The whole “so why don’t you wire up implants to pleasure centres in your brain and just stick yourself into a socket” issue will also hopefully be discussed here.

The problem is, I can’t seem to get very far on this alone, so I was wondering if anyone had some sort of pointers/links/ comments.

*”I agreed that what really matters is what you like, not what you are like… Books, records, films – these things matter. Call me shallow but it’s the fuckin’ truth, and by this measure I was having one of the best dates of my life.”
–Rob Gordon, High Fidelity. 

image from Fine Little Day

I have always been an i-love-black kind of person. I’ve preferred this color (or the absence of it) since 5th grade.  Though at times I would allow myself to wear the occasional navy, green and yellow; I would never wear white.

Never White.

White opened up to a lot of problems: dirt, stain, and emphasis on problem areas. It was too high maintenance.  However, over the years I’ve slowly felt comfortable in white. I liked Rachel Ashwell’s Shabby Chic. I liked Scandanavian homes which seemed to be proliferated with white. There is something clean about it.

Now, I own my first article of white clothing. And I love it.

So, what is the point of all of this?

In a psychological perspective, i hated white because it allowed me to be imperfect. Black had an ability to cover almost everything. White made me vulnerable to embarrassing situations. Black made me feel power—invincibility. But these days, though I still like black I find that white allowed me to feel lighter, happier, and it made everything show—the bad and most of all the good. Any color next to white looks beautiful.

White is the essence of Simple Imperfections.

-eM

With our President and Congress all tied up in knots about how to run our lives better and more “efficiently” than we do,

And more “responsibly” to boot, comes this story from the UK.

You know, the grand model for Health Care Reform, The “European Model”.

London Times:

Health and safety inspectors are to be given unprecedented access to family homes to ensure that parents are protecting their children from household accidents.

New guidance drawn up at the request of the Department of Health urges councils and other public sector bodies to “collect data” on properties where children are thought to be at “greatest risk of unintentional injury”.

Council staff will then be tasked with overseeing the installation of safety devices in homes, including smoke alarms, stair gates, hot water temperature restrictors, oven guards and window and door locks.

The draft guidance by a committee at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) has been criticised as intrusive and further evidence of the “creeping nanny state”.

Nice also recommends the creation of a new government database to allow GPs, midwives and other officials who visit homes to log health and safety concerns they spot.

The guidance aims to “encourage all practitioners who visit families and carers with children and young people aged under 15 to provide home safety advice and, where necessary, conduct a home risk assessment”. It continues: “If possible, they should supply and install home safety equipment.”

The proposals have been put out to consultation and, if approved, will be implemented next year.

“Good parents will feel the intrusion of the state in their homes and bad parents will now have someone else to blame if they don’t bring up their children in a sensible, safe environment.”

And that could not possibly happen here:

The Nanny’s in Congress wouldn’t do such a thing now would they… 

The House Republican Conference has compiled a list of all the new boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs created in H.R. 3962, Speaker Pelosi’s government takeover of health care:

1.     Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)

2.     Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)

3.     Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)

4.     Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)

5.     Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)

6.     Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)

7.     Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)

8.     Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)

9.     Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)

10.   Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)

11.   Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)

12.   State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)

13.   Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)

14.   “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321, p. 211)

15.   Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321(d), p. 213)

16.   Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 322(b), p. 215)

17.   Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)

18.   Demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” (Section 1222, p. 617)

19.   Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)

20.   Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)

21.   Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)

22.   Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)

23.   Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)

24.   Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)

25.   Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)

26.   Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)

27.   Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)

28.   Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)

29.   Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)

30.   Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)

31.   National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)

32.   Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)

33.   Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)

34.   Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)

35.   Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)

36.   Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)

37.   Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)

38.   Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)

39.   Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)

40.   “Identifiable office or program” within CMS to “provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles” (Section 1905, p. 1191)

41.   Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)

42.   Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)

43.   Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)

44.   Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)

45.   Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)

46.   Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)

47.   Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)

48.   Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)

49.   Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)

50.   Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)

51.   Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)

52.   Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)

53.   Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)

54.   Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)

55.   Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)

56.   Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)

57.   Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)

58.   Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)

59.   Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)

60.   Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)

61.   Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)

62.   Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)

63.   Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)

64.   “No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza” demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)

65.   Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)

66.   Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)

67.   University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)

68.   Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)

69.   Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)

70.   Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)

71.   Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)

72.   Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)

73.   Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)

74.   Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)

75.   Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)

76.   Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)

77.   Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)

78.   Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)

79.   Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)

80.   Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)

81.   Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)

82.   National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)

83.   CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)

84.   CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)

85.   CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)

86.   Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)

87.   National Women’s Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)

88.   Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)

89.   Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)

90.   Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)

91.   Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)

92.   Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)

93.   Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)

94.   Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)

95.   Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)

96.   Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)

97.   Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)

98.   Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)

99.   Office of Indian Men’s Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)

100.Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)

101.Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)

102.Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)

103.Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)

104.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)

105.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)

106.Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)

107.Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)

108.Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)

109.Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)

110.Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)

111.Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

Wanna bet at least one or more of those is very interested in your children and how good a parent you are in the state’s eyes??

