Well Massa Pallin, i did not realize how radical you are, but you sure showing it now. I would put you in the top 10% of americans who have "an Idea". The rest most probably don't know where Iraq is on a map. For You that is Obama's fault, but we will dig deeper.

Medicare = marxism, court = communism, Mexican/guyanese etc running because of socialism/communism. More tax = communism. Redistribution of wealth = communism/marxism/communism.

Well this is a lot to digest and try to separate, because it is not coherent. This is the same thing that Carol F said time & time again to you, but you just on a rampage. Either because of that deep dark rage, that we sometimes see explode monthly in america or some swamp area in the states where people speak in tongue, worship snakes and believe that all other races are responsible for their shortcomings, including some of their female relatives who believe that 'black is beautiful'.

I don't mean to rib you in any way, especially now where your true thoughts are manifesting themselves, in a mixed up racially motivated hatred for all others, but the question begs; 'Which swamp area you living in the 'god bless'.

Your most complete vitriolic attack on CF, is amazing/astounding; for you both support the same hegemony over the rest of the world. The good being america and the bosses in israel right, and all others wrong to question you, ask why we ask why you bomb and kills us? What have we ever done to you, your country and your so -called freedom. What did we ever take away from you to do to yourselves?

King Messiah Bush spent 8-10 years pushing the Zion American hegemony that is america, whilst building super max prisons-contracted out, like parts of the wars to Blackwater Inc etc...

China loaned the money, but to people like you; they are not human and when you renege on payment; 'well it is just the chinee'!

Knowing your diabolical hatred for other humans is not a problem for me, but it must be of great consternation to the ones that want to promote the 'good ole usa'. The Guyanese generals in the us army and the good Americans that have a dream and want to persevere no matter what is probably questioning their 'democracy' right now.

You see, you are actually on the same page of promoting american hegemony, but so stupid, you do not even know who your daddy really is.

Obama bailed out the Zionist bankers, like the Republicans wanted. No troops withdrawn from Iraq and a ramp up of forces in Afghanistan. An America despot brought into power in Honduras, more us army bases in Columbia. Re-trying assassination of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, leading GOOGLE to ferment disturbance in China because the Yellow man with hard work and fair play would not bow to the bosses in Zion. Funding continuously wars in Africa to directly compensate for not maintaining control of said dictators, to rape Africans of their natural resources.

And if Guyana was a Socialist state; i would have long been called to join the fight. Instead it is a system where nobody knows anything but to look after oneself, with people an afterthought. That is a direct result of CAPITALISM/ZIONISM.

If you were bill gates who is a zionist, i would understand your frustration with not having more control over the human race, despite your long run of starvation, wars and human suffering. He , like you want more, so that the farce that is israel would shine over all mankind. It's finished.

The evil that is your boss is the same evil that controls america both democrat/republican. All of your hatred, against your fellow jihad killers, just tells me that the programmed dumbing/propaganda of zion america rules supreme.

I will tell you this much; If China does not know how evil america is; they deserve to be engulfed in flames.

Both Texas and California was Mexican territory before you stole it from them. You are a disgrace as a Guyanese. Stay in the swamp.

Well the court is loaded with liberals nuh? What do you think? And as i write this Obama is grooming another ultra left liberal to the highest court in the land. Social security and medicare was done INCREMENTALLY, unlike this disaster your God dumped on the whole nation on a bloody sunday night! Why did this vote require so much arm twisting? if this was so 'bi-partisan' as Obama says, how come not one republican voted for it? And not every single democrat either! I am fed up with words like 'historic' and 'transparency'. this snake oil salesman promised to leave any bill put before him for 5 days on his desk...so the 'american people could 'review' it he said during campaigning....people like you still believe the siht he says? he signed the damn thing within 36 hours! He is a damn liar! Whay are so many states filing law suits? am I the only crazy one out here? Are the rest of you bloody liberals in the right? I'll tell you why....... because everybody knows an overwhelming majority of americans do not want this 'historic' venture into Marxism. Historic is not necessarily a desirable adjective. 9/11 was historic. Yes, today may be historic. A few years from now we'll look back and say, "March 21, 2010 was the day a leftist cabal instituted tyranny of the Soviet style into the governing of the USA." the people did not want Hillary-care. and they do not want Obama-care. It took lies, conniving, secrecy, bribery, coercion and a whole truckload of hubris and ego to get where we are today. The only way you will be able to maintain this monstrosity is through ever increasing threats of harm from an ever increasing dictatorial power center in our capitol. How can you be so arrogant to assume the citizens don't know what is right? How can you be so purposely ignorant of the failure of socialist governing schemes of the last couple millennium? The siren call of the Marxist utopia always leads to the destruction of a society stupid enough to listen to it! You of all people should know better. But it's your blasted party doing the deed now isn't it? people don't want redistribution of wealth. If you let the guy with a small business keep most of his money, he will hire more people who will actually pay taxes instead of drawing out unemployment benefits. You liberals believe that you should tax more and spend more. you don't care, cause your company seemingly has endless money. So let them spend it right? You liberals never seem to understand one simple concept,.when you decrease taxation you actually increase revenue! Not penalize people for being successful! Why is it that there does not exist a single liberal that understands economics. Your Marxist view of economics has been proved a failure EVERY time it is tried. Do you know why the invasion from Mexico and other third world countries is so high? They are fleeing from the consequences of socialism. Socialism always generates poverty and corruption. just like it screwed Guyana! Of course, they want the socialist freebies when they get here, so they vote (sometimes illegally) for the Socialist party (the Dems). What they will reap, in the long run, is poverty and corruption as is the case in EVERY socialist society. Look at them .... Cuba, Russia, China, Venezuela, ..... The only millionaires there are the political elite like you.What beauty about america you talkin about? this country will become another third world nation when the liberals and Obama is done effin it up....

