Two Golden Ages of Television?

Peggy Noonan writes in the WSJ what she’s thankful for--the usual--friends, health, surviving. And then gets to this:

“And after that, after gratitude for friends and family, and for those who protect us, after that something small. I love TV, and the other day it occurred to me again that we are in the middle of a second golden age of television. I feel gratitude to the largely unheralded network executives and producers who gave it to us. The first golden age can be summed up with one name: "Playhouse 90." It was the 1950s and '60s, when TV was busy being born. The second can be summed up with the words "The Sopranos," "Mad Men," "The Wire," "Curb Your Enthusiasm," "ER," "24," "The West Wing," "Law and Order," "30 Rock." These are classics. Some nonstars at a network made them possible. Good for them.“

Looks like I missed both golden ages. My parents didn’t have TV when I was growing up so if I ever saw Playhouse 90 (1956-1961) I don’t remember it. I was just too busy going to school, dating or working at the drug store to sit down and watch TV. And of the second group I’ve only seen Law and Order (now in its 20th season), and much of it only in reruns--miss Jerry Orbach. Hardly ever watch it these days--too predictable. The others in the second golden age I’ve never seen.

Over the years we’ve enjoyed Dick Van Dyke Show (1961-1966) both when it was current and later in reruns; Mary Tyler Moore (1970-1977) and the spin-offs Rhoda and Phyllis; Love Boat (1977-1986) was great for seeing all the stars not usually seen; Cheers (1982-1993); the Bill Cosby Show (1984-1992) and still laugh and identify with the family situations and love the fashions; Murder she wrote (1984-1996) with Angela Lansbury was never missed and we enjoyed it in reruns too; Golden Girls (1985-1992) although I think I saw this mostly on reruns; Murphy Brown (1988-1998)--great ensemble cast; Frasier (1993-2004) again mostly seen in reruns; Ellen (1994-1998); some of the movie channels like TNT and AMC for the movies I never saw when they were current; Third rock from the sun (1996-2001)--hard to believe Tommy is almost 30; we enjoyed Dharma and Greg (1997-2002); Monk (still current and watching it tonight); The Closer (now in the 5th season).

And remember the great variety shows--Sonny and Cher (1971-1974), Donny and Marie (1976-1979), The Captain and Tennille (1976-1977), Hee Haw (1969-1993) and now we even watch Lawrence Welk, which we never would have done in the 1950s and 1960s, as archives were dusted off with added interviews from the “Welk family” (1986- current) for its old time slot on Saturday evenings (tomorrow will be the Thanksgiving special on PBS).

The guy leading the global warming charge

If the interior of the earth is several million degrees hot, maybe that should be the cause of global warming instead of CO2 (which doesn't increase until after the temperatures rise, btw).

In explaining geothermal energy possibilities to Conan O'Brain Surgeon, Al Gore said, ". . . two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ..."

Close Al. Close. No one really knows how hot it is, but the experts' guesses are 4-6,000 degrees. Maybe Conan could use some of those extra Palin fact-checkers on his show. Or Al's next gig could be making up numbers for recovery.gov.

Friday Family photo--the snow horse

I'm dating these photos as the winter of 1949-1950, or 60 years ago, and I'm guessing this is before Christmas, maybe the first snow, and the horse is a bit skimpy. I did a painting from a photo of one of my snow horses with my brother and dog and I have on a lovely plaid coat, which I probably received for Christmas, plus there was a lot more snow and my ability to sculpt a horse had improved a lot. Lady the dalmatian was a replacement for Curly, a shepherd mix, son of Pretty, who had her puppies under the neighbor's porch. During the summer of 1949 Curly disappeared (I was told) while Mom, my brother and I were on a trip with my grandparents. Lady developed skin cancer after we moved to Mt. Morris and only lived a few more years.

