GeezerSue

So, because we have uniforms, we're the good guys? I think not. We were an almost unilateral force (we bulldozed the little guys into helping us), which invaded another country without the support of the UN, but under the pretenses of enforcing UN mandates. But we have uniforms! You ever see Eddie Izzard? (paraphrased) "We stake this flag on this land and claim this land for the British Empire." "But, there are several milllion of us here in India and we don't need you here." "Do you have a flag?" "No." "Then we win. We have a flag."

It is scary that some people are so bigoted and ill-informed that they believe this. But it wold be nice if you wouldn't spread around such malicious claims. In fact, the really scary militant Christians are predominantly home schoolers who keep their kids out of the mainstream altogether. And historically, while we Catholics were not taught to kill anyone, we were taught that the sacrament of Confirmation made us "soldiers for Jesus Christ." Likewise, Muslims are taught to "defend the faith." Devout Muslims cannot fathom keeping their religion in one pocket and their daily lives in another. Their religion is part of every minute of every day. THEREFORE, when we butt the hell into their governments and their politics and their daily lives, we are attacking their faith because their faith is a part of everything.

I looked at A BIT of the report and discovered that to determine economic status of enlistees, the military used the average income--from the 2000 census, back when we had more people working at real jobs and the minimum wage was what is still is but it bought more--for the zip code of the enlistee. Well, DUH.... Do we think that the military really thinks that the kids from the HIGH end of the zip code's income level enlist at the same rate as kids from the LOW end? No, the military's number crunchers just know how to skew stats as well as any other propoganda outfit. All it takes is a couple of very successful business owners in a small rural town and there goes the neighborhood! [For non-math folks, this means that if WE moved to my husband's very small home town (population <1200), it would increase the income averages (our RETIREMENT CHECKS will be about five times the average income in that zip code) but the same poor kids with the same low incomes would be the ones enlisting. In fact, just for fun, there are only seven Latinos in that town. If we moved there and my stats were added in, the average income for Latinos in that town would triple. And we're just civil servant type folks!] Also, most of the Heritage Foundation people have probably NOT been graced with the experience of being enlisted swine (as we were/are called) in our military. I have. While there are enlistees from all over the socioeconomic map, there is a REASON that part of basic training includes instructions on how to brush your teeth. Some statistics classes teach even MORE political science than political science classes do.

Using the Heritage Foundation as a source of information on political issues is like using one of these as a source information about racial equality: * Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging * American Front * American Nazi Party * Aryan Brotherhood * Aryan Nations * Australia First * Blood and Honour * British National Front * Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team * Canadian Heritage Alliance * Combat 18 * Council of Conservative Citizens * Confederate Hammer Skins * Creativity Movement (formerly World Church of the Creator) * Forsyth County Defense League * Hammerskins * Heritage Front * Hrisi Avgi * Ku Klux Klan * Libertarian National Socialist Green Party* National Alliance * National Association for the Advancement of White People * National Socialist Movement of Denmark * National Socialist Movement (United Kingdom) * National Socialist Movement (United States) * Nationalist Party of Canada * Northern Alliance (White supremacist organization) * Imperium Europa * Patriotic Youth League * Russian National Unity * The Order * The Posse Comitatus * Tri-City Skins * Vigrid * Volksfront * Western Canada For Us * White Aryan Resistance * White Citizens' Council * White Patriot Party The concept of propaganda outfits masquerading as legitimate organizations was best illustrated when Pat Robertson and some Middle Eastern investors were, at the same time, both trying to buy UPI (United Press International) to better control what news reached us and how "upstanding" it looked. Middle Eastern dudes won and a few years later, UPI passed to the hands of an arm of Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. Know thy sources.

If I visit a lot, can I claim Mauston?

