Finally, Advertisers Pull Ads on Hate Speech Advocate Glenn Beck.

It didn’t have to come to this. Normally, a program director oversees the on air talents show content and topics, reining in a hosts outrageous unsubstantiated comments that would sometimes offend the stations audience. This one element has disappeared completely in media.

I can’t say I’ve agreed with every decision they've made, but they are running a business and their talk hosts are employees. Stations have a image and responsibility to their local community. And they have advertisers who depend on that image. If these advertisers decide they don’t like a program, they will pull their ads.

That’s the simple truth. Glenn Beck may try to blame someone else for his own crazy statements, but people are smarter than that. The Examiner.com has the rest:

Several companies who run ads during Glenn Beck’s show are distancing themselves from the talk show host for the public comments he made about President Obama.

During a guest appearance on ‘Fox & Friends’ Tuesday, Fox News Channel Commentator Glenn Beck said he believes President Obama is a racist. He said the President has “a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.” Several companies who run ads during Glenn Beck’s show are distancing themselves from the talk show host for the public comments he made about President Obama.

During a guest appearance on ‘Fox & Friends’ Tuesday, Fox News Channel Commentator Glenn Beck said he believes President Obama is a racist. He said the President has “a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.” According to Jack & Jill Politics, Lawyers.com, Proctor & Gamble, and Progressive Insurance have distanced themselves from Beck. Lexis Nexis, who owns Lawyers.com pulled its advertising and said it has no plans to return, while Proctor & Gamble and Progressive Insurance said Beck advertising placement was an error that would be corrected.S.C. Johnson also announced they made a mistake in running ads with Beck and would not be doing so in the future.Just recently Glenn

On one show, Beck staged having a glass of wine with a Nancy Pelosi stand in.

Beck: I just want you to drink it. Drink it. [Laughs] Drink it! I really just wanted to thank you for having us over here to wine country. You know, to be invited, I thought you had to be a major Democratic donor or longtime friend of yours, which I'm not. Oh, ah, by the way, I put poison in your -- no I –

There goes another advertiser…

Current TV had this humorous take on Beck:

CNN Bans Health Care Ad, Decides it's Unnecessary to Single out CEO and Company. Goodbye Fellas

CNN explained the reason it decided not to run the ad:

"The ad does not comply with our clearance guidelines because it unnecessarily singles out an individual company and person."

Freedom Works' Pappas "Surprised" Town Hall Protesters Not "Well informed."

Freedom Works Max Pappas confirms to Chris Matthews that the protesters are just saying no to everything. He's not sure why many aren't "well informed." We all know it's by design.

Pappas is also pressed on his claim that conservatives have always wanted to reform health care, he's just not sure why Republicans never took the issue up. Stop, my head is hurting.

Matthews crushes Pappas and town "maul" protesters.

Racist Rush's Fascination with Nazi Power Less Criticism of Democrats and more Admiration

Rush plays the Nazi card again and again and again...on health care.

Like MSNBC'S Chris Matthews, it's really hard to believe or understand anything this dope head is saying. It amazes me this guy still has a job.

O'Donnell Slices & Dices CEO Peter Schiff on Health Care Reform

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell conducted one of the best interviews in recent memory, never letting a false talking point get by, grilling author Peter Schiff on what he would do with health care in the U.S.. This is the template for other informed talk hosts to take on the opponents of change, and reveal the real intentions of the profit driven health care industry.

Schiff is an Ayn Rander all the way. Who else would write a book with the title, 'Crash Proof, How to Profit from the economic crash." His answers are typical Rand answers, which borrowed heavily on Through the Looking Glass's Humpty Dumpty persona. To quote a passage:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.""The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things.""The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."

This interview cooks!

Health Care Reform Could Save Wisconsin $54.5 Billion. Protesters Still Affraid They'll Lose Their Freedom.

I would normally sum up the following report on health care reform, cutting to the bottom line, but this time there are a number of crucial bottom lines. If this report means anything, every state in the country stands to save big time money. So much for the so called "grass roots" protesters credibility.

Health care reform might cost $1 trillion, but it can ultimately save the nation $3 trillion, with billions of dollars of benefits for every state in the union, including $54.5 billion in Wisconsin, a new report released today by the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group notes.

“We can not afford not to act,” said WISPIRG advocate, Bruce Speight. “We know how to get skyrocketing costs under control – now it’s time for Congress to step up and pass the strong cost-saving policies that Wisconsin needs.”

The $3 Trillion Question: What Health Care Reform Can Save For Families, Businesses and Taxpayers, provides estimates for how much various cost-saving proposals can reduce health spending – all while improving the quality of the care we receive.

The report also endorses a White House proposal that would bring down costs and sidestep political gridlock by empowering a new independent commission, made up of doctors and health care experts to adopt the reforms that can incentivize the highest-quality, most efficient care.

Among the potential savings identified in the report:

Streamlining health care billing and cutting red tape can reduce $350 billion of waste nationally, nearly $7 billion in Wisconsin.

Adoption of health information technology and electronic medical records can save $180 billion nationally, $3.5 billion in Wisconsin.

Investing in unbiased research into the best treatments, drugs, and devices can save $480 billion nationally, over $9 billion in Wisconsin.

Creating a public health insurance option to compete on a level playing field with private insurers will reduce national costs by $230 billion or more nationally, $4.5 billion in Wisconsin.

“Lawmakers are wrangling over how to fund the federal investment in reform,” explained Michael Russo, WISPIRG federal health care advocate and author of the report. “But the $1 trillion price tag is two to three times smaller than the potential economic benefits to the country as a whole.