The other little boy on the left is Buzzy Brown--the only name I ever called him--don't remember his real name. He lived down the street. I think he was an only child and his parents were rather affluent. He seems to be wearing a matching hat and coat. To show you how thrifty my mother was--I'm wearing a homemade headscarf and mittens, and the mittens were lined with my father's wool Marine uniform from WWII. The blanket on the snow horse was from my grandmother's house, and I guessing it was from her mother's house of the mid-19th century. I am wearing over-the-shoe boots, but my brother isn't--although in the photo of the other snow horse he is. Perhaps he came outside to pose after all the work was done?

He's a poor step-dad and significant other

Eighty six% of the households in the top 5% are married couple families. Only 19% in the lowest 5th are married couple families. Do you suppose this affects the income gap? You betcha! Households with two full-time workers earn five times as much as households in which nobody works. Median income for households with two full-time earners was $85,517 in 2003 compared with $15,661 for households in which nobody worked. Median income for households with one worker who worked full-time all year was $60,852, compared with $28,704 for those who worked part-time for 26 weeks or less.

Oh, the injustice of it. Two married people who work have higher incomes than people who receive government money provided by the people who work. Not only that, but the median income of working people increased by 13% from 1987 to 2003, but those who don’t work and depend on Uncle Sam only got a 1.4% increase. Indeed, marriage may actually penalize poor people while helping their children (they get fewer benefits, but studies show children do much better with married parents). Both Democrats and Republicans tossed the ball of control back and forth during that time period. And since social programs (far exceeds defense) grew faster than anything else in government during those years, especially under Republicans, do you suppose we could conclude that Uncle Sam is not only a lousy step-dad, he’s not even all that great as a lover and significant other? Source

Government acronym: CSEPP

I didn’t know we had a Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) whose mission is to “enhance existing local, installation, tribal, State, and Federal capabilities to protect the health and safety of the public, work force, and environment from the effects of a chemical accident or incident involving the U.S. Army chemical stockpile.” According to the page I read, the stockpiles are secured on seven U.S. Army installations in the continental United States. The map, which was hot linked with colored dots, had eight dots. The first location I checked said it was one of six locations in the nation where chemical weapons are stockpiled.

The chemical agents of primary concern to CSEPP are the nerve agents GB and VX and the blister agents H, HT and HD. The chemical agents are stored in three basic configurations: (1) projectiles, cartridges, mines, and rockets containing propellant and/or explosive components; (2) aircraft delivered munitions that do not contain explosive components; and (3) steel one-ton containers. Most of the stockpile (61%) is in the latter form.

So how'd you like to live in that county? So is it six, seven or eight? Did one of these guys get reassigned to recovery.gov which has bungled many of the numbers and dollars for ARRA for jobs not lost?

I also learned that in 1985 the United States Congress ordered that these weapons be eliminated in the safest manner possible. So that’s what these websites are all about, the ongoing elimination of chemical weapons. "Enhance" in government speak means "eliminate." I guess that's why the health care bill is going to enhance the lives of so many seniors. If we haven't been able to get rid of these in a quarter of a century, what's the rush on health care?

Oh Canada!

A different take on a familiar tune.

I’m proud to be in Canada, by Lee Greenwood.



and an interesting new book by a talented Canadian writer, Denise Chong. Egg on Mao. A good reminder for us, too.

“What I realized while writing this story, as I was tracking this growth and development of a moral being, is that if you don’t stand up for those rights, if you don’t stand up against the indignities that accumulate in daily life, then the very values that you’re supposed to defend—like decency, dignity, goodness, respect—they all start to lose their currency,”

Egg on Mao: The Story of an Ordinary Man Who Defaced an Icon and Unmasked a Dictatorship (Random House Canada, $32.95), by Vancouver-born author Denise Chong. It has revived interest in the moral heroism of Lu Decheng and his friends Yu Zhijian and Yu Dongyue in the 1989 pro-democracy protests. Review here.

Just 24 days

Things have changed since my first child was born in 1961. The thought then was that they needed some time to build up immunity before meeting the world and its bacteria, viruses and contaminants. When I was on my way out of the coffee shop this morning I stopped at a table and asked, "How old is your little one?" "Three and a half weeks," she said. So I looked it up at several web sites thinking perhaps there was new advice. Doesn't seem to be.