New York Times Opinion: But after House Democratic leaders unveiled their health care bill on Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office said the public plan would cost more than private plans and only six million people would sign up.

One reason the public plan would not save customers money is that it would have to negotiate payment rates with doctors and hospitals just like private plans.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, wanted a more “robust” public plan with payment rates tied to Medicare. But in the end she could not muster the votes, largely because of opposition from lawmakers in states where Medicare rates are lowest.

“The public plan would have lower administration costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees,” the budget office said.

In other words, people with more medical problems would be more likely to buy the public plan, which in turn would be less likely to limit the utilization of services.”

In just one of the counterintuitive concepts in the health care debate, enrolling more people in Medicaid saves money because it is cheaper than subsidizing private insurance, and because states share the cost.

The House bill would increase total Medicaid costs for states by $34 billion. States, of course, object to such added expenses.

Can your state afford that?

For instance, a new study from the U.S. government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finds that the healthcare reform bill recently passed in the House of Representatives would increase healthcare spending to 21.3 percent of GDP by 2019 compared with 20.8 percent under current law. That’s bending the curve the wrong way. The study also questions the “long-term viability” of the $500 billion in Medicare cuts meant to help pay for expanded insurance coverage.

In addition, the CMS study gives a clearer cost estimate than the one provided by the Congressional Budget Office. According to the CBO, the 10-year cost of PelosiCare is $894 billion. But that analysis includes early years with little government spending, According to the CMS, the House approach would cost $1 trillion from 2013-2019, or some $140 billion a year when fully put into effect.

Few realists in Washington think any of the current reform plans make a significant dent in the long-term healthcare cost to government. Indeed, the Senate Budget Committee recently held hearing about creating a bipartisan commission to find solutions to America’s entitlements problems.

If healthcare reform really bent the curve, there would be a no need for such a commission to do Healthcare Reform 2.0.(Reuter blog)

You mean like the multiple bailouts of AIG and GM, and the call for Stimulus 2.0??

Naw, that would never happen…:)

And there’s always:

Our task is to reduce public support for the bill by publicizing its provisions, notably: (Dick Morris)

1. The $400 billion cut in Medicare

2. The inevitable scarcity that will result from the addition of 35 million new patients with no new doctors or nurses

3. The fine on the uninsured of 2.5 percent of their income if they don’t buy insurance

4. The high cost of these mandatory insurance policies ($15,000 per family)

5. The low level of subsidy available for the uninsured (only after they pay 8-12 percent of their incomes)

6. The likelihood of a $1,700 increase in the average family’s premiums

7. The possibility of up to five years in prison for failing to buy insurance or pay the fine

8. The taxation of medical devices like pacemakers, wheelchairs, prosthetic limbs, hearing aids, etc.

9. The tax on sick people (increasing the threshold for deducting medical expenses from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of income

10. The additional fiscal burden on the states of the increase in Medicaid eligibility

11. The 40 percent tax on health insurance premiums that will affect households earning more than $75,000 by the fifth year of the plan.

But don’t worry, we’re from the government and we are here to save you from yourself!

Hope and Change!

The multi-domestic strategy is appropriate for innovations that depend on understanding local customer preferences, tastes, expectations, distribution channels, and local government regulations than they do on the technological knowledge on which they rest. This strategy is appropriate when the need for market information is high while that for technological information is low. Makers of packaged consumer goods (detergents and cereals) such as Unilever have pursued this strategy. Firms that pursue the multi-domestic strategy have self-sufficient units in each country to better discern and meet local customer preferences and tastes. On the other hand, if technological information requirements are high relative to market information requirements, a firm may want to pursue a global strategy. Firms can locate their facilities either where the environment is most suitable for technological innovations or at home where they have some endowments that give them some advantage. From there they develop products for world markets. If both market and technological information demands are low, a firm can operate using the international arrangement. It can take advantage of whatever home capabilities it has to develop products for its home market. Once the products are successful at home, it can then transfer the capabilities and the innovation to overseas. If both market and technological information needs are high. The transnational arrangement is best. In this mode, firms have access to the best sources of innovation, and the technological knowledge and the market knowledge that underpin them, worldwide.

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir - Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please visit www.asifjmir.com, Lectures, Line of Sight.

Selecting an appropriate mode of communication is an important clinical decision when beginning an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) intervention. In the present study, we investigated whether two boys with significant intellectual disabilities would show a preference for using one of three AAC devices. Initially, the boys were taught to use three AAC devices (i.e., Cyrano Communicator™, Mini-MessageMate™, and a Picture Communication Board) using a multiple-probe-across-devices design. One participant was successful with only one device, while the other was successful in acquiring basic use of all three devices (i.e., making a request using the device and demonstrating correspondence between the picture icon and item requested). The child who acquired basic use of all three devices participated in the second phase. A choice assessment was conducted using a free-operant paradigm to determine which of the three devices he preferred. In the final phase, the most preferred device was targeted for more specific instruction (i.e., retrieving the device from a distance, turning the device on, approaching a communication partner, getting the communication partner’s attention, and using the device to make a request), using a changing criterion design. Results for this participant indicated that he had a clear preference for one device and was able to learn how to use it in a more functional manner. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.

from AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication

You’ll have run across psychometric tests – the Stanford-Binet IQ test, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Increasingly, they’re used in job selection and assessment, career guidance, and university entrance. Maybe you’ve taken one, or had to review the results. Were you confident of what they were testing?