Letting a fear of federal outlays weaken reform legislation will leave our families and businesses out to dry.

WISPIRG is a statewide nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that protects consumers and stands up to powerful interests.

Fox News 2007: "People who confront politicians are threatening." Now They're Defending Freedom Supporting Dissent

The party of hypocrisy and double speak are caught again contradicting themselves. This is really starting to get to easy. To bad their sheeple never seem to catch on. This time the good folks at Fox News appear to have changed their minds about disrupting politicians trying to speak.

According to Mediamatters.org: …back in 2007, when anti-war protesters who make up Code Pink, made headlines by disrupting an official event, the Fox News morning team was seriously pissed off: During a discussion about a Code Pink member heckling Hillary Clinton at a recent event, Fox News host Brian Kilmead said that people who confront politicians are “threatening” and should be Tased or “beaten to a pulp,” as the establishment media continues to sell the idea that anyone who disagrees with authority should be brutally punished.

A segment on the Fox and Friends morning show yesterday turned into an opportunity for Kilmead to share his dictatorial fetish that dissenters be dealt with in the proper manner, as footage aired of Clinton’s heckler being removed from the event by security.

“They should Tase this guy,” Kilmead says. “At one point with security so high and tensions on edge, don’t you think they’re going to get at the very least Tased or beaten to a pulp by somebody? These people look threatening….Kilmead even concluded, “I would be for Tasing anyone in Code Pink,” adding “I’m pro-Pink Tasing.”

Glenn Beck, Frank Luntz the Purveyors of PROJECTION

Glen Beck gets unhinged again, this time with partner, Frank Luntz. When these two get together, you know your in for a well tested list of talking points.

Republicans Don't care About Health Care, They Care About Freedom. Freedom is a Healthy Insurance Industry

This is a response from my conservative friend about the public option in health care reform. Forget about item by item issues and forget about the need to bring costs down. It has more to do with the “government” boogie man,” which we all know is us, you and me.

As much as I have argued with him about the health care debacle, and he’s been a sole proprietor paying the full cost with no group discount, it all comes down to PURE ideology.

"GOVERNMENT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS IN MY HEALTH CARE!!! I DON’T WANT IT! IT’S A BAD BILL, BAD IDEA, THIS IS SOCIALISM (WHICH YOU ARE) I AM NOT! OBAMA’S POLL NUMBERS ARE AT AN ALARMING DECLINE, THAT IS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOW REALIZING THAT HE IS WAY TO. I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT IN MY PERSONAL LIFE OR BUSINESS. YES, THERE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE FIXED, IN HEALTH CARE, ANYTHING THAT IS THIS BIG IS GOING TO HAVE PROBLEMS. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN ONE BURNS DOWN THE HOUSE TO REBUILD THE HOUSE… be more like John Gault take the initiative, and solve your own problems without the Governments intervention. Moreover, because your way of fixing your problems effects and costs others … That’s trickledown economics of the Democratic kind. We can fix the problems with health care if Government would just get out of the way. Like the registered Democrat said in one of the town hall meetings, that Obama took six months to decide on a dog … what’s the big hurry?"

My answer:

Very simply, health care in the private sector has had decades to compete and bring its own prices down. All the other industrialized countries have done it. This is the simplest way to reduce the cost of business, reduce bankruptcy, save 6 times more lives than those lost on 9/11 every year...etc.

I have a feeling from your response that none of that matters. There is something about saving Americans money and freeing people to start their own businesses that doesn't compute for "I'm losing my freedom" loving Americans.

If I spent the full amount of my deductible and yearly premium on a health problem ($15,000), that would be almost $11,000 that won't be spent on a new car, appliances, home improvements, business start-ups and on and on...

Reform will reduce that by $8000 to $10,000. Not bad huh? Talk about stimulus. Of course, you're happy paying $1000 for the uninsured a year. If you’re cool with that, in a few years that cost will rise to $2000. Penny wise dollar foolish, that's a Republican.

Freedom at what cost? Were you complaining about Wall Street risking our investment money and retirement accounts? There is risk when investing, but this was reckless gambling on hard working Americans money.

Instead, you cling to some ridiculous Ayn Rand theory, a theory yet to be realized in any country. A theory that does not take into consideration greed and crooks. BIG FLAW.

Sadly, the statement “GOVERNMENT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS IN MY HEALTH CARE!!!” is meaningless. That's your concept. That's your surrender to the insurance industry, leaving them to charge what they want, and drop who they think is to costly to keep healthy. I guess your freedoms come from a profitable insurance industry, draining money away from consumers.

I want the extra money to be free. The extra money I’ll save when health care is reformed.

GOP Health Care Plan Takes Away Your Current Health Care Insurance. Ryan Trashes Employee Coverage

The biggest story missed by the Democrats and media outlets: GOP plan drops constituent health coverage faster than any plan proposed by the Democratic Congress.

For all those Republican town hall protesters worried they’ll lose their current health insurance because of the public option, the plans they love and have the freedom to keep and pay for, will be dropped immediately with Rep. Paul Ryan’s reform plan.

Here’s the question posed on Ryan’s web site, followed by his answer. You’ll notice he answers “no” but details a plan that does just the opposite. People will lose their current doctors and plans, period:

Q: Doesn't this undermine existing employer-based health care, and push workers into the private market to fight big insurance companies on their own?