"Immediately after birth, the newborn has high levels of the mother's antibodies in the bloodstream. Babies who are breastfed continue to receive antibodies via breast milk. Breast milk contains all five types of antibodies, including immunoglobulin A (IgA), immunoglobulin D (IgD), immunoglobulin E (IgE), IgG, and immunoglobulin M (IgM). This is called passive immunity because the mother is "passing" her antibodies to her child. This helps prevent the baby from developing diseases and infections.

During the next several months, the antibodies passed from the mother to the infant steadily decrease. When healthy babies are about two to three months old, the immune system will start producing its own antibodies. During this time, the baby will experience the body's natural low point of antibodies in the bloodstream. This is because the maternal antibodies have decreased, and young children, who are making antibodies for the first time, produce them at a much slower rate than adults.
Once healthy babies reach six months of age, their antibodies are produced at a normal rate."

Add to that it is flu season; our government is hyping a pandemic; the mother might not be breastfeeding; the table where I sit always needs to be wiped down before I use it; it was noisy and confusing with strangers' voices (like mine) battering her little ears; she couldn't focus yet so was staring at the brilliant can lights above.

Maybe someday someone will investigate the increase in allergies and autism in today's children (peanut butter, gluten, pets, etc.) over those of 40 years ago and find out if they inhaled things in the built environment before their bodies were ready for the insult to their delicate systems.

On reading the new health care bill

There are 2074 pages in the Senate version of health care “reform.“ Fox News is suggesting that we not just accept the talking points of the Democrats, but that the ordinary citizen take a piece of the Senate Health Care bill, study it and send in comments. There is a template in which you can enter information you either like or don’t like. So I took the challenge. (HT Bob C.) I randomly selected a page--1896. That’s a huge mistake, I learned--you're probably better off to begin with a section that interests you. Oh well. I ended up in something called “Follow-on Biologics User Fees.” Call me crazy, but a “user fee” is a tax. Here’s a little poem to keep in mind while browsing this health care bill.

No matter who gets the fee,
it is passed on to me.
So don't be so lax,
Remember it’s a tax.
He said that he wouldn't,
We know that he shouldn't.
But we just can't win,
We've been lied to again.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t make heads nor tails out of this tax. I think a special college level course is needed in how to read a Senate or House bill. They first had to define a biological product, and to do that I had to see section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) (as amended by
this Act) and I had to familiarize myself with section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) and section 3511 of title 31, U.S.C. for standards, and requirements prescribed by the Comptroller General, etc.

But I did see some very disturbing things in this unintelligible section, like dates (5 years after fiscal year 2012, for instance)--for review and audit that seemed to involve a population the size of a small city. Although the wording is “shall consult with“ not “will consult with“ so that might actually make a difference in who figures this one out and how much it will cost me in 2017. Assuming this reform hasn't seriously shortened my life expectancy, which today is somewhere in the 90s.

Eleven AP fact checkers for Palin’s book

Did AP fact check Obama's book? Just point to the article. It used 11 on Palin. She must really be a threat.

Associated Press writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine plus Calvin Woodward all contributed to the article “fact checking” her book. Mark Steyn said that equaled about l.8333333 errors/facts per writer. Surely, if all 11 actually read it they could have found more. I find errors in books and web pages all the time. Spent some time tonight at a FEMA site and found three errors within three clicks. And the facts they disputed? Not so much. They were really flimsy--like “railed against taxpayer-financed bailouts.” Please? Most Americans on both the left and right have done that.

Has AP in 10 months of brilliant journalistic analysis even come up with 11 criticisms of Barack Obama? Like his deficit which makes George W. Bush, the biggest spender up to Jan. 20, 2009, look like a penny pinching piker? Taking over huge segments of the economy? Calling the Cambridge police stupid? Not knowing how or when to salute? Bowing to foreign leaders? Or his marxist passion to redistribute wealth? Or how about that terrorist trial he wants in New York City? Don't bother to count. It was just a rhetorical question.