Psychometrics have had something of a bad reputation, due in part to the interest taken in them during World Wars I and II for classifying recruits, and the inevitable existence of numerous poorly-constructed “pop” psychology tests in the media and elsewhere. Properly constructed and validated psychometrics aren’t, of course, perfect, but they have been thoroughly and repeatedly studied and validated, and can’t be dismissed as uninformative.

What are psychometics, really? Simply, they are ways of measuring constructs, like “intelligence”, or “preference”. Crucially, they don’t measure against some abstract standard of perfection. Essentially, all psychometrics are based on the bell-shaped normal distribution, where the majority of the population are clustered in the middle of a distribution, with increasingly fewer results at both the top and bottom of the curve. The majority of people, therefore, will always fall somewhere in the middle of the distribution in any population. What a psychometric can do is to tell you where – according. of course, to the result you get on any particular day.

(A note on the word “normal”. In this, its most common use in psychology, it doesn’t mean “good” – it just describes the pattern seen across a population. It is an endless fascination to me how almost all terms meaning “common” or “usual” come to mean “good”, and “unusual” bad.)

A psychometric might measure intelligence, but it doesn’t measure what we all understand, abstractly, as the quality “intelligence”. It measures a precisely defined, constructed idea of “intelligence”, and as mentioned above, the crucial aspect is that it only measures your results on any given day. Anything you can define, you can measure – but when you define something you necessarily limit it. No psychometric definition of “intelligence” can capture all the facets that most people understand in that term. And most qualities aren’t fixed – nobody has just one level of “intelligence”. Your performance on a test depends on how motivated you are at the time, not to mention your existing knowledge, and maybe even how tired you are on the day. All tests are also filtered through the language they’re applied in, the culture they’re written for, and the assumptions they depend on, which is one of the reasons tests should always be taken in the participant’s native language.

Psychometrics can’t tell you how intelligent you are. But they can tell you where, on a given day, you rank in the population according to a necessarily imperfect definition that misses some things out. Maybe.

Rogers, Carl and Freiberg, H. Jerome.  (1994).  Freedom to Learn, 3rd edition.  Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:  Prentice-Hall.

Using the “Guiding Essential Questions” from the EDCI-886, Philosophy of American Education, Fall 2009 syllabus, I describe some of the “big ideas” from Freedom to Learn.

The Philosophical and Value Ramifications

CHAPTER 14, A modern approach to the valuing process

“The work of the teacher and educator, like that of the therapist, is inextricably involved in the problem of values.  The school has always been seen as one of the means by which the culture transmits its values from one generation to the next.  But now this process is in upheaval, with many of our young people declaring themselves ‘dropouts’ from the confused and hypocritical value system that they see operating in the world [1964].  How are educators — how are citizens — to orient themselves in relation to this complex and perplexing issue?”  (p. 277)

Some definitions of values

“[Charles Morris] points out that value is a term we employ in different ways.  We use it to refer to the tendency of living beings to show preference, by their actions, for one kind of object or objective rather than another.  Morris called this preferential behavior operative values.”  (p. 279)

“A second distinction might be called conceived values.  This is the preference of the individual for a symbolized object. . . . A preference for ‘honesty is the best policy’ is such a conceived value.”  (p. 279)

“A final distinction might be called objective values.  People use the word in this way when they wish to speak of what is objectively preferable — whether or not is is, in fact, sensed or conceived of as desirable. . . . I am, instead more concerned with operative values and conceived values.”  (p. 279)

Some introjected patterns

“Introject is a psychological term that best describes the internalization of another’s characteristics without a conscious effort. . . . Let me list a few commonly held introjections:” (p. 282)

1. sexual desires and behaviors are mostly bad
2. disobedience is bad
3. making money is the highest good
4. learning an accumulation of scholarly facts is highly desirable
5. browsing and aimlessly exploratory reading for fun is undesirable
6. style and fashion are important
7. dictatorships are utterly bad, except when they support our goals
8. to love thy neighbor is the highest good
9. competition is preferable to teamwork and cooperation
10. cheating is clever and desirable
11. Coca-Cola, MTV, chewing gum, video games, American jeans, and automobiles are utterly desirable

Common characteristics of Adult Valuing

1. most of our values are introjected from other individuals or groups significant to us
2. the source or locus of evaluation lies outside the self
3. criterion by which values are set is the degree to which they cause us to be loved or accepted
4. conceived preferences are either not related at all, or not clearly related, to our own process of experiencing
5. wide and unrecognized discrepancy between the evidence supplied by our own experience and these conceived values
6. because these conceptions are not open to the test of experience, we must hold them in a rigid and unchanging fashion; otherwise, our value system would collapse
7. because they are untestable, there is no ready way of solving contradictions
8. because we have relinquished the locus of evaluation to others and have lost touch with our own valuing process, we feel profoundly insecure and easily threatened in our values

The Fundamental Discrepancy

“The fundamental discrepancy between our individual concepts and what we are actually experiencing, between the intellectual structure of our values and the valuing process going unrecognized within this, is a part of the fundamental estrangement of the modern person from his or herself.  This is a major problem for those in the helping professions:  teachers, social workers, and therapists.” (p. 284)

BIG IDEA

• restoring contact with experience (for both the teacher and the learner)

Romans 14:1 “Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.”