JT, that is the beauty of America.  You can sue for everything and lawyers are waiting just to make it happen whether they believe you have standing or not.   I think the bill does have a provision that covers the argument the Republicans are making.  So it will be interesting to see whether the Court will agree that "the health care bill exceeds the federal government's power"

I wonder if we can sue for Social Security and Medicare to not be withdrawn from our salaries?  

 

 

UPDATE 1-Virginia to sue U.S. over healthcare reform Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:22am EDT * Virginia to file lawsuit after Obama signs bill into law

REGULATORY NEWS | BONDS

* AG: Congress lacks power to force insurance purchases

NEW YORK, March 22 (Reuters) - Virginia's attorney general said he plans to sue the federal government over the healthcare reform legislation, saying Congress lacks authority to force people to buy health insurance.

Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a Republican, said on Monday that Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. He said the bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance.

"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"

Cuccinelli said he plans to file his lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, after President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which he is expected to do.

The bill requires most Americans to have health coverage, and provides subsidies to help lower-income workers afford it. [ID:nLDE62L01U]

No Republican voted for the bill, which passed the House on Sunday night by a 219-212 vote. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; editing by John Wallace)

You see you believe he is doing what's best for you, and all of us. I don't. If this bill was so perfect and good for every single american, then why is he, with a70% approval rating having trouble passing it? Why all this back room manipulations? If the house passed one bill and the senate passed a completley different bill, then what are they voting on? Did you read what's in this bill? Most all of these senators and congressmen never had the time to read this monstrousity in time to vote on it. But of course you read it and understand it. you just bought a pig inside a rice bag. I am tired, another day i will haul out my pitch fork. I just done with komrade karl...he is bare worries.

Of course you take that approach.  I expected nothing less.  Yes, I can explain the health care reform bill that was put forth in the House and the prior bill in the Senate because unlike you I believe I should read and understand what things mean and how they affect me before I opine.  I believe in giving the President the benefit of the doubt because I do believe he is an intelligent young man with a lot of depth.  So far be it for me to point fingers, ridicule and partake in some silly back and forth on a serious subject like health care reform.  All this nonsense about being a Democrat or Republican takes away from real dialogue.   

So yes I can discuss the Health Care bill but there are several components to the bill (HR 3692) which you can Google and you can decide where you would like me to start.  Along with the components listed in the bill you need to also understand the Medicare and Medicaid provisions; the Affordable Health Care for America Act, passed by the full House on November 2009 and the Senate Leadership Bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which passed the full Senate on Dec 2009. Which is all part of the Health Care Reform bill passed in the House today. 

So to answer some of your questions, in bold and in brackets:

 (You ask me some of the most ridiculous questions? IS IT RIDICULOUS OR IS IT THAT YOU DON’T HAVE ANSWERS. 

If you have all the answers why don't you explain this to me? You pay for your health insurance? YES SIR MINE AND YOURS…

 

Is it not true that everyone will have to buy (or have the government give them money to buy) private health insurance under Obama's plan?  WHO IS EVERYONE?  PEOPLE WITH OR WITHOUT INSURANCE?  THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WILL BE BUYING INTO HIS PLAN ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO AND PEOPLE WITHOUT INSURANCE AND THIS LOT WILL GET A TAX CREDIT TO DO SO.

 

 

And is it also not true that the insurance companies will have no ceiling on how much they can raise premiums?  PREMIUMS WILL GO UP WITH OR WITHOUT OBAMA’S PLAN.  BUT IN OBAMA’S PLAN BUILT IN ARE SOME REFORMS THAT WILL KEEP IT FROM GOING UP AS FAST AND WITHOUT CONTROL.  AS OF TODAY IT IS STILL UNCLEAR AS TO HOW MUCH THE BILL REDUCES COSTS TO EMPLOYERS.    BIG CORPORATIONS ARE PLAYING A GAME WITH EMPLOYEES.  AS INSURANCE GO UP THEY REDUCE BENEFITS AND INCREASES.