I don't recall mentioning Chelsea...but her dad was NOT waging war. The Bobsey-Tramps have a dad who IS waging war. Weenie-wagging is not ALWAYS about penises...it has come to refer to a contest to establish bragging rights. As in, Mr. "Bring-'em-ON Bush." False bravado, that kind of thing. But I am always amazed by the ongoing interest in a penis in the Oval Office...it's certainly better than the ass we have there now. Do you all REALLY still think that that was the first piece of nookie knocked off in the Oval Office? Amazing!!!

And Dubya and company have succeeded in making you so. They have succeeded far more than they--or anyone else--will ever succeed in a "war on terror." Because, as I have stated before, it can NEVER be won. Nor can anyone even come up with a plausible "winning end product" of such a conflict. You wrote earlier "There is an effort, worldwide, to attack the US for its freedoms." That statement is 100% "party line" and 100% false. "They"--the undefined bad-guys--do NOT hate us for our freedoms...they hate us when we butt into their lives. There are Mulsims--some of them rather extreme in their beliefs--all over this country. They aren't blowing up the 7-11's because they have dirty magazines. They aren't sacrificing warriors at the League of Credit Unions (because they don't believe in charging or paying interest.) They aren't closing down breweries or wineries or shooting women who work in "Genlemen's Clubs." They don't CARE if we go to hell. They don't care about the freedoms that will allow us to do that. They only care that each and every Muslim has a personal responsibility to defend the faith if it is attacked. And they see it as being attacked. (Of course, there are myriad bad guys on both sides who are explointing that...but the whole "they hate us because we're free" line is just nonsense.) If you cannot understand THEIR perspective, you will never understand the problem. America helped create a new Christian country in East Timor, taking it from the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, Indonesia. That would be the same as if Iran hepled carve out a little Muslim corner of the US, taking over Michigan, maybe. Would we be a little irate? You betcha. We occupy Iraq and Afghanistan...Muslim countries. How would we feel if a Muslim power took over a couple of Christian-dominated countries? We have bases in Kuwait...for the good and for the bad as far as they are concerned. The US back's Israel's position on the Palestinian lands. We back the "more moderate" governments of Kuwait, Saudi, the UAE, Jordan and Egypt. We demand--for our reasons which seem good to us--that Muslims track their charitable giving programs which--even the bad ones--are based on one of the Five Pillars of Islam and the people who are NOT the bad guys find that very offensive...like we innocent travelers find physical patdown searches at the airport, only very much more so. It's a mess, for sure. But not because a bunch of psycho Musims woke up one morning and decided that they were offended by the democratic process. That's what Dubya has been preaching and it's bullshit. They hate us because we don't respect them and continually exert our influence in their world. If you believe that they hate us because of our freedoms, it is because you haven't put enough thought into how the typical decent Iraqi (for example) woman who would be your counterpoint in her country is experiencing this entire weenie-wagging thing. Do not misunderstand...I am not defending the actions that EITHER side has taken. I'm just explaining that many Americans are confused about what is motivating "the other side." And until we understand what motivates an enemy, we are in trouble in any conflict.

Today is my 60th birthday. The remembering part is a double-edged sword. The details are more like looking at a family photo album...things you personally remember. But the "mood" of the time is something you almost have to have experienced to "get" what was going on and it's something that can't be easily factored out of the memories. I was born during Truman's administration. I remember seeing Eisenhower on television when I was a kid. I remember my parents and my friend's parents being on opposite sides of the Stevenson-Eisenhower contest in 1952. So my political awareness goes back "a ways." But, since I was there, I can't remember it totally objectively. I was a duck-and-cover kid. The neighborhood boys had wild cowboys-vs.-Indians games AND commies-vs.-good guys games. The Cuban Missle Crisis is not a page in a history book for me or a made-for-tv-movie...it was the day my senior year of high school that I took my five-pound (because that's what they weighed), green, leaky-battery (because that's what they did), portable radio (pre-"transistor") to school even though no such thing had been done before. (Girls were still not allowed to wear pants...it was the Recent Dark Ages.) Every teacher had me put the radio in the window (you had to, to get reception) so we could listen to that crisis all day long. It is an emotion-packed memory...as are the entire Nixon thing and the day the Kennedy era ended and how I somehow went from "what's the matter with these protestors?" to "why the hell did we GO to Viet Nam?" (That move took a while.) Anyway, the having-been-there thing can help, but it carries its own baggage.