A: No. Americans who like their employer-sponsored health benefits will be able to keep what they have. But individual Americans should make that decision – instead of falling victim to arbitrary tax rules or staying in a job only because they can’t afford to lose their health insurance. Tax breaks should go directly to every individual with a health insurance plan.

That will cancel tens of millions of employer health care plans, doing away with a conservative voters favorite doctors and insurance plan. The same objection they’re raging about now at Democratic town hall meetings. Ryan displays outright hostility toward those happy with their current employer based plans.

Although the employer-based tax health benefit helped expand health coverage during and after the war, it has evolved into an expensive, inflexible, and unfair subsidy, and is out of step with today’s diverse, and rapidly changing workplace. It also contributes to the insecurities felt by those who have employer-based health insurance, because they fear sacrificing coverage if they lose or change jobs.

But wouldn’t this plan do away with a families favorite plan and doctor? YES. And if this weren’t bad enough, a voluntary insurance system complicated with “additional safeguards” and insurance industry checks and balances paid, for by the government, sounds costly and ineffective. Anytime you have to make sure the insurance companies play fair, it would indicate a free market system ripe for “gaming.” Convoluted is a word that comes to mind. Check it out if you dare:

Any health insurance plan licensed in the state may participate in the Exchange, though plan participation is not mandatory. Participating insurers must offer at least the same standard health benefits made available to Members of Congress and are prohibited from discriminating based on prior medical history or existing conditions and must provide annual open enrollment periods to enroll newly eligible individuals. Individuals are guaranteed access to a health insurance plan through the Exchange.

To avoid cherry-picking of patients by insurance companies, exchanges can utilize mechanisms to protect enrollees from the imposition of excessive premiums, to reduce adverse selection, and to share risk. Options include an independent risk adjustment mechanisms, health security pools and reinsurance mechanisms. Once a plan is selected, the insurance company will claim the portion of the Medi-Choice rebate necessary to pay the premium. Some plans will be entirely covered by the rebate while others will require a monthly payment in addition to the rebate. For the first time, coverage will be available without regard to employment status.

Is there any chance a family can find a plan for $500 bucks a month? Ryan and his fellow Republicans are that disconnected.

Peeing in Shower Rage in Brazil I Guess...

According to AP:

The ad campaign, by Brazilian environment group SOS Mata Atlantica, encourages people to cut water use by urinating in the shower, The Associated Press reports. if households avoid one flush a day more than 4,300 litres of water will be saved each year. The cartoon ads show all kinds of people urinating in the shower and ends with the line ``Pee in the shower! Save the Atlantic rainforest!''

Republican Health Plan Cancels Peoples Current Plans Faster and More Completely Than Democrats

Your going to lose your insurance! Help! The news media can't get enough of their favorite scare tactic. Watch the video.



The Republicans released their health care plan on the same day the House Democrats released their last of three plans. The hit on the Democratic plan is that many will suddenly see their current insurance coverage dropped, “forcing” them to buy into the public option (losing their freedom). Let’s see how Republicans prevent this from happening:

House Republican Proposal: Who's covered: no estimates about how many additional people would be covered. Cost: Unknown. Requirements for individuals: No mandates. Requirements for employers: No mandates; small business tax credits would be offered.

Change is voluntary, just like the regulations that destroyed Wall Street. This is where the Republican plan starts kicking people off their current employer based health care plans in dramatic fashion.

Employers would be encouraged to move to "opt-out" rather than "opt-in" rules for offering health coverage.

The Democrats have nothing on the Republicans brain dead abandonment of a person’s current health insurance coverage. Republicans also don’t understand the power of buying in bulk, or purchasing health care in a large group, to gain negotiating power and bring prices down. You won’t believe this:

How you choose your health insurance: No new purchasing exchange or marketplace is proposed. Health savings accounts and flexible spending plans would be strengthened.

Health Savings accounts are catastrophic plans that “force” people to pay $7,000 to $15,000 first before the insurance companies spends one thin dime. And every year your premium will go up at least $1300. I should know, I’ve had one for 6 years. Oh yeah, Republicans think seniors will be able to buy insurance in the private market at the same rate they get in Medicare. They really don’t know what’s going on, do they?

Changes to Medicaid: People eligible for Medicaid would be allowed to use the value of their benefit to purchase a private plan.

Good luck getting the same deal.

The bottom line: Employers are discouraged from providing health coverage to employees, which would then drop everyone’s current plan faster than anything the Democrats have proposed, forcing people out of large purchasing groups so they can buy coverage alone.

Now that’s cost containment.

Assassination Agenda: My Conservative Friend worries about Freedom, while his buddies Call in Deaths Threats to Obama

Now that we've seen the angry red faces at townhall meetings shouting out the evils of Obamacare, the right wings fired up minority may me more dangerous than ever before.

Washington Telegraph (UK): "US President Barack Obama is the target of more than 30 potential death threats a day and is being protected by an increasingly over-stretched and under-resourced Secret Service, according to a new book.

Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President's Secret Service."

The radical conservative crazies feel their "freedom" is being threatened. In the GOP version of the U.S.A., that implies dramatic action. That's what I heard from my very conservative friend today. Obama's trying to restrict his freedom to choose health care if he wants it at all, and offers no real follow-up reason or solution. I guess insurance companies aren't so bad after all.

Freedom. How about my freedom to choose insurance for my family, which I can't afford right now.

For Republicans, it's okay to ignore my side of the issue. They like to ignore problems handed to us by corporate America in the name of "free" trade. Ayn Rander's just handed us the second great depression, without seeing one angry conservative blink.