Plunging onward to the 14th chapter of his Letter to the Romans, Paul now lands in what I would call a field of landmines as he examines the relationships between stronger and weaker brothers in Christ. His introduction to what must be in contemporary Christianity one of the most misunderstood chapters in Scripture makes it absolutely clear that stronger Christians have an obligation to accept weaker Christians as they are without arrogantly denouncing their weakness. In fact, arrogance on either side is rejected as unacceptable. Further, the definition of stronger and weaker seems to turn around some of the present disputes. By definition, the stronger Christian is the individual who has the broader experience, whereas the weaker Christian is the individual who only accepts limited experience. Many times I have known individuals to denounce those with broad experience as being weak in the faith, yet Scripture is clear that the weaker Christian is the one who sets limits of acceptable activity. Further, I have known many with few personal limitations who openly denounce those who set limits. This passage makes it clear that the battle on both sides is wrong, and the reason is clear: The Lord can make both the strong Christian and the weak Christian to stand.

The issues comes down to Passing Judgment, something which is reserved for our Lord alone. Paul’s admonition is that when genuine Believers engage in a battle over limited or expanded preferential activities they are treading into an area reserved for God. Each individual in this regard will give an account to God for himself and no one else. If an individual by faith limits his activities God will accept him. On the other hand, if an individual by faith sees no need to set the same limits God will accept him as well. Ultimately, the issue of limited or expanded preferential activities as a Believer can only be decided between individuals and God.

Why is it then that this battle rages between various groups of genuine Believers? It is sad to observe Believers Passing Judgment on other Believers in matters of preference.

Romans 14:12 “So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God.”

Wave Walker

Technorati Tags:
Weak Faith, Strong Faith, Preference, Judgment
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

I’ve had a bit of time to think about the Pros and Cons of Graduate school for PR. I’ve decided I definitely want to go.

Here’s why:

• I crave a high-powered career. My goal is to be an executive  at a PR firm or Corporation, most which have a Masters degree and/or loads of experience.
• I’m a perfectionist; I want to be one of the best and brightest in the industry.
• I love learning new things and am constantly coming up with new ideas. I’m continually thinking of ways to improve the way we do things now.
• A Masters degree would give me more professional credibility and add to my portfolio.

But the question is WHEN?

1) Go right from undergrad into attending grad school Fall 2010.

2) Try to find a job after undergrad, work a few years to get experience, then take time off work to attend grad school.

3) Do both: find a part-time PR job and find a grad school that holds its classes at night (such as the PR/Advertising program at DePaul: classes don’t start until 5:45p.m.).

Since there is not a “black and white” answer to whether one should attend PR grad school or not, and when, I’ve been trying to measure the pros and cons of each option.

If I go to grad school right after undergrad:

The GOODS:

• Learn more about the industry since I only have a certificate in PR (along with my bachelors degree and multiple “extras”) and feel I haven’t learned enough to stand on my own two feet in the PR world.
• Name recognition; the name of a prestigious university will be more recognizable than Ferris State to future employers.
• I’ll be taught by some of the top PR professionals in the industry. This will also give me the chance to network with top PR pros and their affiliates before I enter the job market if I play my cards right.
• Internships and Capstone projects with Fortune 500 companies through the grad school could lead to future job opportunities– but only IF done extremely well.
• Presently there is a bad economic climate and I can’t live off an internship’s wages (most unpaid, so that equals zero income).

The BADS:

• A lot of debt, especially if I am living in the city.
• Missing out on entry-level experience would put me a year or two behind other recent grads in the job market.
• Missing out on entry-level experience could hinder my chances of getting a job.
• Some graduate programs are academic-focused rather than application.
• Employers may think I’m too “theory-based” because I went straight into grad school.

If I try to find a job after undergrad, work a few years to get experience, then take time off work to attend grad school:

The GOODS:

• Get a good foundation of experience before diving into higher education.
• Take more from grad school after working first; ability to apply what I am learning to the “real world” since I’ve been in the industry a few years.
• Working first could give me a better perspective of what PR field I want to go into and help me “specialize” my courses in grad school.
• If I do really well during my first few years working, I could make myself an attractive candidate for scholarships and fellowships in grad school.
• I might be able to have my employer pay for grad school.
• I also would eventually get most of the benefits if I had gone to grad school right after undergrad: taught by PR pros, name recognition, capstone projects, networking, etc.