Has AP ever looked so ridiculous?

If there are hungry Americans. . .

Then we have totally incompetent federal, state and local governments, because we tax payers have certainly done our part. We've given them enough money to cover the problem. $60.7 billion was the USDA's food assistance budget in 2008. Here's a tiny fraction of what went to the low income and poor, not for hunger, but for "food insecurity." Primarily, it pays the salaries of the people in the USDA "food chain," which include "public partnerships" like non-profits and churches.

Legislation
School Meals Programs
Child and Adult Care Food Program
Summer Food Service Program
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Food Distribution Program
Women, Infants and Children

Regulations
School Meals Programs
Child and Adult Care Food Program
Summer Food Service Program
Supplemental Nutrition Asssitance Program
Food Distribution Program
Women, Infants and Children
Farmers Market Nutrition Program

Policy
School Meals
Child and Adult Care Food Program
Summer Food Service Program
Food Distribution Policy Database
Charitable Institutions & Summer Camps
Commodity Supplemental Food Program
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
Nutrition Services Incentive Program
Processing Policies
Schools/Child Nutrition Institutions
The Emergency Food Assistance Program

Sustainable Development is wealth redistribution

Your wealth into a giant green rat hole. I must get 3-4 items a week in my e-mail on sustainable development, buildings, products, and life style, both for my husband (architecture) and me (librarianship and news releases from OSU). As Christians, we are huge supporters of conservation and stewardship of God’s creation, but “sustainable” has become a code word for something much more sinister.

Both prophets and pundits, right and left, whether Glenn Beck, Tom DeWeese, Bill Maher or Van Jones , know "sustainability" calls for changing the infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to central planning first by our government, then by a world governing body--whatever entity the United Nations will evolve to. When you see the word “sustainable,“ you can safely substitute “wealth redistribution.”

We fought a few wars to defeat the centrally planned economic disasters based on the theories of Marx and Engels. You’re too young to remember millions of starving Ukrainians declared wealthy because they owned a cow or a wheat field, but the same thing has been going on for years in Communist North Korea. Those plans evolved and then failed in the USSR, its Eastern European satellites and Maoist China (which now under a cloak of capitalism owns us and is cautioning our president to cut back on his insatiable appetite for debt).

When our home grown Communist sympathizers found out that “revolution” wouldn’t work because the workers and labor unions of the USA already had too much freedom, material goods and wealth and were loyal to American ideals, they just drilled from within, driving our businesses off shore, and in 2008 we elected them (with a very long lead in from socialists and progressives in the government)! But for those who weren’t swayed at the polls or by campaign promises, there is always the great green hope and hype.

However, that hyped hope (cap and trade based on phony CO2 scare tactics) is death for the poor of developing countries. Did you see our food prices rise almost over night in 2007 when the bio-fuels fever really took over and land was being taken out of production for food and turned into bio-fuel for automobiles? We saw our price of bread, meat and milk go up a few pennies to a dollar, but in poorer nations, they were having food riots and killing each other as a shortage of wheat turned into a shortage of rice and cooking oil.

Tom DeWeese cautions us to pay attention to the language--we’ve been hearing some version of this since the 1930s--pausing only briefly as we finally dropped the cloak of protectionism after Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941

"We now have a new language invading our government at all levels. Old words with new meanings fill government policy papers. The typical city council meeting discusses "community development," "historic preservation," and "partnerships" between the city and private business.

Civic leaders organize community meetings run by "facilitators," as they outline a "vision" for the town, enforced by "consensus." No need for debate when you have consensus! People of great importance testify before congressional committees of the dire need for "social justice."

Free trade, social justice, consensus, global truth, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, and community service are all part of our new language." Tom DeWeese

I wrote on this topic about a year ago, Prize for the most green words. Really made an architect unhappy; he thought he needed to attack me, instead of the topic at hand.