 

You HAVE to buy it or you go to jail? RIDICULOUS TO SAY THE LEAST

 

And those asshats at the insurance companies can charge whatever they want for it? THE BILL WILL NOT STOP THAT.  PEOPLE BUYING THEIR OWN COVERAGE WILL SEE PREMIUMS GO UP ABOUT 10 PERCENT COMPARED WITH THE LEVELS THEY WILL REACH WITHOUT THE LEGISLATION.  HOWEVER, THERE ARE THE TAX CREDITS PROVIDED UNDER THE BILL WHICH WILL OFFSET THE ADDED COSTS.  ULTIMATELY, YOU CAN DECIDE TO KEEP THE COVERAGE YOU HAVE PRESENTLY.     PRESIDENT OBAMA IS HOPING THAT UNDER HIS PLAN COSTS WILL GO DOWN BECAUSE MORE YOUNG PEOPLE WILL BE JOINING THE RISK POOL THEREBY REDUCING THE OVERHEAD COSTS TO INSURANCE COMPANIES.     BASICALLY, IF PEOPLE ARE STILL CAUTIOUS ABOUT WHAT OBAMA IS OFFERING THEY CAN CONTINUE TO PURCHASE THE SAME VALUE PLANS BUT AT LOWER COSTS AS A RESULT OF THE BILL.

 

If yes to all the above.... what happened to choice in the free market system?  ARE WE COMPETITIVE?   WE PAY MORE ON HEALTH CARE, AS A PERCENT OF GDP, THAN MANY OTHER COUNTRIES.     

When did the lobbyists win total control of this country? THIS IS A SUBJECT THAT CROSSES PARTY LINES. 

Now we will have a new law that forces us to buy a product some of us choose not to buy? SILLY STOP LISTENING TO RUSH AND BECK.   when we are already draining our individual family income on just being alive? WHY ARE WE DRAINING OUR FAMILY INCOME?   IS IT AS A RESULT OF UNFORSEEN CIRCUMSTANCES OR ARE WE SPENDING MORE THAN WE MAKE?       

Not like there isn't any help for people who can't afford it. TELL ME WHAT IS AVAILABLE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO CAN’T AFFORD IT?  The government already subsidizes health care for kids of low income families, some not even so low income.   I know in jersey we have that. ARE YOU TALKING ABOU THE FAMILY CARE PLAN IN NJ?  Do you honestly think people are against this bill because of political leanings alone?.  Some people just can not afford to pay anything else from pockets after they pay their few employees and pay for all the red tape just to stay in business. THIS PROBLEM IS NOT AS A RESULT OF OBAMA.  THIS PROBLEM STARTED LONG BEFORE OBAMA.   

 

In parting, I will say this much.  I have absolutely no objection to paying a little bit more for insurance if it means I can help a few to get coverage.  Absolutely none!  As a single person, do I not pay more taxes than most?  Do I not pay into the school system even though I have no children?  I don’t hear anyone suggesting that taxes should be adjusted accordingly for single people. 

 

As for the abortion issue that is being made on the floor.  To those I say shut up or put up, sign on to adopt the children if you want them.   Advocate the legal protection of the children in foster homes forget the ridiculous argument about the legal protection of human embryos and fetuses We have about 75,000 plus children in foster care available for adoption.  Why aren’t these wonderful pro life people knocking down the doors to adopt those kids?

 A very wonderful week to all.

 

 

 

 

 

You ask me some of the most ridiculous questions? If you have all the answers why don't you explain this to me? You pay for your health insurance? Is it not true that everyone will have to buy (or have the government give them money to buy) private health insurance under Obama's plan? And is it also not true that the insurance companies will have no ceiling on how much they can raise premiums? You HAVE to buy it or you go to jail? And those asshats at the insurance companies can charge whatever they want for it? If yes to all the above.... what happened to choice in the free market system? When did the lobbyists win total control of this country? Now we will have a new law that forces us to buy a product some of us choose not to buy? when we are already draining our individual family income on just being alive? Not like there isn't any help for people who can't afford it. The government already subsidizes health care for kids of low income families, some not even so low income. I know in jersey we have that. Do you honestly think people are against this bill because of political leanings alone? Some people just can not afford to pay anything else from pockets after they pay their few employees and pay for all the red tape just to stay in business. And some also strongly believe that the government will eventually have one single health insurance carrier. The GOVERNMENT itself! So eventually he puts the insurance carriers out of business, then we all pay the government. This is socialism. Obama is for the single payer system. he is only twisting words to buy votes on this bill. promising states money in return for a yea vote. is this how the constitution of America should be used?

You, like so many others think that the Republicans do NOT want any bill of any sort. I think every single american wants some health care plan that would SAVE them money....NOT increase what they have to pay!!! You think small businesses will survive something of this magnitude? then what will you liberals say then? "OH they were all republicans who refuse to spend more money on health insurance for every single worker"? Are you people for real? Small business is the backbone of the american economy. If you think this will help the economic situation in this country, you are delusional and obviously still mesmerized by this charlatan. To answer your question about the republicans plan, this is not priority right now. this is being shoved down all of our throats at lightning speed by Obama. he is more concerned with HIS own EGO. HE wants his name on this. He OWNS this. And the dumbocrats will pay dearly for years to come if this bill passes. There will be years of battles all the way to the supreme court. Even if it's filled with liberal judges. Have no fear, there will be very serious consequences for this. This is the beginning of a very tumultuous decade. Why this RUSH? When we have help available to people who do NOT have health insurance? How many mexicans pay the hospitals for their 'anchor babies' hospital bill? I say help the working poor who have no health insurance, by enrolling them in medicaid. it would save all those trillions this disaster will cost all of us. Let the government start it's own insurance company to cover people with pre existing conditions. hell they are already covering illegal aliens with pre existing conditions rass! It sure as hell would cost us a lot less than all those trillions Obama is talking about. he sure as hell don't get gumboil fuh call numbers! Now lemme hear your views, cause I fed up with your questions. I don't want no Q&A session everytime I come on here. Seh wuh deh pun yuh mine....