Now it's time to attack the clean-up crew. What a bunch of geniuses.

Wedge Issue Advocate Arthur Laffer States the Obvious in Title of Article "Health Care WEDGE"

Despite the outrageous claims cost will go up with a private option, something that hasn’t happened in the other industrialized countries with a government program, the chart to the right from the Commonwealth Fund should make it clear to even the most partisan Republican.

Details on the chart: "As the central source of financing for coverage expansions, the federal government's costs would increase during early years to make coverage affordable. The insurance design specified for modeling also provides federal funding to offset state and local costs of expanding Medicaid and raising Medicaid payment rates to Medicare levels. As a result, there would be an increase in net federal government spending during the decade. With system reform policies in place, however, the net federal cost of insurance expansion and investing in the care system declines rapidly."

So why is Arthur Laffer fabricating in his article "The Health Care Wedge," the idea that cost will skyrocket out of control, like they are now under our private system. Check out his twisted reasoning below, regardless of the CBO reports to the contrary, and the fear he tries to generate over health care reform.

As is made clear in the chart obove, the savings will be dramatic over time, adding this:

"By 2020, payment and system reform savings would offset nearly all the increase in annual federal spending compared with baseline projections (Exhibit ES-8). Over the 2010 to 2020 period, the net federal budget outlays are estimated to be $593 billion—with most incurred in the first five years.

As state governments, households, and employers all save significantly, policies could recapture some of the savings or modify design features to finance federal support of insurance for all."

D.C. Voucher Program Not the Success Media Pretends it is.

Another opinion, backed by facts, chimes in on the voucher debate.

Rev. Barry W. Lynn-I'm talking about is the "D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program," which thanks to a few select senators, may be reauthorized, despite the fact that it is unconstitutional and completely unsuccessful.

Today, the Washington Post ran an editorial called "Children First." The Post said, "The program has more applicants than slots; rigorous study has shown significant improvements in student reading, and parents are happy that their children are in schools that are safer and of better quality."

I don't know where the Post is getting these facts because they are far from accurate. It's this type of propaganda that keeps alive this program that takes federal taxpayer.

Besides, we know for certain that this voucher program has not done what it set out to do. All three congressionally mandated Department of Education studies of the D.C. voucher program have shown that the program has had no effect on the academic achievement of the target students and no effect on students overall in math. And students in the voucher program actually have less access to key services -- such as English as a Second Language program, learning support, special needs programs and counselors -- than students in D.C.'s public schools. (See results of the three studies here, here and here.)

Even long-time advocates of vouchers see that voucher programs are failures. An article in the April 2008 issue of Washington Monthly concluded that "some stalwart advocates of vouchers have either repudiated the idea entirely or considerably tempered their enthusiasm for it." The article cited former Milwaukee (which had one of the first voucher programs in the country) superintendent Howard Fuller, who admitted, "It hasn't worked like we thought it would in theory."

No, it definitely has not.

Husbands in Ads still not Helping Improve the Father Image. Sarah Haskins Explains...

Current TV's Sarah Haskins is spot on with her look at doofy husbands. With a delivery both dry and cute, I think she's a genius.

Lars Larson v Rep. Earl Blumenauer: Killing the Elderly to save Health Care Dollars.

So Democrats are going to kill old people with health care reform? Hardball's Chris Matthews goes right to the source, the amendments author Rep. Earl Blumenauer, on end of life doctor patient counseling. Oh, and radio talk host "know it all" Lars Larson spreads his "deather conspiracy theory" on thick. Republicans really have gone down that rabbit hole for insightful perspectives.

Co-op Alternative to Health Care Reform Puts Two Democrats at Odds with each Other.

Wisconsisn's bland white bread Congressman Ron Kind is quick to throw health care reform under the bus if it comes to that. After all, the Republican wield so much power in the House right now. Twice Kind is asked by Upfront's Mike Gousha if he could support legislation that did not include a public option. Rep. Kind appears to be drinking the co-op kool-aid, talking that up more than a government program.



So is Rep. Ron Kind onto to something with the co-op alternative to the public option? Of course not, especially is you ask Sen. Jay Rockefeller. Big Ed Schultz did that for us:

It's nice to see passion like that in a politician. Sen. Rockefeller offers up a hand full of nails for the co-op coffin.

Birthers Have a BIG problem. Constitution Bars all From Being President

This great piece by Huffington Post’s Chris Kelly takes a glorious shot at strict constititutional constructionists and the birthers. Justice Thomas are you paying attention?

Barack Obama's birthday is tomorrow (or is it?) and in the spirit of gift giving, I've got something for the 28% of Republicans who don't believe Obama was born in America: An invitation to common ground.

If the Constitution says Barack Obama is ineligible to be president, he's ineligible to be president.

The Constitution is always right because the Framers were infallible, even about slavery and not letting women and Indians vote. The Constitution means what it says and says what it means.

The Constitution says:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

And that's what it means.

Originalism forbids interpretation. (Which could lead to thinking.) It says the document is what it is. We'll never know what the Framers meant, so the safest thing to do is exactly what they say.

So we can agree: Every word in the Constitution, no matter how oblique or arcane, is there for a reason and any president who violates it is gone, or our system collapses, strangers steal our mail, and our sons start playing with dolls.

Good. Now let's talk about the phrase "a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."

Six simple words that mean exactly what they say. No spin. According to the clear letter of the law of the United States Constitution, Barack Obama can't be president, even if he was born in Hawaii, because Hawaii wasn't a state when the Constitution was adopted.