Cripes...now I have to post my photos of me on the tarmac with Air Force One?

Jodie, It is reasuring to me to see someone your age take a Political Science class so seriously. It is also a nice little trip down Memory Lane for many of us who have also dabbled in the subject matter ourselves. Just remember, that after a first course in Human Anatomy, nobody is quite ready to perform open heart surgery.

When he is outnumbered and hated by 70% of the country, he goes for the "No Politics" routine. Not exactly the high ground when you recall his "Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style" declaration. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041104-5.html In leaving Iraq, our country can't "lose" a war it could never have "won." I cannot find a single person who can define a "win" in the "war on terror." If you can't define it, we can never claim victory. (Check out the "War on Drugs" or "War on Poverty" to see how that kind of thing works.) ~~~~~~~~ As far as dividing Iraq into three sections...Sunni, Shia and Kurd...isn't that what was happening there when the UK-administered provisions of the Treaty of Versailles made the area into Iraq? (I'm not saying that it WAS, I'm really asking.) These people have been trying to massacre each other for about 1600 years. And we're going to cause a democracy to be born? Hardy-fucking-har. No one who has successfully completed a high school psych class would go for that...but Dubya says that's what we're doing there. Right. As a former troop, MY version of supporting them is to get them the hell out of there...posthaste. and to fund veteran's benefits, because we have a hell of a lot of unseen amputees and brain damaged folks home and on their way home and their claims are NOT being processed in a timely fashion.

...is scheduled for "imminently." There will be some cheering among the less-informed Bushy-ites, who will be glad that we finally got the bastard who caused 9/11. Morons. Anybody know where Osama is? Anybody know WHO Osama is?

Mine isnt BCBS...it's BC CA PPO, but I wanted to point out that it changes fairly quickly. Here's from my BC site: Medical Policy Subject: Surgery for Clinically Severe Obesity Policy #: SURG.00024 Current Effective Date: 11/13/2006 Status: Reviewed Last Review Date: 09/14/2006 Description/Scope Clinically severe obesity is a result of persistent and uncontrollable weight gain that constitutes a present or potential threat to life. There are a variety of surgical procedures intended for the treatment of clinically severe obesity. This policy addresses those procedures. Policy Statement Medically Necessary: Gastric bypass with a Roux Y procedure up to 150 cm, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (the Lap-Band® System), vertical banded gastroplasty, or biliopancreatic bypass with duodenal switch as a single surgery, is considered medically necessary for the treatment of clinically severe obesity for selected adults (18 years and older) who meet the following criteria: 1. BMI of 40 or greater, or BMI of 35 or greater with co-morbid conditions including, but not limited to, life threatening cardio-pulmonary problems (severe sleep apnea, Pickwickian syndrome and obesity related cardiomyopathy), severe diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease or hypertension. AND *Note: Individuals considering the laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (Lap-Band®) procedure must meet the above minimum BMI requirement and, in addition, have a maximum BMI of less than 50.

Many of the plans list which comorbidities they will accept and they don't care about the others...your sex life or self-esteem, for example. But, at 100 pounds overweight, you need a (pain the the ass) sleep study. In fact, some surgeons (or anesthesiologists) require one before surgery. Sleep apnea is a life-threatening condition and most people who have it don't know it. (Some of us even INSIST we don't have it...right before we test out as having SEVERE sleep apnea. Duh, me...)

I have BC CA PPO. First, they didn't cover the band (when it was new), then they did. Last I checked they will approved the band ONLY for BMI's between 35 with co-morbidities and 40 without and 49. They don't cover it, right now, for BMI's of 50 or greater.

