Random RecitalsLennon represented life, and Mr. Nixon and Mr. Bush represent death. Gore Vidal Lively LinksLinks change randomly each time the cache is refreshed. |
Article by John on May 4th, 2008 at 10:31 am 
I don’t believe we are practicing any recognizable form of democracy in this country and here is just another example. Let me say at the outset that I don’t blame anyone for this mess besides perhaps a justice system that is more concerned about promoting a “dog eat dog” world than administering wise jurisprudence. I am a Democratic Party Precinct Committee Officer (PCO) in the 17th Legislative District. There are exactly 22 PCOs in the 17th LD. Last week I attended a nominating convention on who the 17th LD Democrats will “nominate” for the primary elections. And this is where the trouble begins. A couple of years ago, the 17th LD passed new bylaws prohibiting endorsement of any candidate prior to the primary election. This bylaw was intended to try and treat even-handedly all primary candidates and keep the primary a democratic process. Well the Supreme Court has changed all this. Now we have a “top two” primary system where the two highest vote getters, regardless of party affiliation, automatically advance to the general election. This causes a problem with regard to democratic principles. If you have two Republicans and four Democrats running in the primary, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the two Republicans are statistically more likely to both be the top two vote getters since the Democrats will split their Democratic voting base four ways and the Republicans only by two. So it behooves the political parties to try to have only one candidate or one “viable” candidate going into the primary to prevent such a result. Now why does any of this matter? Whoever gets the nomination of the party will very often actually become the winner of the primary. This is because that person will get money, publicity, endorsements from various organizations and other perks that will lend a significant advantage over the others running. The non-nominated candidates will also find themselves under pressure to withdraw so as to not split the vote as mentioned above. As a reaction to this top two primary system and the potential undemocratic results it permits, the state democratic party is requiring all legislative district organizations to pick a nominee for each race in the primary. This violates the bylaws of the 17th LD Dems against endorsing a candidate prior to the primary election. Some would argue a nomination is not the same as an endorsement. I agree they are not exactly the same but a nomination certainly implies an endorsement and would thus violate the intent of the 17th bylaw against such an act by the organization. So now we are voting at the next meeting to remove the endorsement provision of our bylaws in order to comply with the autocratic mandate of the Democratic State Party Chair Pelz to nominate a candidate. And if we don’t, Pelz will pick the nominee for us. Now how is that for grassroots empowerment! Seems like it would be more democratic if we just abolished the two party system and the primaries, let people run on their own and let the best person win. Instant runoff voting anyone? Got Democracy? Nope. More to come… Related articles: It’s not just the 17th – Grassroots Dems balk at party orders - With ‘Top Two’ primary thrust upon them, Democrats struggle over how to nominate PS: This is just a small part of the story. Please comment about what we want to do about this quagmire.
Article by John on May 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 am
Article by John on May 2nd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Article by missy on May 1st, 2008 at 12:48 pm 
We all have stories like this: My friend L. recently quit a high-pressure job after 20 years to help her husband out in his solo architecture practice. She had insurance for herself, her husband and the kids through her job, so after resigning she paid for COBRA while she waited for her family to be accepted into a stand-alone plan. You know what happened next: she was diagnosed with a chronic condition while waiting for new insurance approval. So her husband and kids can get on the new plan, but she’s SOL unless she can get a doc to un-diagnose her (unlikely, since it’s a genetic condition that has plagued her brother for the last 30 years, and her grandmother before that). And her COBRA will run out December 31. John McCain’s plan: While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will also have the option of receiving a direct refundable tax credit – effectively cash – of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.
I don’t know about you, but my employer-based healthcare plan costs $450/month – just for me. My husband’s runs about the same, and our son’s – which we have to purchase separately, costs about $300/month. So that’s $14,400 a year, and would likely be at least 50% more if J. and I were buying our own coverage, since I have degenerative hip disease, migraines and a family history of melanoma. John McCain’s plan, in practice, would mean a 25% loss to our annual disposable income after his puny tax credit if we had to buy coverage on our own. And as for universal coverage, McCain can get you there, if you can afford it: One approach would establish a nonprofit corporation that would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level.