JT, we have two options as I see it, we can quack like ducks all day or soar like eagles.   Now without plagiarizing please tell us what the Republican plan is?  Describe your understanding of Obama's plan.  Then if you are willing, tell us about your insurance plan. 

 

Jake Tapper of ABC News took an interview with Vice President Joe "Foot in Mouth" Biden that contains a nugget of information that tends to prove that Barack Obama intends to destroy America's insurance industry and place it under the full control of the federal government.

Tapper asked VP Biden what he'd been hearing from the members of the Democrat Congress that are vulnerable over this healthcare debate and Biden's reply let slip the administrations ultimate goal; full government control of the insurance industry.

Joe BIDEN: "Well, I yes. Some of them I say they say, well, Joe, look, man, I mean, you know, you guys haven't massaged this very well. And, you know, this thing has gone on so long, I don't know. And my response is, hey, man, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I'm telling you, you know, pre-existing, they're going to be covered. You know we're going to control the insurance companies."

this is wonderful news.

MSNBC March 18, 2010

WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, New Jersey ..officials are reviewing security tapes to try to determine who used a southern New Jersey store's public-address system to tell "all black people" to leave..... read article...

CaribWorldNews March 18, 2010

CaribWorldNews, QUEENS, NY, Thurs. Mar. 18, 2010: A second generation migrant from the Dominican Republic is the newest member of the New York State Senate.  read on....

KANSAS CITY — Joe and Judy Roetheli know what poverty is. Both grew up in humble surroundings: Joe on small farm near Hermann, Mo., and Judy in a small, sand-road town in Florida, where her father worked as a butcher/salesman and her mother ran an in-home daycare plus raised their own five children. Joe, who with his sister, was the first in his family to go past the eighth grade, went on to earn a doctorate in agricultural economics and Judy a degree in education.   read more....

Students pitch in to help save town from flood

 

AP – West Fargo high school sophomore Lucas Raile, right, tosses sandbags to Garrett Irwin while they position …

By JAMES MacPHERSON, Associated Press Writer James Macpherson, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 5 mins ago

FARGO, N.D. – Some children lugged sandbags that weighed more than they did. Determined teens showed up just after dawn with groups of friends, ready and willing to shovel. New groups of kids arrived by the busloads, all ready to join the race to protect their city from the rising Red River.

Thousands of volunteers are lending a hand this week to fill and stack sandbags to place along the river and near endangered homes as Fargo faces the threat of a severe flood after the river's expected crest Sunday. But the heart of that volunteer corps are the city's youngest citizens.

It's a job that elsewhere might be reserved for emergency workers or at least, their parents. But here, students can be excused from class with their parents' permission and join the hundreds of adults, local workers and others who are taking on the task of filling 1 million sandbags to hold back the impending floodwaters.

"They pretty much have saved our community," said David Stark, 62, who worked beside hundreds of student volunteers Tuesday. One of the few seniors to join the effort, he had to take a break after hurting his hand and was in awe of the students' dedication.

Many of the volunteers know what they're doing may help save a neighbor or friend. Michael Russell, 14, didn't mind missing a day of school to get dirty filling sandbags. He guessed many would end up near his own home or his friends' homes.

"I think I'm helping the city and my friends," he said.

Emilee Stevens normally can't wait more than a few minutes without itching to send a text message to a friend. This week, she didn't think about touching her cell phone as she shoveled, stacked and filled sandbags to help save her town.

"Texting would be hard to do sandbagging but it doesn't matter because all my friends are here anyway," said the 14-year-old Stevens.

The students are providing critical manpower when their community needs it most. Since March 1, volunteers have been bused in to Fargo's "Sandbag Central," an arena-size utility building normally used to house a fleet of 25 garbage trucks, said Terry Ludlum, the city's solid waste utility manager. There, with the help of machines and volunteers, up to 100,000 sandbags can be filled in a 12-hour shift. Fifty volunteers can fill about 1,000 sandbags an hour.

The volunteers are expected to meet their goal Wednesday afternoon, three days ahead of schedule and largely because of the help of the young students, Ludlum said. More than 1,000 children and teens have participated in the effort.

"We certainly would not be this far along without the help of these kids," Ludlum said.

Student volunteers are a critical part of Fargo's flood response plan, and without them, the city would be sunk. College students helped with the sandbagging effort last year when the region lived through record flooding, but this year, they are on spring break. To fill the gap, hundreds of middle school and high school students have been enlisted to work three- to four-hour shifts for 12 hours each day.

Some children are in grade school, or not even old enough to enroll.

Tina Gianakos brought her three sons to help out. Three-year-old Carsen Gianakos brought his own plastic shovel, and kept pace with brothers Bradley, 8, and Adam, 11.

"We're helping save people's houses so the little kids don't drown," Bradley said.

Carsen was lugging a 35-pound sandbag to a pallet for loading, something that impressed Tom Kempel, a city employee who was overseeing the effort.