For their own impenetrable but absolutely unambiguous reasons, the Framers made a rule that says you can only be president if you were born in one of the original 13 colonies.
Sorry Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, Ulysses Grant, William McKinley, James Garfield, William Howard Taft, Harry Truman, Herbert Hoover, Harding, Harrison and Hayes. A rule's a rule. Get out.

Wait a second. I just had a thought. What if Article 2, Section One of the Constitution couldn't possibly mean what it literally says?

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President..."

Read it again. It's not just about where you were born. It says you can never be president unless you were alive in 1788.

That leaves out everyone but Robert Byrd.

Senate Republicans Determined to Make things Worse, Won’t Save or Approve “Cash for Clunker” Stimulus Success

If you had any doubt about the Republican Party’s main objective, check out the following from AP:

The government's wildly popular "cash for clunkers" program is likely to end Friday if the Senate doesn't approve $2 billion more for it. But the legislation faces a tougher fight in the Senate, where conservatives deride it as the latest in a series of taxpayer bailouts for the auto industry and environmentalists want to wring out more fuel efficiency.

Don’t you hate those fuel efficient vehicles? Don’t you also hate those pushy environmentalists? And don’t you hate a boost in consumer confidence?

This is an open admission by Republicans that, regardless of any obvious stimulus success, they won’t back it. What matters is their ability to make things worse in time for the 2010 elections. Things aren’t working out they way they planned. We’re cutting our ties to the oil producing countries, slowly but surely.

Senate Republicans appeared to be in no rush Monday. "We were told this program would last for several months," GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "It ran out of money in a week, prompting the House to rush a $2 billion extension before anybody even had time to figure out what happened to the first billion. It's not a bad idea to look for a second opinion. All the more so if they say they're in a hurry."

What happened to the first billion? People bought cars, according to “information on 80,500 vehicle transactions logged into the government's operating system through Saturday afternoon. An official said the fuel efficiency improvements would save a typical customer $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs. The new vehicles were getting 25.4 miles per gallon on average, a 61 percent increase over the models traded in, said the official.

Is McConnell a complete idiot, or does he believe he can convince fellow Republicans who cashed in their clunkers that they really shouldn’t have?

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said some 80 percent of the traded-in vehicles are pickups or SUVs, meaning many gas-guzzlers are being taken off the road. The Ford Focus is a leading replacement vehicle. Ford Motor Co. reported its first U.S. sales increase in nearly two years on Monday, and other major automakers said sales showed signs of stability. Chrysler Group LLC posted a smaller year-over-year sales drop compared with recent months, also helped by "clunkers" deals.

Cheating Mans Body Parts Super Glued in Wisconsin.

STOCKBRIDGE, Wis. -- Three Wisconsin women are accused of tying up and assaulting a married man after allegedly finding out he was having affairs with each of them. Authorities say Therese Ziemann punched the man in the face and applied Krazy Glue to other body parts.

The women reportedly taunted him as they glued his genitals to his stomach.

Ziemann lured the man to a Stockbridge motel last Thursday … she was soon joined by the other two women and the man's wife.

The story did not mention how his penis was finally unglued…if it ever was. Ouch!

August 11, 2009 update: an NBC Today Show interview of the ring leader.

More Common Sense Fact Based Questions About the Voucher and Charter School Debacle

Jennie Smith, the Dade County Education Policy reporter for Examiner.com, wrote a free flowing common sense look at education in the piece “America's education system perpetuates the gap between rich and poor.” It’s an encouraging sign that more people are starting to wise up. Are you listening Arne Duncan?

The conservative "solution" to the problems in public education seems to be, more often than not, privatization (despite the fact that none of the nations with top-performing education systems rely on a model of privately owned or managed schools). Their faith in the ability of the so-called "free market" to improve everything seems to know no bounds. But it is an oft-seen brand of privatization that is not self-sufficient. After all, the very point of capitalism is that the government is not supposed to interfere: once these private organizations rely on tax dollars for survival, and in the case of schools need the government funding to exist in the first place, we are no longer really talking about true capitalism at all--just about politicians favoring the private sector over the public sector, favoring profits over public service … any politician who espoused the privatization of education in the truest sense of the word would never gain any significant support among voters, because that would be reverting to a (fortunately) long-outdated, feudalistic system where only the moneyed classes would be able to educate their children … so conservative politicians push for the next-best thing they can reasonably find support for: private school vouchers and charter schools.

If politicians feel there is a crisis in American education--an idea that is in itself debatable, as the quality of public education in the US has remained relatively stable since the 1970s, one might hope they would look to countries with excellent education systems for ideas. Finland was credited in 2004 by OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) with the best education system in the world. Finland's education minister credited their enormous economic investment in education as the primary factor, along with parental support and involvement, having small, local schools where students stay from ages 7 to 16 before entering into an academic upper secondary school or a vocational upper secondary school, with very few students dropping out, and places in higher education for 65% of students (universities and most materials are free in Finland), and hiring and retaining highly qualified teachers at all levels of the system

If none of the top-performing education systems in the world are based on private schools receiving taxpayer funding, what on earth makes us believe that this is a viable solution for the problems plaguing education in America today?