What’s a “reasonable limit on premiums” for a man who thinks $5,000 per family is enough to cover their health coverage costs? If my health insurance premiums are $20,000 a year for our family, and our after-tax joint income is $80k, I cannot afford health insurance. And I doubt our family will fall below the “certain income level” threshold McCain would set for whatever pittance of “assistance” that might be offered. Neither Obama’s nor Hillary’s plans are perfect, but they move toward universal coverage and single payer – the only way to get profit out of the healthcare coverage equation*, and the only choice if we are to get anything like health equity in this country. This does not mean that doctors can’t make a decent living. It just means you can’t profit by denying healthcare coverage, something that allowed the likes of CIGNA to pay its CEO a lavish bonus and stock options: H. Edward Hanway received a salary of $1.11 million, a performance-based bonus of nearly $18 million, and other perks worth $32,021 including the use of company aircraft. He received $3.57 million worth of stock and option awards…
CIGNA reported a profit of $1.115 BILLION for 2007 – $1,115,000,000 that was not spent caring for the health of their customers last year. $1,115,000,000 that could have paid for the coverage of almost 100,000 families. And they’re only 140th on Fortune’s list of the top 500 U.S. companies. Rounding out the healthcare companies on the list: 25. UnitedHealth Group: profits of $4.654 billion, enough to cover 388,000 families for a year. 33. WellPoint: profits of $3.3454 billion, enough to cover 279,000 families. 85. Aetna: profits of $1.831 billion, enough to cover 152,000 families. 98. Humana: profits of $833.7 million, enough to cover 70,000 families. 179. Healthnet: profits of $193.7 million, enough to cover 16,000 families. 266. Coventry Health Care: profits of $626.1 million, enough to cover 51,800 families. The remaining companies in the Forbes top 1000 had enough combines profits to cover another 43,000 families. So those Forbes 1000 healthcare companies alone had sufficient combined profits to pay for healthcare for 2.4 million families. And we have 40 million people uninsured in this country. It’s shameful, isn’t it?
Article by missy on May 1st, 2008 at 10:33 am 
Q [Helen Thomas] How does the President intend to commemorate “Mission Accomplished” after five years of death and destruction? MS. PERINO: What you’re referring to is the banner that ran — that was aboard the ship five years ago. President Bush – Q I’m talking about the anniversary tomorrow. MS. PERINO: Yes, I get — no, I understand. That’s the anniversary of when that banner flew on that ship. President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said “mission accomplished for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission.” And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year.
And that’s why Dummy started his speech five years ago by saying, “MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS IN IRAQ HAVE ENDED.” Shitheads. Don’t they know there’s no excuse for all the crimes they’ve committed in the last 7 years? Of course they do. They just don’t give a fuck. 
Article by missy on May 1st, 2008 at 10:30 am 
Hooray, hooray – the First of May Outdoor f*cking begins today! At least for the critters. Here in the Pac NW it’s still a bit too cold & wet. Enjoy your May revels, wherever you are.
Article by missy on April 30th, 2008 at 4:19 pm 
Al Qaida’s back in pre-9/11 fighting form, operating without fear or restraint along the Pakistan- Afghanistan border with the tacit support of Pakistan’s ISI, but somehow Iran is the world’s “most active” state sponsor of terrorism according to BushCo: WASHINGTON (AP) — Al-Qaida has rebuilt some of its pre-Sept. 11 capabilities from remote hiding places in Pakistan, leading to a major spike in attacks last year in that country and neighboring Afghanistan, the Bush administration said Wednesday. Attacks in Pakistan more than doubled from 375 to 887 between 2006 and 2007, and the number of fatalities jumped by almost 300 percent from 335 to 1,335, the State Department said in its annual terrorism report. In Afghanistan, the number of attacks rose 16 percent, to 1,127 incidents last year, killing 1,966 people, 55 percent more than the 1,257 who died in 2006, it said. … More than 22,000 people were killed by terrorists around the world in 2007, 8 percent more than in 2006, although the overall number of attacks fell, the report says. The report once again identifies Iran as the world’s “most active” state sponsor of terrorism for supporting Palestinian extremists and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, where it says elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps continued to give militants weapons, training and funding. … In Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, al-Qaida and its affiliates remain “the greatest terrorist threat to the United States and its partners”… A primary reason for its resurgence was a cease-fire the Pakistani government reached with tribal leaders last year, the report says…. “Numerous senior al-Qaida operatives have been captured or killed, but al-Qaida leaders continued to plot attacks and to cultivate stronger operational connections that radiated outward from Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe,” it says.