"That sandbag is as big as he is, probably bigger," Kempel said. "He feels like he's part of the effort, and he is."

Carsen put down his toy shovel only long enough to take an occasional slide down a sand pile, or to watch heavy machinery that hauled the sandbags away.

"Wow!" he said, pointing to a bucket-loader that chewed into 10-foot-high piles of sand.

Ciera Watkin, a 17-year-old high school senior, said the sandbagging was hard work. Watkin and her friend, 17-year-old Alysa Lerud, were exhausted after pulling a nearly five-hour shift on Tuesday.

"This is hard and my back hurts from shoveling and everything," Watkin said. "But I'll come back."

Gov. John Hoeven said the sandbagging effort couldn't have been done without the student volunteers.

"They're moving those bags like crazy," said Hoeven, who filled a few sandbags and patted the backs of many young workers. "They are taking pride in helping their community and we are grateful."

 

CaribWorldNews March 15, 2010

CaribWorldNews, WASHINGTON, D.C., Fri. Mar. 12, 2010: U.S. President Barack Obama is set to donate $200,000 of his Nobel Peace Prize money to Haiti. read more...

 

JT, I don't think the article suggested that at all.  So now that you don't agree with Arnold he is a liberal?  Okay, I will allow you that one only because it is hard to even contemplate a response to such a statement. 

Well you know me.  I believe the way to learn is to ask lots of questions.  So here goes:

1.  How did we get where we are today?

2.  Does the republicans have a different  and workable plan to take us out of this mess?

3.  Which country are you planning to move to when America become like California?

4.  With respect to Arnold's position.  Instead of just suggesting it is wrong, why not explain why and how it should be handled.

Understand this left up to me the jails would be small, with no TVs, and no weights, certainly a library, a counselling unit and definitely the return of the chain and ball and at the crack of dawn bring them out to clean the streets and paint schools etc.   However, I don't live in California. 

Stay well until.

 

Are all these illegal criminals mexicans? Arnold is retarded. He will still have to pay the mexican government to house these cucarachas. California is a text book case of Liberalism gone amok, tax and spend themselves into oblivion. What about the rich, elite, ultra-liberal crowd who live in luxurious mansions on the hills of California? Will they watch LA burn when total anarchy takes over? Or will these slimeballs all move to Europe where they can continue to practice their holier than thou bullsiht? Arnold is a Liberal. Disguised as a Conservative. Probably one of the worst persons ever elected to public office in the USA. Keep it up you liberal ideologues....soon the whole of America will become like California, broke and spending like you have some rich chinee uncle to pay your rass bills. Idiots!

NY Daily News Feb 16, 2010

The teenage stepson of a Brooklyn security guard was arrested Monday in the guard's stabbing death.   read more...

This idea works for me.    You most definitely cannot want to be illegal and commit crimes.......

What to say about this one.....

NY man accused of beheading claims he was battered

By CAROLYN THOMPSON Associated Press Writer © 2010 The Associated Press

Jan. 22, 2010, 2:43PM

BUFFALO, N.Y. — The founder of an Islam-oriented television station who is accused of beheading his wife was abused by her for years, according to his lawyer, who said Friday he will pursue a defense combining that justification as well as psychiatric claims.

Defense attorneys' claims that Muzzammil Hassan was victimized by his wife drew a blunt response from District Attorney Frank Sedita after a hearing Friday.

"He chopped her head off," Sedita said. "He chopped her head off. That's all I have to say about Mr. Hassan's apparent defense that he was a battered spouse."

Hassan, 45, is charged with one count of second-degree murder in the Feb. 12 death of 37-year-old Aasiya Hassan at the offices of Bridges TV, the station the Pakistan-born couple established in 2004 to counter negative stereotypes of Muslims.

During Friday's hearing, Hassan fired the attorney who has been representing him for nearly a year and replaced him with a lawyer who promised "a revolutionary defense" at the March trial.

"The spouse was the dominant figure in this relationship," attorney Frank Bogulski said outside the courtroom. "He was the victim. She was verbally abusive. She had humiliated him."

Nancy Sanders, a former news director at Bridges TV, was skeptical of the abuse claim, noting the stocky Hassan stood over 6 feet tall and "filled a doorway," while Aasiya was slender and several inches shorter.

"I never ever heard her disparage him in the workplace at all," Sanders said. "It just did not seem to be in her nature. She was very gentle."

Bogulski's strategy differs slightly from that of Hassan's previous attorney, James Harrington, who had outlined a psychiatric defense claiming Hassan had experienced extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the killing.

But any psychiatric defense was placed in jeopardy Friday when the judge granted Assistant District Attorney Colleen Curtin Gable's request to bar such claims because the defense had taken too long to reveal its strategy.

Erie County Judge Thomas Franczyk left the door open for Bogulski to file motions seeking to have a psychiatric defense reinstated.

Hassan was served with divorce papers a week before his wife's decapitated body was found at the offices of their television station in Orchard Park, the Buffalo suburb where the couple also lived with their two small children and Muzzammil's two teenagers from a previous marriage.

Hassan was arrested after walking into the Orchard Park police station Feb. 12 and telling officers his wife was dead.