The BADS:

• I would have to find a job in a bad economic climate, most which are either not hiring or are only offering unpaid internships.
• I would have to find a job that will accept only two years part-time experience in PR.
• I might start out doing “secretarial” duties with next to no responsibilities whereas I’ve been used to being responsible for stories, projects, ideas, etc. at Ferris.
• I would have to start paying my student loans from undergrad.
• I wouldn’t be covered under my mom’s health insurance anymore (which would be bad if my job doesn’t offer benefits).

Do both: find a part-time PR job and find a grad school that holds its classes at night:

The GOODS:

• Risking sounding a bit cliche, I would be able to kill two birds with one stone.
• I wouldn’t be worried about making the wrong decision since I’m doing both simultaneously.

The BADS:

• Time: I’m assuming working full or part-time while your trying to go to grad school and get your homework done is not easy.
• Sanity: see above.
• Quality of work in both arenas may suffer due to both of the above.

It seems that in the end, there is no clear right-or-wrong choice. It all amounts to the individual’s preference, lifestyle, and career goals. Does this help me with my decision? Well, not really. But I’m trying.

Excerpt from an article on threesomes:

Menage a trois: It’s French for what seems to be on everyone’s mind these days. Having “double the fun” with two ladies seems to be every straight male’s No. 1 fantasy.

“Two women at once? Sure, I’ve fantasized about that. I believe every man has,” said Derek, who asked not to be identified by his real name.

But with so much talk about two gals and a guy, what happens when girl meets boy meets boy?

Suzie, a UC Berkeley freshman who asked not to be identified by her real name, sought the answer to that question last year, when she and her then-boyfriend invited another man to join their private party at a hotel.

Though Suzie now admits she loved the encounter, she’s quick to point out it wasn’t her idea. Her boyfriend at the time and his roommate, Justin, came up with the idea all on their own.

“I called him up and we were talking. He asked me what would we be doing if you were over here right now?’ I told him it would probably involve kicking his roommate out,” Suzie says. “It was a joke at first-his roommate said, Hell no, Suzie’s got a hot body, I’d join in!’”

When the threesome set the date, Suzie and her boyfriend met first to set the mood and warm up for the inevitable awkwardness when the pinch hitter arrived.

“They were acting totally normal, like, �hey man, what’s up,’ like nothing was going on,” she says. “The next thing I know, Justin’s taking his clothes off and my boyfriend already had his clothes off. Then they just grabbed me.”

Getting confused between the two naked men in her bed only heightened the excitement, she says.

“It was really twice the fun. (I was thinking), who am I making out with now, and whose touching what now? And oh my gosh, it’s all for me.’”

For Suzie, the best part of her threeway began even before the sex.

“The actual sex was more like regular sex. But the foreplay was just crazy,” she says. “That’s when there was much more contact. Not with parts, but with skin, which is really different from how sex usually is.”

Jack always says, “I’d try anything twice.” And heck. I guess I do agree! Considering where we are now I don’t find it unimaginable that we’d try a boy-boy-girl session. I wouldn’t hold my breath for anything to happen soon – but never say never!

Source: dailycal.org

• SAVE 20%: Now through the end of October, take 20% off all the Preference Speakers from OEM Systems!

Certain fine loudspeakers in the audio industry become benchmarks of sound quality or reference standards by which authoritative industry experts judge all others. Preference architectural loudspeakers are the new mark of excellence.

Preference from OEM Systems provide you with the most satisfying sound rivaling competing brands of significantly higher price. Every Preference model loudspeaker is “timbre-matched” ensuring sonic uniformity throughout the line. This means all models have been carefully engineered to have a family sound (also referred to as “voice matching”).

As special effects from movie soundtracks move about the room, timbre-matching ensures a consistent tonal balance throughout the sound space. This creates that convincingly realistic three-dimensional spatial image, which completely absorbs the viewers into the cinematic experience. A home theater system may now consist of various loudspeaker sizes and shapes as dictated by room décor and layout, all the while delivering a seamless, transparent and coherent sound space.

• (Sale ends Oct. 30, 2009)

– The Cho Show Part I

– The Cho Show Part II

– The Cho Show Part III

According to a New York Times Op-ed column, women in America are less happy today than they were in 1972 while the men are happier. This trend is there in spite of much that women have achieved in three and a half decades. Women of 2008 are more educated, richer, and more equal than they were in 1972. Yet they are unhappier. It seems our achievements do not make us happier, at least not in the way we measure happiness.

How should we measure happiness? This is an important question in behavioral sciences like psychology and economics. Economists rely on actual choices and decisions that people make–the revealed preference–to measure utility and welfare. Stated preference gets less credence. What people do, and not what they say, is a better reflection of what they actually want or value: this has been an article of faith in economics. Now the premise is being challenged. According to Kahneman and Krueger:

 “If people display bounded rationality when it comes to maximizing utility, then their choices do not necessarily reflect their “true” preferences, and an exclusive reliance on choices to infer what people desire loses some of its appeal”.