People are catching on

"Less than half the population believes that human activity is to blame for global warming, according to an exclusive poll for The Times. The revelation that ministers have failed in their campaign to persuade the public that the greenhouse effect is a serious threat requiring urgent action will make uncomfortable reading for the Government as it prepares for next month’s climate change summit in Copenhagen.

Only 41 per cent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Almost a third (32 per cent) believe that the link is not yet proved; 8 per cent say that it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 per cent say that the world is not warming."

From First Things

Get your free download of The Skeptics Handbook

Katie Couric on the new breast guidelines

Isn't that just so odd? Katie says it's the REPUBLICANS making this into a political issue (she spoke on our local news show this evening). I guess those "women's groups" objecting and questioning the panel aren't DEMOCRATS? And it couldn't be that the DEMOCRATS have some of that transparent Pelosi tape over their mouths? Washington Wire (very liberal) at WSJ took the same tack (hmmm, almost like talking points were coming from the White House, isn't it?) Here's my favorite health writer, Tara Parker Pope

"The panel that issued the changes, the United States Preventive Services Task Force, advised doctors not to teach women to examine their own breasts, saying the self-checks led to more imaging procedures and biopsies but did not reduce cancer deaths.

Many women, particularly those of my generation, were mystified. Breast self-exams are inexpensive and noninvasive. No radiation, no fuss. You can do them in your own home, lying down in bed, in between checkups or mammograms. You don’t even need health insurance because they are free. So why not?"

Actually, the only detection that matters is your own--not the studies. Money raised for breast cancer for way too long has gone for education and detection, and not enough for research--just my opinion. That's always been my gripe about "runs" and "walks" for any disease of the week--the bulk of it goes back to support the organization doing the events, and then for education, and then a tiny portion for research.

Bernadine Healey was interviewed on Glenn Beck tonight and she said it should be between the woman and her doctor to decide. But Bernadine, there's that pesky insurance issue. . . women who have "cadillac" insurance are going to be taxed more, assuming their employer doesn't drop it, and that just might put a damper on what tests they're willing to put up with. And I know from Medicare, you don't just get any test or shot you want--it has to be one the approved schedule. If 40 year olds don't need it, maybe they'll decide 70 year olds aren't worth it either? Keep your eye on that Preventive Services Task Force once you're on the public health insurance.

Also, please read this story about Kerry Dumbaugh. I know her. She was interviewed in 2002 about a false negative mammogram, but 2 doctors could feel the lump. She was 42. Her grandmother died of cancer at 56--but her cancer had been visible for years. Kerry works for the Congressional Research Service and is an expert on China.

Now it's our turn to be Baby Jane

Baby Jane was born with spina bifida over 25 years ago. Her parents, on their doctors' advice,

"had refused both surgery to close her spine and a shunt to drain the fluid from her brain. In resisting the federal government's attempt to enforce treatment, the parents pleaded privacy.

What first piqued [Nat] Hentoff's curiosity was not so much the case itself but the press coverage. All the papers and the networks were using the same words to say the same thing, he says.

"Whenever I see that kind of story, where everybody agrees, I know there's something wrong," he says. "I finally figured out they were listening to the [parents'] lawyer."

He went after the story, later publishing it in The Atlantic as "The Awful Privacy of Baby Doe." In running it down, he found himself digging into the notorious, 2-year-old case of the first Infant Doe. That Bloomington, Ind., Down's syndrome baby died of starvation over six days when his parents, who did not want a retarded child, refused surgery for his deformed esophagus.

Then Mr. Hentoff came across the published reports of experiments in what doctors at Yale-New Haven Hospital called "early death as a management option" for infants "considered to have little or no hope of achieving meaningful 'humanhood.' " He talked with happy handicapped adults whose parents could have killed them but didn't. It changed him.” Finish the story here.

But keep in mind the slippery slope, and now fellow seniors, it’s our turn, and it's called ObamaCare.