The way she died led the state president of the National Organization for Women, Marcia Pappas, and others to label Aasiya Hassan's death an "honor killng," which Pappas said appeared to be rooted in Muslim notions about women's subordination to men. Harrington dismissed the theory early on and domestic violence advocates cautioned against shifting attention from the universal issue of violence against women.

 

Teddy Pendergrass Dead at 59.. he was one of the best vocals around with great music we all grew up to and loved .

May he rest in peace .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zolWsJG551A

Once-Deported Illegal Alien Kills Female Deputy

 

The Salt Lake City Tribune

January 05, 2010

The fallen deputy has been identified as Deputy Sheriff Josie Greathouse Fox of the Millard County Sheriff’s Office.

Update: Millard Country Sheriff Robert A. Dekker has informed the media that the shooter, Roberto Miramontes Roman, is a Mexican national, has been previously arrested for theft charges and has been previously deported from the United States as an illegal immigrant.

A Millard County sheriff’s deputy was shot and killed early Tuesday, and a statewide manhunt for the suspect may have narrowed down to a few blocks of west Salt Lake City.

Deputy Josie Greathouse Fox was gunned down about 1 a.m., during a traffic stop a mile east of Delta. Her body was found by a second deputy, who was responding to a request for backup. Fix, a mother of two, had been with the Millard County Sheriff’s Department five years.

Utah Highway Patrol Sgt. Jeff Nigbur identified the “prime suspect” sought in the shooting as Roberto Miramontes Roman. He is described as a 37-year-old Latino, 5-foot-7, 130 pounds, with brown hair and brown eyes.

Deputy Sheriff Josie Greathouse Fox

Roman is possibly armed with an AK-47 assault rifle, and is considered dangerous. Anyone with information on Roman’s whereabouts is urged to immediately call 911.

“We have information that he’s not going to be taken alive,” Nigbur said.

Roman has a significant criminal history, including drug offenses, and a court-ordered illegal-immigration-related deportation.

Millard County officials said the suspect vehicle, an orange Corvette, had been stopped as part of an investigation into recent thefts. The suspect had sped away from the scene by the time the second deputy arrived.

The search the suspect quickly focused to Salt Lake City, where police found a vehicle — believed to be the Corvette — near 300 South and 1100 West. Police also were keeping a lookout for Advertisement a gray 1995 Cadillac Deville, license plate number 713-PAB, that the suspect may now be driving.

By 7 a.m., SWAT officers were seen in the area of 300 South and 1100 West. Police would not confirm that they may have located the suspect, though it appeared a containment area was being set up. Two local schools — Guadalupe and Franklin — were closed and traffic through the area blocked while officers went door-to-door, searching for the suspect.

Nigbur said three SWAT teams were deployed in the area, focusing on “two or three” homes believed to be occupied by relatives of the suspect. No neighborhood evacuations were immediately ordered, however.

Roman has a criminal history beginning in 1992 with a misdemeanor drug distribution charge to which he pleaded guilty in Fillmore’s 4th District Court.

Then in 1996 and 1997, Roman was charged in Millard County with a handful of felonies in two different cases, including drug charges, receiving stolen property and a weapons count.

He resolved the cases by pleading guilty to one count of third-degree felony drug possession and one count of second-degree felony drug possession with intent to distribute.

He was sentenced to prison for up to 15 years in June 1997.

Roman was paroled Sept. 15, 1998, and apparently completed his parole successfully, according to Utah Board of Pardons and Parole spokesman Jim Hatch.

Court records show that at the time the crimes were committed, Roman was a resident of Delta. All three cases were investigated by the Millard County Sheriff’s Office.

Meanwhile, in Millard County, law enforcement ordered closure of U.S. 50 in both directions just east of Delta as their investigation into the slaying got under way this morning. The road has since been reopened, according to the Utah Department of Transportation.

 

 

Hopefully he will be found safely

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/stories/12/30/ny-guyanese-freshman-missing/

KELSO, Wash. -Kelso, Wash., police said a man used his compound bow to interrupt an apparent break-in at a nearby vacant home, wounding a fleeing man in the buttocks.

A 32-year-old Longview man later sought treatment at St. John Medical Center for an arrow wound to the left buttock. Doctors removed the arrow tip and the man was listed in satisfactory condition Monday.

Kelso Police Capt. Vern Thompson said there were no immediate arrests and the investigation continues. He said charges against both men are possible.

By GEORGE TIBBITS

The Associated Press

EVERETT, Wash. — The first flight of Boeing's new 787 jetliner brought no surprises — exactly what pilots, engineers and company officials had anxiously sought for the long-delayed aircraft

Boeing Co. employees cheer as a Boeing Co. 787 airplane takes off on its first flight Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009, at Paine Field in Everett, Wash. Pilots Michael Carriker and Randall Neville lifted off in the big blue and white jetat about 10 a.m. PST from Everett's Paine Field on a four-hour flight over Washington state, beginning the extensive flight test program needed to obtain the plane's Federal Aviation Administration certification.(AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

Enlarge photo

A chase plane flies beside a Boeing Co. 787 airplane as the 787 takes off on its first flight Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009, at Paine Field in Everett, Wash. Pilots Michael Carriker and Randall Neville lifted off in the big blue and white jet at about 10 a.m. PST from Everett's Paine Field on a four-hour flight over Washington state, beginning the extensive flight test program needed to obtain the plane's Federal Aviation Administration certification. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

Enlarge photo

The Boeing Co. Dreamlifter, a heavily modified 747 freighter that was used to transport wings and other parts for the assembly of the new Boeing 787 airplane, sits on the tarmac at dusk, Monday, Dec. 14, 2009, at Paine Field in Everett, Wash. The first flight of the 787 is scheduled for Tuesday morning, subject to weather conditions. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

"The airplane responded just as we expected," Randy Neville, one of the two pilots, said after touchdown Tuesday at Seattle's Boeing Field. "It was a joy to fly."