Charter schools are the #1 pet project in education for conservatives. They are packaged and sold to the public as offering choice to parents, and promoting competition with public schools so that, in turn, public schools will be forced to improve in order to stay "in business." Tax dollars marked for public education are then diverted to private organizations holding a charter with the state. Though most states require those organizations to be nonprofit, there are some, like Imagine Schools, who turn a significant profit through shady real estate deals through the real estate arm of their business. Furthermore--and perhaps more importantly--so far there is no conclusive evidence to support that charter schools are any more successful at improving student achievement and/or closing the achievement gap than traditional public schools. And in the state of Florida, according to the CREDO report linked here and above, charter schools actually fared worse overall than traditional public schools.

A major national report released in July shows charter students nationwide trailing their counterparts in traditional public schools, and the trend is even more marked in Florida, which ranked among the six states with the least effective charter schools.

(Charter schools) do not have to play by the same rules when it comes to expelling students. I was told by a friend who teaches in a nonprofit charter school in Miami that his school is quick to expel students; since it is considered a "school of choice," they have the right to "get rid of" students who are causing problems, even when those problems would not be sufficient to get a child expelled from a regular public school.

The fundamental issue underlying the problems in American education is that the gap between the rich and the poor is huge, and continues to grow. Funneling taxpayer-funded profits into the hands of private charter management companies will not fill the gap between the rich and the poor

There is a prevalent notion that parents should have the right to choose what and how their children learn, meaning that many parents, particularly those who are very religious, choose to send their children to religious schools or even to home school them. Very often, their motivation is not a sincere belief that the quality of the education will be superior, but to shield the children from "secular" ideas, and even science: they want their children to learn creationism (and creationism only), that the world is only a few thousand years old, that dinosaurs and human beings coexisted, and they want to protect their children from the "dangerous" theories of evolution and climate change, among others. By holding private and religious schools, and home schools, to the same standards as public schools, part of the incentive for many parents to place their students in those schools (or teach them at home) would dissolve.

Public Wanted Fuel Efficient Cars in 2005, So did Ford.

In a search for the luxury tax break for large gas guzzlers, which I never found, I came across these public warnings that something was wrong. But I’m assuming the Republican Congress and president convinced us there was nothing to worry about.

The point of this blog entry was to call into question the GOP's opposition to expanding the "Cash for Clunkers" program, while reminding them of their support for the "Hunvee tax break" that allowed businesses to write off the vehicles entire cost. If you have more details, let me know. The following PUBLIC WARNINGS were archived at MSNBC:

Ford CEO: Gas tax, credits would help hybrids Feb. 28, 2005

How do you get millions of Americans to buy gasoline-electric hybrids? Shortly after unveiling his company's plans for a second hybrid SUV, Ford Motor CEO Bill Ford Jr. suggested this: a combination of a new gas tax and tax incentives for consumers. Ford said he has supported a gas tax of 50 cents a gallon, but he preferred tax breaks for consumers who buy cars with new fuel-saving technology such as hybrids, which are powered by gas engines and batteries to boost fuel economy. “Even going back four or five years I used to say that I’d support a 50 cent gas tax,” Ford said at the New York auto show on Wednesday. ”I think that a combination of gas taxes and incentives would also be something we could support. But I don’t know how high.”

8 in 10 say SUV drivers need to trade in guzzlers
Poll: Most people think fuel-efficient vehicles needed to cut oil dependence-Sept . 15, 2005

Eight in 10 people say it's important for Americans now driving sport utility vehicles to switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles to reduce the nation's dependence on oil, a poll found. With gas prices hovering around $3 a gallon nationally and the price of natural gas rising sharply, six in 10 said they are not confident President Bush is taking the right approach to solving the nation's energy problems, according to the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

• Almost seven in 10 want the government to establish price controls on gasoline and want more spending on subway, rail and bus systems.
• Just over seven in 10 want to give tax cuts to companies to develop wind, solar and hydrogen energy.
• Just over eight in 10 want higher fuel efficiency required for cars, trucks and SUVs.

"Clunkers" Program Gets Consumers Spending Again. Rep. Ryan Votes Against It?

The verdict is in: Cash for Clunkers" is getting people to spend again.

WKOW News: The White House announced the so-called "Cash for Clunkers" program, officially known as the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), has been so successful, it might have run out of money.

Pat McLaughlin, the general manager at the Russ Darrow dealership (said), "Traffic has been quadruple. Probably 85-percent of the cars we've sold in the past week have all been Cash for Clunkers deals."

The House debated an extra $2 billion dollars, tripling its initial $1 billion budget. It passed by a three to one margin and now moves on to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold in a statement said he supports expanding the program, calling it a bigger success than anyone predicted.

A successful government program? You bet. This was stimulus money that finally encouraged consumers to spend money, something they haven’t done for the last year, and the main reason for the joblessness, bankruptcies and the drop in corporate earnings. But to Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan, the real reason isn’t a lack of consumer spending, but a lack of tax cuts. No matter how successful Cash for Clunkers is in boosting consumer confidence, Ryan voted no to extend it. I’m not kidding.

Six of Wisconsin's eight representatives in the House approved Friday's expansion for CARS. Janesville Republican Paul Ryan (and Rep. James Sensenbrenner) voted against it, calling the program poorly designed and another burden on the national debt. Ryan released the following statement:

"The premise of this policy remains deeply flawed. Should the government borrow more money and force taxpayers to essentially finance their neighbors' purchase of a new hybrid? The fact that this government program was poorly designed, poorly administered, and over-budget doesn't justify today's rushed appropriation of an additional two billion dollars. I am troubled by the federal government's continued commitment to picking the winners and losers in our economy, while adding to an already unsustainable debt."