So, more economists are using data on self-reported happiness or life satisfaction. General Social Survey (GSS), an annual survey conducted in the US since 1972, is attracting greater attention from economists. I also worked on this data once while assisting Prof Alan Krueger for an op-ed piece he was writing for NY Times.  One of the questions the GSS asks americans is:

 “Taken all together, how would you say things are these days? Would you say tht you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?”

American’s response to this question since 1972  is used to measure trends in happiness (including in the article cited above). It is a subjective and retrospective evaluation. Now there is a difference between experienced and remembered utility; that is, “the way people feel about experiences in  real-time and the way they remember their experiences after they are over”. Which one is more real: the fun we have when we indulge ourselves in the day or the pangs of conscience in the pillow in the night? Who knows!

So, in measuring happiness and life satisfaction (or welfare), economists now recognize that:

“it is fruitful to distinguish among different conceptions of utility (e.g. decision and experience utility and experienced and remembered utility ) rather than presume to measure a single, unifying concept that motivates all human choices and registers all relevant feelings and experiences”.

This makes measurements of happiness and life satisfaction all the more complicated. We should be careful when interpreting data and trends and reading articles that report on them.

My understanding of these new concepts and their place in economic science and public policy is not clear at all. When we  are not clear, we quote. I have quoted a lot in this blog. Need I say more? 

Our paternal Big Brother on NBC’s Meet The Press:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well— I— I’ve already made some— pretty substantial changes in terms of how I was approaching health care.  When I was —

DAVID GREGORY: Like the public option.  You effectively said to the left, “It’s not gonna happen.”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well what I — no, no, that’s not true.  What I — what I’ve said is the public option, I think, should be a part of this but we shouldn’t think that, somehow, that’s the silver bullet that solves health care.  What I’ve said, for example, on — what’s called an individual mandate.  During the campaign I said, “Look, if — health care is affordable, then I think people will buy it.”  So we don’t have to say to — to folks, “You know what?  You have to buy health care.”

So if you make it affordable you won’t make it mandatory. But every bill out there alleging to make it “affordable” makes it mandatory.

So which is it Mr. Orwell?

“And — what — when I talked to health care experts on both the left and the right what they tell me is that, even after you make health care affordable, there’s still gonna be some folks out there who — whether out of inertia, or they just don’t want to but — spend the money — would rather take their chances.

Unfortunately, what that means, is then you and I and every American out there who has health insurance, and are paying their premiums responsibly every month, they’ve gotta pick up the cost for— emergency room care when one of those people gets sick.  So what we’ve said as long as we’re making this genuinely affordable to families then you’ve got an obligation to get health care just like you have an obligation to get auto insurance in every state.”

So now it’s your obligation to society  and his, for your greater good, to make it mandatory.

During the campaign I said, “Look, if — health care is affordable, then I think people will buy it.”  So we don’t have to say to — to folks, “You know what?  You have to buy health care.”

Orwellian Doublethink at it’s finest.

If we make it affordable people will buy it.

But if they won’t buy it, then we must make it mandatory, for their own good, because we don’t have to make it mandatory if we make it affordable!

So then, does it have to be affordable if it’s mandatory?

And as has been pointed out before in auto insurance portability (you can buy auto across state lines) is not illegal as it is in health insurance.

I live in Arizona. I can only buy insurance from a company licensed and regulated in Arizona. Period.

And if I move to, say Idaho. My insurance has to be trashed and restarted from scratch.

Not with auto. So not the same thing.

And how’s that whole more choice thing working when it’s MANDATORY and your civic duty to your fellow comrades to by health insurance or else.

You evil selfish bastard. You don’t want to pay for health insurance.

You want to make every sick and make them pay for it.

You heartless bastard!

You say you can’t afford it. You say you don’t think you need it.

Well, let Mama Government force you to buy it anyways, it’s “cheap”.

It’s “fair”.

It’s “Competitive”

and it won’t raise the deficit “not one Dime”

And it’s your duty to your fellow comrades to buy it. Isn’t it Citizen…

Oh… and In the interviews taped on Friday, he said they would not lead to middle-class tax increases.

Obama said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” he could still keep his campaign pledge not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000. He said much of the cost of the overhaul could be funded by eliminating waste and abuse.

“I can still keep that promise because as I’ve said, about two-thirds of what we’ve proposed would be from money that’s already in the healthcare system but just being spent badly. And as I said before, this is not me making wild assertions,” Obama said.

So where is the other 1/3 coming from? Since the government has no money unless it takes it from someone….

And I reiterate, doesn’t it just fill you heart with massive warm fuzzies to know that he’s going to pay for 2/3 of this massive new entitlement program with the waste,fraud and abuses of the other entitlement programs. Like this one will be immune from that forever. It will do something magical. A government entitlement program that never costs you “not one dime” and never raises your taxes.

Because, after all, the waste fraud and abuse that is going to pay for this new one must continue for their to be a revenue stream to use to pay for this one.  So how is that reforming the other programs again?

I have a Bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. It’s Affordable!