Boeing has billions of dollars and its reputation riding on the sleek, blue-and-white aircraft that lifted off from Everett's Paine Field on a flight over western Washington, beginning the extensive flight testing program needed to obtain Federal Aviation Administration certification.

The widebody jet, the first commercial airplane made mostly of lightweight composite materials, is more than two years behind schedule because of parts problems and labor trouble. Chicago-based Boeing was determined the plane would fly before the end of the year to prove the program was back on track.

Neville and chief pilot Mike Carricker performed a variety of basic system checks, including testing the landing gear and the flaps, before landing about three hours later. Deteriorating but typical Northwest winter weather — rain, cold and wind — brought the plane back about an hour earlier than planned.

Before takeoff, the 186-foot-long aircraft paused for several minutes at the end of the runway for final checks, adding to the tension for Boeing employees, customers and airline executives standing on the tarmac. Loud cheers and applause built as the plane started its takeoff roll and took to the sky, its two huge engines kicking up clouds of mist.

"It's very historical. I can't think of a thing about it that I'm not impressed with," said Joe Bierce, a flight instructor for Delta Connection in Jacksonville, Fla., who was among the 25,000 people who gathered to watch the takeoff.

The 787 is a radical departure in aircraft design. Where other passenger jets are made mostly from aluminum and titanium, nearly all of the 787's fuselage and wings are made of lightweight composite materials such as carbon fiber, accounting for about 50 percent of the aircraft by weight.

Those materials have long been used on individual parts such as rudders, and on military planes, but the 787 is the most ambitious use of the technology aboard a passenger plane.

Boeing says the aircraft will be quieter, produce lower emissions and use 20 percent less fuel than comparable planes, while giving passengers a more comfortable cabin with better air quality and larger windows.

Officials cut the flight a little short after rain reduced visibility at Boeing Field and the aircraft ran into poor weather off the Washington coast.

Carriker said there was a "very, very aggressive plan" for tests on the initial flight and that he and Neville were able to accomplish about half those goals. The weather prevented them from flying the long straight stretches they expected, he said, but did allow them to test the plane in turbulence and icing, things not normally encountered on a first flight.

"There were no major issues with the plane, which considering the complexity is a huge statement," he said.

The plane is the first of six 787s Boeing will use in the nine-month flight-test program that will subject the aircraft to conditions well beyond those found in normal airline service, including temperature extremes, flying on one engine and slamming on the brakes at takeoff speed.

Boeing, which has orders for 840 of the jets, plans to make the first delivery to Japan's All Nippon Airways late next year. The 787 remains Boeing's best-selling new plane to date, though some airlines have been forced to cancel or postpone purchases because of the weak economy.

For the first time, Boeing has relied on suppliers around the globe to build nearly all components of the plane, which are then assembled in Everett. But that approach has proved problematic, with ill-fitting parts and other glitches hampering production.

The first flight was supposed to be in 2007, with deliveries the following year. Boeing was forced to push that back five times —delays that have cost the company credibility, sales and billions of dollars.

Most recently, Boeing needed to reinforce the area where the wings join the fuselage. Tests were completed on that fix just two weeks ago.

An eight-week strike last year by Seattle-area production workers also caused problems and factored into Boeing's decision in October to create a second 787 assembly line in North Charleston, S.C.

Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of the 787 program, said he believes both the 200-day flight test program and efforts to ramp up 787 production will go as planned. The next test flight for the first 787 is expected in about a week, Carriker said.

The version being tested will be able to fly up to 250 passengers about 9,000 miles. A stretch version will be capable of carrying 290 passengers and a short-range model up to 330.

Boeing rival Airbus has developed the A350 XWB as the main competitor to the 787 line. Like Boeing's jetliner, the Airbus plane also features composite materials, including in the fuselage and wings.

Airbus says it had received 505 orders for the A350 from 32 customers as of November. The European company is aiming to deliver the first plane in 2013.

Tuesday's flight "was very mundane on takeoff and very mundane on the landing, and that's exactly what you want on the first flight of an experimental airplane," said analyst Scott Hamilton of Leeham Co., an aviation consulting firm in Issaquah, east of Seattle. "Boring is good in aviation."

But the significance, he said, lies in the 787's cutting-edge design and the way it's being manufactured.

"All of this is going to set the stage for all Boeing planes in the future," Hamilton said. "It's a very important milestone in the history of the company."

___

Associated Press Writer Manuel Valdes contributed to this report from Seattle.

 

A good editorial.....