Food insecurity is not hunger

"According to the USDA's annual poll, 17 million U.S. households reported some degree of food insecurity in 2008, up from 13 million households in 2007," writes Scott Kilman in yesterday's WSJ. I'm not sure when "food insecurity" became the term du jour, but it means at some point during 2008 someone in the family worried about not having enough food or their "normal eating patterns were disrupted." So that's what hunger has become to the USDA--worrying about food while HHS is wringing is bureaucratic hands over obesity. Even when unemployment was at 4.5%, journalists were writing food pantry and food insecurity stories, especially during the holiday season when many charities are making appeals. Now because of unemployment at 10.2%, people who used to contribute or volunteer at food pantries now are recipients, so the stories have expanded. In 2009 they are not directed at the president's policies, as they were four or five years ago. Even in food insecurity, Obama is untouchable.

And really, no modern day president can be blamed for hunger in the U.S., because it has been the policy of the government for the last 60 years to expand its largest welfare program to . . . farmers. And what used to be using up post-war surplus by giving it to the poor (blocks of cheese, butter, and boxes of dry milk back in the 60s and 70s) is now growing subsidized food to be given to the poor through schools (breakfast, lunch, afterschool and summertime snacks), churches (they usually run the summer programs), non-profits (they provide grants from donors and the government to buy the food), and federal and state "partnerships (redistribution of USDA money to many programs, rural and metropolitan)."

This at a time when there are entire households of adults and children where no one knows how to purchase or prepare food. I needed to buy 2 large containers of applesauce to donate to Faith Mission this week, so while I was going through the store, I jotted down some basic, non-prepared food items with prices.

Fresh items: 3 lb bananas, 8 lb. potatoes, 1 lb. carrots, 3 lb. apples, 8 lb oranges, 2 lb cabbage (total $11.18); main meal items: l lb pinto beans, l lb. black beans, 2 lb rice, 2 lb macaroni, 15 oz spaghetti, 26 oz spaghetti sauce (total $8.56); refrigerator case: 1 doz eggs, 1 gal milk, 1 lb butter, 2 lb cheddar cheese (total $7.45); beverage: 11.5 oz coffee to brew ($2.50). That came to $29.69, and for another $5.00 I could have had 2 loaves of bread and 16 oz. of natural peanut butter. For another $5.00 I could buy a 16 lb. turkey because they are on special right now. So for $40, that's a lot of food on the shelves, but someone has to buy it and someone has to prepare it who knows that beans with rice and potatoes combined with milk are almost nutritionally perfect.

But you can blow your way through $40 pretty fast buying soft drinks, potato chips, prepared individual meals at $3.00 each, crackers, cookies, etc. And it's not just poor people. On my afternoon walk yesterday I walked in a neighborhood that has a Tuesday trash pick up and at one home which I would estimate at $800,000, there were 6 plastic containers at the curb, all filled with flattened boxes and containers for processed food, many for the single server type. Her children probably don't qualify for school lunches, but they might be better off if they did.

See also my blog from April 2009 on What ever happened to food stamps.

A new blog coming on?

Sometimes it's like an itch you can't scratch, but I've been thinking about a new blog--would be my 13th I think. However, I have several I've not been keeping up, like my hobby bloggy on first issue magazines (I must have hundreds), what's on my bookshelves, coffee shop conversations (some are too wild to repeat), and the class reunion (it was 2 years ago).

The other day I scanned something for the class reunion blog. It was an award I'd earned in 8th grade for reading and was given at graduation. I had no memory of this or the books we read, and no one has responded to my questions. Surely I wasn't the only kid who got one of these? Total silence. But while I was rummaging around in the basement storage area, I again pulled out grandma Mary's box of clippings, papers and scrapbooks. And I could feel it coming on. . . a web log devoted to paper memorabilia.


Also just this morning I found a really nice blogger dot com template web site. I haven't looked at all the possibilities yet, but lots of variety and good design.

Maybe I could do it just for a month the way I did Memory Patterns in November 2005.