Nice work, guys. Fuck-ups this consistent, across the geopolitical board, can only be the perfect melding of Bush’s Oedipal codpiece complex, Doug Feith’s stupidity, Steven Hadley’s geographical ignorance, Cheney’s perverse bloody-mindedness, and Bill Kristol’s religio-cultural douchebaggery. That, or all this violent chaos is deliberate, and brown lives come cheap when oil’s in the balance. Either way, January 20 can’t come soon enough – for us and the rest of the planet.
Article by Ramona on April 30th, 2008 at 12:20 pm by Ramona D. Marek, MS Ed. It is well-established that we Americans love our pets with 49.7 percent of us considering them part of the family. New statistics published by the American Veterinary Medical Association’s 2007 U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook (“Sourcebook”) show cats now rank as America’s first pet with 82 million owned cats to 71 million dogs. But a closer look reveals startling data about our beloved pets. Of the 48,000 surveyed households with both dogs and cats, the average dog receives vet care 1.5 times a year yet cats received vet care less than once a year. Put another way, 36.6 percent of households owning cats received no vet care in 2006 compared to 17.3 percent of dog households. The increase in the number of owned cats combined with the decrease in vet care visits is alarming. The cat’s accelerated aging process coupled with its ability to mask pain and illness means cats are at a greater risk of unnecessary suffering before receiving medical care. All too often, by the time they see a vet they are already gravely ill with conditions that could have been prevented or diagnosed earlier had they received regular veterinary care. To make matters worse, pet owners are unwilling to spend as much money on cat care compared to dog care. The National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy survey reveals 35 percent of cats compared to 27 percent of dogs were relinquished to shelters due to behavior issues. The Humane Society for Southwest Washington’s sobering statistics support that data. On an average day with 45 animals taken in, 30 are cats and 15 are dogs. More people utilize the new behavior training for dogs, but with cats the attitude is “No, I’ve had it with that cat!” The Humane Society of the United States reports still more dismal data: of animals entering shelters, 15-30 percent of dogs are reclaimed compared to 2-5 percent of cats. The Humane Society of Southwest Washington’s stats are direr: 98 percent of dogs are reclaimed to 2 percent of cats. One day three cats were reclaimed and it set “a world record” at the shelter. Are cats less valued or considered disposable pets? Trends also indicate more cats are dumped and literally left out in the cold to fend for themselves than dogs and more cats than dogs are abused. Health studies for felines lag behind those for canines. A 1945 study found large amounts of melamine (a toxic chemical used to make plastics and fertilizers, often used as a filler to falsely boost protein content) had “no significant toxic affects” on dogs, rats or rabbits. It was assumed the same was true for cats. In last year’s recall of tainted pet food, more cats than dogs were sickened or died; indicating that even the smallest amounts of melamine is toxic to cats, causing acute renal failure. Clearly, more focus is needed on feline health studies; cats are not small dogs. As a result of the “Sourcebook” findings, the American Association of Feline Practitioners (AAFP) and 30 key influential organizations and companies including the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA), the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Cornell Feline Health Center, Morris Animal Foundation, Winn Feline Foundation and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, met Feb. 5-6 in Palm Springs, Calif. at what was called the CATalyst Summit. The event was underwritten by Pfizer Animal Health. The main goals discussed were how to improve feline healthcare, educate owners about responsible pet ownership and elevate the cat’s stature. AAFP and AAHA plan to develop Feline Life-Stage Guidelines for veterinary professionals and Winn Feline Foundation’s media committee will develop guidelines for pet owners. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc. is underwriting this endeavor. While we Americans love our pets, the inequality of health and welfare between dogs and cats needs to end. The CATalyst Summit plans are underway and updates will be given as they progress. Sources (collapsible) | American Veterinary Medical AssociationU.S. Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook (2007 Edition) www.avma,org/reference/marketstats/sourcebook.asp CATalyst Summit
www.catalystsummit.org The Humane Society of the United States HSUS Pet Overpopulation Estimates www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/hsus_pet_overpopulation_estimates.html Humane Society for Southwest Washington 2121 St. Francis Lane Vancouver, WA 98660 360.693.4746 National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy Shelter Statistics Survey, 1994-97 www.petpopulation.org W.L. Lipschitz, The mode of action of three new diuretics: melamine, adenine, and formoguanamine, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Vol. 83, Issue 4, 235-249, 1945. |
| |
Current Comments