A Gallup poll last week found that by 60 percent to 38 percent, Americans do not believe the government can expand healthcare coverage without raising taxes on the middle class or affecting the quality of care. (Reuters)

But, They’re the Political Elite, they not only know what’s good for you, they are going to do it anyway!

Because it’s what THEY want.

And what about the Illegal Aliens, um I mean “immigrants”

Let’s not talk about that one.

Oh, and if you don’t have insurance (starting in 2013) we’ll fine you, your employer, and  sick the IRS on you.

Rejoice.

More of Meet The Press:

“You know, I — I have said — that it is very important that we take into account the concerns of doctors and nurses who, by the way, support our efforts.  And I— and that’s something that doesn’t get noticed much.”- President Obama

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors’ own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.
• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement” if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.

Will the quality of care for seniors improve under health care reform currently being considered by Congress?

A recent IBD/TIPP Poll shows that a majority of physicians think the answer is no.

Of the 1,376 physicians who answered our survey, 65% said that government reform would lead to lower-quality care for seniors.

But will you here these results from the Ministry of Truth, of  course not.

And there’s that “human face”. That cynical political ploy of false empathy and manipulation.

When Obama spoke to Congress about health care reform on Sept. 9, he attempted to put a human face on his push for a provision barring insurance companies from dropping patients with pre-existing medical conditions.

While not citing the person’s name, the president said: “One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.”

It’s just not true, which I pointed out in my Chicago Sun-Times column. I confirmed with the White House that the man Obama was referring to was Otto Raddatz, from a Chicago suburb. His insurance company did indeed yank his coverage in April 2005. But after a fight led by his sister, Peggy, an attorney and the Illinois attorney general, Raddatz got his coverage reinstated in a few weeks and never missed any needed treatments. And he did not die until Jan. 6, 2009.

I raised questions about the Obama claim with the White House on Sept 10. The White House told me that Obama’s speechwriters picked up the story from Slate and never vetted the facts independently. If they had, they would have realized that the Slate report was erroneous.

Presidents need everyday Americans as examples to bolster their initiatives, of course, and in a speech at the University of Maryland on Thursday Obama continued to cite real examples of people being mistreated by insurance companies. He did the same at a rally last Saturday in Minnesota. But he’s no longing looking to the late Otto Raddatz to help him make his case. (Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun Times)

Well, since vetting the facts don’t matter. You can be confident when your President says that the new government entitlement that isn’t a “Public Option” (which is one in disguise) won’t cost you “one dime” and will not will raise your taxes is absolutely truthful!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, listen, I — I think I was awfully clear — and — and I’m surprised — David, maybe you haven’t been paying attention to what both the left and the right have been saying about my speech to Congress.  I laid down some pretty clear parameters.  And what I said was we’re gonna take ideas from both sides.

Was this before or after his AFL-CIO picnice speech recently where he said that the Republican have “no ideas”??

Or is he referring to the Max Baucus bill that even the Ultra Massive Super Left Liberals hate?

Or the push by many Democrats for “reconciliation” (where they just ram it through with legislative trickery and without “bi-partisan” support).

So which is it?

Obama: “But I do think that we all have an obligation to try to— conduct this conversation in a civil way.  And to— recognize that each of us are patriots.  That each of us are Americans.”

So that’s why I’m a gun-totting, toothless, Un-American, stupid, manipulated Racist hick who doesn’t know what’s good for me…I was wonder about that….

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi told reporters. (aka assassination)

But let’s be civil… and just call them “Un-American” instead, isn’t that Mrs. Speaker Pelosi

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, look— I think that we have an obligation in Washington, as leaders, to make sure that we are sending a strong message.  That we can disagree without being disagreeable.  Without— you know, questioning each other’s motives.  When we start caricaturing the other side— I think that’s a problem.

And— unfortunately, we’ve got, as I’ve said before, a 24-hour news cycle where what gets you on the news is controversy.  What gets you on the news is the extreme statement.  The easiest way to get 15 minutes on the news, or your 15 minutes of fame, is to be rude.

And that’s— that’s— something that I think has to change.  And it starts with me.  And I’ve tried to make sure that I’ve sent a clear signal.  And I’ve tried to maintain an approach that says, look, we can have some serious disagreements but, at the end of the day, I’m assuming that you want the best for America just like I do.

Was that before or after:

“I’ve got a question for all these folks who say, you know, we’re going to pull the plug on Grandma and this is all about illegal immigrants — you’ve heard all the lies,” Obama said. “I’ve got a question for all those folks: What are you going to do? What’s your answer? What’s your solution?

“And you know what? They don’t have one. Their answer is to do nothing.”

Or :

“Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.”

“the time for debate is over”

Yep, that’s civility and open to other ideas. Absolutely.

We’re from the Government and we’re here to help you.

You want to do what’s right for everyone don’t you, Citizen?

It’s your duty.

Put down that can of soda, it’s bad for you.

Quit Smoking.

Stop eating those fatty foods.

Junk food is bad for you.

Lose Some Weight.

Start Exercising.