Non-obese and non-smokers, but still have clogged arteries

Well! Think of the research grants that will need to be rewritten! Read the story by Ron Winslow in today's Wall Street Journal.

We visited this museum when we were in Egypt in March. An amazing place, and we just scratched the surface. No cameras.

Invites to join Facebook

This morning I received an invitation from the fourth wife of the first husband of my sister-in-law to join her friends group at Facebook. Very nice lady. In my husband's family it really is until death do you part. Even if they get a divorce they still are welcome at the family events, which makes it nicer for the children who get to see their former step-parent occasionally. But I prefer blogging. I did go in and follow her link, however, and saw two other recent invitations (don't know how long that shows) and one has nine followers, the other has 109. The one who has 109 has never met a stranger, and she travels a lot. Long before e-mail and Facebook, you had to take a number to visit, or go shopping, or out to dinner. I don't think I even know 109 "friends," and I'm sure I don't want to go through junior high school again with people de-friending or refusing to even respond to my invitation to come to the party.

As it is, I'm on a number of e-mail discussion lists all sent and managed by men--four by guys who were in high school with me, and one from my husband's Wednesday morning men's group (he doesn't do e-mail). And they say women like to talk. The men do catch up.

Dirty little secrets in the House Bill reveal Obama’s claims for health reform are lies

"You lie." And this time it's the non-partisan and independent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services saying it, not a "Southern racist congressman" as the media tried to portray Joe Wilson.

" A report released Friday by the non-partisan and independent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency in charge of running Medicare and Medicaid, blows the lid off of every one of Obama’s claims. All of the following quotes are from the report itself [this summary is from The Morning Bell webpage]:

Health Care Costs Increase: “In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010 through 2019 [national health expenditures (NHE)] would increase by $289 billion, or 0.8 percent, over the updates baseline projection that was released on June 29, 2009.” In other words, Obamacare bends the cost curve up, not down.

Millions Lose Existing Private Coverage: “However, a number of workers who currently have employer coverage would likely become enrolled in the expanded Medicaid program or receive subsidized coverage through the Exchange. For example, some smaller employers would be inclined to terminate their existing coverage, and companies with low average salaries might find it to their - and their employees’ - advantage to end their plans … We estimate that such actions would collectively reduce the number of people with employer-sponsored health coverage by about 12 million.” In other words, Obamacare will cause millions of Americans to lose their existing private coverage. . .

Seniors Access to Care Jeopardized: “H.R. 3962 would introduce permanent annual productivity adjustments to price updates for institutional providers… Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates, based on productivity expectations that are difficult to attain, would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers’ costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries. Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).” In other words, the Medicare cuts in the House bill are so out of touch with reality that hospitals currently serving Medicare patients might be forced to stop doing so. Thus making it much more difficult for seniors to get health care."

There is much more--go here to read the news about the lies we’ve been told or bring up the report and read it. Few, including your congressional representative, read the bill--so you might as well read the analysis.

Here in central Ohio radio land we are being annoyed by syrupy radio ads for Mary Jo Kilroy extolling her part in this mess (I think the ad campaign is sponsored by a union). Over half of government workers (local, state, federal) are now unionized, up from 17.3% in the early 1970s. Guess who your representative is really representing? Guess who wants to unload onto the taxpayer their health care responsibilities and pie-in-the-sky promises after taking workers' dues all those years?

Did Edwards want the Veep spot with Barack?

Democrats are arguing amongst themselves over this at Politico, but I thought this was a good explanation by a reader at Ben Smith: "Edwards was a stalking horse to draw votes from Hillary. He is a two faced lowlife and had no business running when he KNEW he was already busted with a pregnant mistress and cheated on his cancer stricken wife. As for Elizabeth she is an enabler and should not have helped him run. Obama used Edwards to siphon votes from HRC and now we have months with no decision for the troops and record unemployment. Thanks Johnny! Thanks Barack!"

Tell us how you really feel!