I thought that if you didn't take Medicare Part D, you had to pay 100% for the Rx drugs. (What do I know?) My mom is in a Medicare HMO...and her drug copay went down. A little. HOWEVER--thank you, Mr. Assholes-in-the-White House and Congress--she now has a $4000 limit she didn't have before. (And, interestingly enough, both what the insurance company pays AND WHAT SHE PAYS count towards the $4000. Bastards.) Meanwhile, my husband will retire in abut 13 months. The policy he currently has will begin to cost us $982/month. (Currently, it's $120.) We can switch to another policy at Open Enrollment, but that will be after we pay for THIS assault on our senses for five months. The two other PPO policies price out at $440/mo or $200/mo depending on whether we want to pay more for lower (or, in some cases) no copays or pay as we use the services. With those two...because DH is on an expensive drug...his copay for that one drug will go from $10/Rx to $150/Rx. Europe is far more civilized.

The experts usually hand the "worst" honors to a Democrat and a Republican. Buchanan--for letting the nation divide under his leadership--and Harding--for more corruption than had been seen...but then THAT was before Halliburton and all--are usually two of the pack leaders for "worst ever."

Glad you asked, Jack. "...the information in Powell's presentation initially came from a document he described as 'sort of a Chinese menu' that was provided by the White House." source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/ Actually, most of what I've read on the topic does not refer to any massive conspiracy, but rather to a mindset...an unquestioning willingness to believe bad stuff--and to disregard any and all information which conflicts with the bad stuff--about the enemy. (I may suffer from a little of this when it comes to Dubya himself...who knows?) I'm not sure I can recite the four reasons Bush cited, but I'm pretty sure that one of them was to enforce the UN resolutions requiring Saddam to disarm. And, who gave us the right to enforce UN resolutions? Not the UN. Nope, Bush did. What incredible arrogance...what hubris! Let's say I'm a MEMBER of an organization..a union, maybe. And the union has a contract that a certain employer will pay a particular wage for given employee labor/services. And I find out that some employer somewhere isn't honoring that agreement...so I decide that a few of us in the union ought to go knock down his door and TAKE the money out of the office so that the union employees will be paid as agreed. I would, rightfully, be arrested as a thug and a thief and a threat to the neighborhood...because nobody made me "the enforcer." Just like the UN did not appoint Dubya the enforcer of these particular resolutions.

Actually, no. Perhaps you believe this because you have not heard the truth on the matter, which is not surprising since it was underreported..even ignored. But, here it is...the truth should never be too late to be welcomed: Summary: Four days after former high-ranking CIA official Tyler Drumheller revealed that the Bush administration dismissed clear-cut evidence undermining President Bush's central case for war -- that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- the media, except for MSNBC and now CNN, have largely ignored the story. http://mediamatters.org/items/200604270015 So, if by "we" you mean the US government, then, NO, everyone did NOT believe that Saddam had WMD's. But those who reported on this fact were ignored...and even the media let them slide.

Happy...VERY happy...New Year.

Surely you don't think that's enough, do you?

אמן Not positive, but I THINK that's "amen" in Hebrew.

Paraphrasing Penn...defending the "accuracy" of the bible is necessary for people who can't say, "Well, it DOES seem to defy logic, but it's what I believe because of faith." The "accuracy defenders" KNOW that the bible defies logic but insist on trying to distort history and science and archeology and geology and all that good stuff so that they don't have to accept the bible on faith, because...apparently, they, too, really WANT logic and reason and facts and such. Too bad. Like Penn said, "...But if faith isn't enough...if you want history or fact in your bible, you are so screwed." Because, after all, if believing in FACT were all that was being asked of true believers, how tough is THAT? The entire test of faith is to believe what is NOT real. Once someone "succeeds" (were that possible) in proving that everything in the bible is real, that person simultaneously eliminates the need for the oft repeated biblical lessons on the importance of faith. I don't see how a true believer would even want to try.

If y'all can handle any more...here's a Mithra-Christianity discussion. You have GOT to hear the comment she makes about what she's never heard a bloke say... http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/12/jesus-as-reincarnation-of-mithra.html

http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/06/bible-is-bullshit.html