It’s for your own good…and you want to do what’s right for you, don’t you Citizen…

So our President is going on all the Ministry of Truth Talk shows and even Late Night Talk Shows to do his latest campaign swing, instead of leadership.

President Obama will appear on a record five TV networks on Sunday — the morning talk shows of ABC, NBC, CBS and sit for interviews with CNN and Spanish-language network Univision.

But he won’t go anywhere near the “right wing”.

But Big Brother doesn’t talk to the unpeople.

But now the President will not stop the racism talk:

“Are there people out there who don’t like me because of race? I’m sure there are,” Obama told CNN. “That’s not the overriding issue here.”

“The president does not believe that the criticism comes based on the color of his skin,” Gibbs said.

Only some of them.

And now you add in dear old elitist Michelle Obama, who they trotted out for a carefully choreographed speech, because they wouldn’t want a repeat of the Zanesville,OH incident during the first campaign, ““We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do,” she tells the women. “Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond.” (NRO)

Don’t strive to do better, just let the government do it for you.

But now she  enters a new spectre into the debate: You’re a SEXIST!!!

Michelle Obama said women are being “crushed by the current structure of our health care” because they often are responsible for taking care of family illnesses, arranging checkups and monitoring follow-up care.

“We all know that women are more likely to work part time or to work in small companies or businesses that don’t provide any insurance at all,” Obama said. “Women are affected because, as we heard, in many states insurance companies can still discriminate because of gender. And this is shocking to me.”

So now, not only are you a racist, and “unamerican”, now you’re a SEXIST pig also!

And the Ministry of truth is just gushing all over her…

“What she’s doing is putting a personal and human face on the issue … there’s nothing more crucial,” said Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn. “Everybody gets sick, and everybody has someone in the family that gets sick.”

“I think if you can humanize it and personalize it, it suddenly brings it home to people — especially those who are screaming and yelling about the government taking over,” Quinn said.

Gloria Borger, a CNN senior political analyst, agreed.

“I think she’s always been a great asset to him,” she said. “She can help in this health care debate by not getting involved in the minutiae of the bills, but essentially emphasizing the reason we need health care reform. And that’s what she will stick to.”

On Friday’s CBS Early Show, White House correspondent Bill Plante highlighted President Obama’s latest media blitz on health care reform and touted a new piece of the PR arsenal: “The President does have a new partner in his nonstop effort to sell health care, it’s the First Lady….Michelle Obama will be more like a stealth weapon in the battle for health care, giving it a softer touch.”

So using her “motherly” influence and her sex is not manipulation…

And that’s why Journalism has died. Long Live The Ministry of Truth!

Don’t do as I do, do as I say.

Rasmussen Poll:

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.

Just 43% now favor the proposal, including 24% who Strongly Favor it.

But the overall picture remains one of stability. While the numbers have bounced a bit following nationally televised appearances by the president to promote the plan, opposition has generally stayed above 50% since early July. Support has been in the low to mid 40s.

The number who Strongly Oppose the plan has remained above 40% and the Strongly Favor totals have been in the mid-20s. This suggests public opinion is hardening when it comes to the plan that is currently working its way through Congress.

“The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent … Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.”

If the plan passes, 26% of voters say the quality of care will get better, and 51% say it will get worse. In August, the numbers were 23% better and 50% worse.

Gallup 7/27/2009:

Nearly half (48%) say they personally have a good understanding of the issues involved, while only 27% say so about members of Congress.

But, despite all this the Political Elite want what they want because they want it.

Regardless.

The race for 60 votes is on.

If they can get 60 votes they cram it down your throat.

If they don’t, they can use “reconciliation” a legislative tactic to cram it down your throat.

But, don’t worry, they are listening to We The People.

Also, don’t worry, it will cost $900 billion or more but not raise the deficit “not one dime” or Obama won’t sign it.

“…And here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.” ‘Not one dime…”

Doesn’t that fill you will confidence.

Remember “Read My Lips” 

They are going to pay for a new government entitlement with the “waste fraud and abuse” of other government entitlement programs.

Hurrah!

Medicaire is bankrupt

Medicaid is bankrupt

Social Security is bankrupt

The Post Office is bankrupt

But if you pass National Health Care it will do what no programs has ever done.

Promise.

And we’ll use the abuses from the previous programs to pay for it.

“Not one Dime”  (just trillions or other dimes )

Orwell is having an orgasm right about now.

Huffington Post:

Yet another late complication, according to several Democrats, is the president’s statement that he will not sign a bill “if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize.”

The $900 billion target is “very difficult,” Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Tuesday. “This is reducing coverage for poor and working people.“

Rangel spoke of other “restrictions the president has given in his speech,” commenting after senior House Democrats pressed top administration officials in a private meeting for an explanation of Obama’s $900 billion price tag.

Reducing coverage? On your “free” government “competition” that will cost $900 billion+ but not add to the deficit “one dime”??

I’m not sure that’s a magic trick even Chris Angel could pull off!

Does anyone smell large tax increases?

To pay for that “fair” “competition”? Even if you aren’t on their plan…

Naw…They’d never do that now would they….