Rep. Ryan is more troubled by happy voters who might like the policies of the Democratic Congress and president. As for picking winners and losers, wouldn't Ryan's tax cuts for business have done just that?

So what’s left for a Republican to do for his country?

1. Ryan again uses the “us” vs “your neighbors” argument, in an attempt to feed into the “keeping up with the Jones” envy wars.

2. It’s the “somebody’s getting something for nothing with my hard earned tax money” Ayn Rand rant.

When will voters decide they’ve seen enough? Haven’t they endured enough pain (Ryan)?

What is it about Rep. Paul Ryan’s Love Affair with Corporate Profits? Is he a Corporate Borg?

It’s almost hard to imagine a more corporatist politician than Rep. Paul Ryan. His advocacy of turning taxpayer dollars to profitable incomes for big business is grotesque. Is it the fact that Ryan is so convince corporations have a better solution that voters assume he must know what he’s talking about?

For a guy who grew up in a family that depended on Social Security assistance, Ryan would now love to give that money to a highly volatile Wall Street, a place where investors would have wiped out any gains made in the last 10 years.

Now Congressman Ryan wants to reduce a persons buying power by putting families out there alone to shop and purchase their own health insurance. Forget about the actual business model of insurance: large pools of healthy and unhealthy people spreading the cost and lowering premiums. That concept seems almost alien to “business savvy” Republicans because they don’t have to research, negotiate and buy their own insurance year after year. They don’t have to deal with the 20 to 35 percent premium increases demanded by our corporate health providers.

Why is Ryan so convince business can do a better job?

Jsonline: "In Wisconsin, insurance giant Blue Cross/Blue Shield or people who work for the company are among the top campaign contributors to Rep. Paul Ryan's political committees so far this year with $10,000 in donations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Janesville Republican has collected more money from the insurance industry - $493,000 - than from any other interest group during his 10 years in Congress."

But what about Rep. Tammy Baldwin and Ron Kind's donor list? Get serious. Those fighting to bring down the cost, create giant purchasing pools so the healthy pay for the sick and are more concerned about family stability and the avoidance of bankruptcy and death, may also be getting huge contributions from corporations, but their agenda benefits the public.

It's a big difference Ryan can’t argue against without lying. The real question is this:

Should we be more concerned about the health of every man, woman and child, or ... the health of the insurance industry?

Ryan’s looking out for the latter, an industry he compares to his daughters lemonade stand.

Final House Bill on Health Care, for now.

This is the plan I can endorse. I don’t like the 12 year lock on new drugs by big Pharma, or the HHS secretary negotiating prices instead of Medicare fees plus 5 percent, but that’s how it looks right now. The Republicans plan is irresponsible, the current private sector mess on steroids, with no ability to rein in prices. If there ever was a plan that would guarantee people losing their current insurance plans, it would be from the Republicans, where they would encourage businesses to "opt-out" of offering health coverage. No estimates, costs, new taxes and no mandates. That’s a plan?

Democrats narrowly, 31-28, pushed sweeping health care legislation and cleared the way for a September showdown in the House. From the Salt Lake Tribune, the House Democrat Proposal:

1. The committee agreed to cap increases in the cost of insurance sold under the bill, and also to give the federal government authority to negotiate directly with drug companies for lower prices under Medicare.

2. The panel handed the drug industry a victory, voting 47-11 to grant 12 years of market protection to high-tech drugs used to combat cancer, Parkinson's and other deadly diseases.

3. Democrats also turned back a Republican bid to strip out a provision allowing the government to sell insurance in competition with private industry. Insurance companies would be required to sell coverage to all seeking it, without exclusions for pre-existing medical conditions.

4. The federal government would provide subsidies for lower-income families to help them afford policies that would otherwise be out of their reach. Individuals and families with annual income up to 400 percent of poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four) would get sliding-scale subsidies to help them buy coverage. The subsidies would begin in 2013.

5. The bills would set up so-called exchanges, in effect national marketplaces where consumers both with and without subsidies could evaluate different policies and choose the one they wanted.

6. The main expansion of coverage would not come until 2013 -- after the next presidential election.

7. On a vote that crossed party lines, abortion opponents failed in an attempt to bar insurance plans that offer abortion services from accepting customers with government subsidies. The vote was 31-27. The government could neither require nor prohibit abortion services in insurance plans sold in the exchange.

8. Around 94 percent of non-elderly residents would be covered -- compared with 81 percent today. Nearly half the 17 million non-elderly residents who remain uninsured would be undocumented immigrants.

9. Cost : About $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Revenue-raisers would include $544 billion over the next decade from new income taxes on single people making more than $280,000 a year and couples making more than $350,000; $37 billion in business tax increases; about $500 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; sizable penalties paid by individuals and employers who don't obtain coverage. The penalty would be 2.5 percent of income.

10. Employers would have to provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll. Companies with payroll under $250,000 or $500,000 annually would be exempt. Employers could apply for a two-year exemption from the mandate if they can prove that the requirements would result in job losses that would negatively affect their communities.

11. A Health Insurance Exchange would be open to individuals and, initially, small employers; it could be expanded to large employers over time. States could opt to operate their own exchanges in place of the national exchange if they follow federal rules.

12. A committee would recommend an "essential benefits package" including preventive services, mental health services, oral heath and vision for children; out-of pocket costs would be capped. The new benefit package would be the basic benefit package offered in the exchange and over time would become the minimum quality standard for employer plans. Insurers wouldn't be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

13. Government-run plan: A new public plan available through the insurance exchanges would be set up and run by the secretary of Health and Human Services. Democrats originally designed the plan to pay Medicare rates plus 5 percent to doctors, but under Wednesday's deal with the fiscal conservatives, the HHS secretary would instead negotiate rates with providers.

14. Changes to Medicaid: The federal-state insurance program for the poor would be expanded starting in 2013 to cover all non-elderly individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($14,404).

House Republican Proposal

1. Who's covered: The House GOP's plan contains no estimates about how many additional people would be covered. Cost: Unknown. No new taxes are proposed, but Republicans say they want to reduce Medicare and Medicaid fraud.

2. Requirements for individuals: No mandates. Requirements for employers: No mandates; small business tax credits would be offered.

3. Employers would be encouraged to move to "opt-out" rather than "opt-in" rules for offering health coverage.

4. Subsidies: Tax credits would be offered to "low- and modest-income" Americans. People who aren't covered through their employers but buy their own insurance would be allowed to take a tax deduction. Low-income retirees under 65 (eligibility age for Medicare) would be offered assistance.

5. Benefits package: Insurers would have to allow children to stay on their parents' plan through age 25.

6. Government-run plan: No public plan.

7. How you choose your health insurance: No new purchasing exchange or marketplace is proposed. Health savings accounts and flexible spending plans would be strengthened.

8. Changes to Medicaid: People eligible for Medicaid would be allowed to use the value of their benefit to purchase a private plan.

RNC Adopts "Scare your Pants Off" Agenda, and it Doesn't Have to Make Sense.

While a new Wall Street Journal poll indicated that more people, 39 percent and climbing, are inclined to go with a Republican Congress the next time around, the GOP platform continues down the road to ruin. Is anyone paying attention. If the Republicans are so right, again, what would explain the following resolutions by the RNC, as reported by ThinkProgress.org:

1) RNC resolution calls “Obamacare” a march toward “socialism.” The resolution proposes “true cost savings” can be realized by encouraging seniors to opt out of Medicare: RESOLVED, that true cost savings be achieved by allowing Medicare patients to opt out of Medicare program to pay for their own catastrophic insurance, and allowing Medicare participating physicians to discount their service fees for cash payments.

2) RNC resolution says Obama violated Constitution by appointing czars. For months, the right-wing fringe of the Republican Party has been railing against Obama for the appointment of policy “czars,” despite the fact that President Bush engaged in the same practice. Fox News has been pushing the conspiracy that Obama is acting unconstitutionally, even while the network’s own correspondent has acknowledged that the myth is false. RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee recognize that the current concentration of powers in the Executive Branch is a violation of the powers of the President of the United States as defined in the U.S. Constitution and is dangerous to the citizens of America. As ThinkProgress has noted, many of the “czars” that the right wing is up-in-arms over are actually Senate-confirmed positions. Moreover, the history of presidents appointing high-ranking policy advisers goes back over hundreds of years.

3) RNC adopts resolution to kill cap-and-trade. The RNC’s resolution on cap-and-trade declares that the cost of it will “greatly exceed any benefit.” It also declares that global warming is merely a “pretext” for passing cap-and-trade: RESOLVED, that we urge Congress to vote no on Cap-and-Trade and to reject all efforts to use global warming as a pretext to increase federal revenues; Expert analyses have found that Waxman-Markey clean energy legislation will cut pollution and create wealth over time. The EPA estimated that the bill will lower electricity bills by 2020.

Do Republicans Really Want to Cause Another Recession? Apparently.

This might not be a big splashy news item, but I think it perfectly illistrates what we are up against if we continue to allow the perception that Republicans politicians are smart fiscal managers. It’s just not true. For instance:

L.A. Times: “The House of Representatives voted to give regulators the authority to ban compensation practices that encourage banks to take excessive risks ... comes a day after the release of a report showing that nine big banks paid out a combined $32.6 billion in bonuses despite taking $175 billion in taxpayer aid to survive the financial crisis. The House passed the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act.”

It’s common sense regulation attempting to stop the next big collapse. I would prefer breaking up the big banks, but this is a step in the right direction.

"The bill would give shareholders of public companies annual, nonbinding advisory votes on executive pay and so-called golden-parachute severance packages ... the bill would allow regulators to prohibit so-called incentive compensation that encourages lenders or traders to take heavy risks that threaten the health of the bank or the financial system.

The banking meltdown was caused partly by dangerous practices such as the creation of bonds tied to subprime mortgages that minted huge paychecks but carried no accountability for the havoc they eventually wrought on the financial system."

So far so good. But…

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) said sarcastically, "Why doesn't this do anything about Hollywood stars who make $25 million for a movie, yet the movie loses money?"

Huh? I hate to point this out but box office flops haven’t caused any economic recessions that I can remember. Is “Texas Jeb” hallucinating? I know, the Lone Star Republican got his shot in at Hollywood, even though his party actually elected Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan and nominated Fred Thompson for president. It appears Republicans aren’t good at analogies or ironies?

Yet despite Rep. Hensarling’s ridiculous comparison, people still haven’t caught on that Republicans only imagine themselves as fiscally savvy business managers and accountants. Real fiscal conservatives are more likely to go into business for themselves or settle in as greedy CEO’s. Yet…

"Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), in a comment echoed by fellow Republicans, assailed the measure as "unprecedented government intervention in the free enterprise system."

I know it was pretty long ago, but 2008 should have taught us something. But not to ideologically blind Rep. Sessions. Hey Pete, it worked out pretty well last time when government didn' intervene, didn’t it?