Stabroek News Dec 16th, 2009

President Barack Obama’s speech on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize has been the subject of as much critical attention as was the award itself. The President, noting the surprise with which the award was received, conceded that he viewed it not as a reward for achievement of efforts contributing to world peace, an impossibility since he has only recently acceded to the presidency...read editorial...

This country's backbone was founded by immigrants, this is a no brainer.  We need them to survive.....

CaribWorldNews, NEW YORK, NY, Thurs. Dec. 3, 2009:

 Forget those who think immigrants are simply an added burden to Uncle Sam. A new report says that in the 25 largest metropolitan areas in the United States, two thirds of all immigrants are responsible for a whopping 20 percent of economic output in those areas. By contrast, they also only make up just about 20 percent of these areas.

Read On:

Well I believe we are certainly on track for a much needed revised health care bill and I suspect we will have a few more Republicans signing on before it is all over. 

More good news: the Dow crossing five figures is truly the beginning of an upward trend and a sign that investors and bankers alike believe we are slowly coming out of the recession.   However, the housing market and unemployment is still problematic.  Having said that I know America will be okay.

 

WASHINGTON - With support from a lone Republican, a key Senate committee Tuesday approved a middle-of-the-road health care plan that moves President Barack Obama's goal of wider and affordable coverage a giant step closer to becoming law.

Maine Republican Olympia Snowe said she was laying aside misgivings for now and voting to advance the bill, a sweeping $829-billon, 10-year health care remake that would help most Americans get coverage without creating a new government insurance plan. "When history calls, history calls," said Snowe.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., called his bill "a commonsense, balanced solution." A distance runner, Baucus has endured months of marathon meetings to get this far. It's not the finish line.

Health care legislation is expected to be on the Senate floor the week after next, said a spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. But it won't be the Baucus bill. Reid will combine the Finance version with a more liberal proposal from the health committee — with unpredictable results.

The vote in the Finance Committee was 14-9, with Snowe joining all 13 Democrats in support. In a sign of long political battles ahead, every other Republican voted against it.

The ultimate fate of the legislation hinges on how lawmakers decide dozens of unresolved issues, from letting government sell insurance to abortion coverage. Even some senators who voted for the Baucus bill said they have concerns it will deliver on providing access to affordable coverage for all.

As Snowe made clear, "My vote today is my vote today. It doesn't forecast what my vote will be tomorrow."

The Baucus plan would, for the first time, require most Americans to purchase insurance and it also aims to hold down spiraling medical costs over the long term. Questions persist about whether it would truly provide access to affordable coverage, particularly for self employed people with solid middle class incomes.

The Finance Committee's top Republican, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, gave voice to the GOP's concerns about the bill, saying it was "moving on a slippery slope to more and more government control of health care."

"There's a lot in this bill that's just a consensus that needs to be done, but there are other provisions of this bill that raise a lot of questions," Grassley said, contending the legislation would mean higher costs for Americans.

The committee approval marked a personal victory for Baucus. Four other congressional committees finished their work before August, and for months all eyes had been on the Finance panel, whose moderate makeup most closely resembles the Senate as a whole.

Snowe kept Washington guessing about how she would vote until she announced it late in the debate Tuesday. Democrats, aware that Snowe could be the only Republican in Congress to vote for their health care overhaul, have spent months addressing her concerns about making coverage affordable and how to pay for it.

The committee's centrist legislation is also seen as the best building block for a compromise plan that could find favor on the Senate floor.

One of the biggest unanswered questions is whether the legislation would slow punishing increases in the nation's health care costs, particularly for the majority who now have coverage through employers. The insurance industry insists it would shift new costs onto those who have coverage.

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, under questioning by Republican senators, acknowledged that the bill's total impact on the nation's health care costs is still unknown. The CBO has been able to establish that the legislation would reduce federal government deficits, but Elmendorf said his staff has not had time to evaluate its effects on privately insured people. Government programs pay about half the nation's annual $2.5 trillion health care tab.

Once the Finance Committee has acted, the dealmaking can begin in earnest with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., working with White House staff, Baucus and others to blend the Finance bill with a more liberal version passed by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Baucus' bill includes consumer protections such as limits on copays and deductibles and relies on federal subsidies to help lower-income families purchase coverage. Insurance companies would have to take all comers, and people could shop for insurance within new state marketplaces called exchanges.

Medicaid would be expanded, and though employers wouldn't be required to cover their workers, they'd have to pay a penalty for each employee who sought insurance with government subsidies. The bill is paid for by cuts to Medicare providers and new taxes on insurance companies and others.

Unlike the other health care bills in Congress, Baucus' would not allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, a divisive element sought by liberals.

Last-minute changes made subsidies more generous and softened the penalties for those who don't comply with a proposed new mandate for everyone to buy insurance. The latter change drew the ire of the health insurance industry, which said that without a strong and enforceable requirement, not enough people would get insured and premiums would jump for everyone else.

 

A major question mark for Reid's negotiations is whether he will include some version of a so-called public plan in the merged bill. Across the Capitol, House Democratic leaders are working to finalize their bill, which does contain a public plan, and floor action is expected in both chambers in coming weeks. If passed, the legislation would then go to a conference committee to reconcile differences. 

Monday, October 12th 2009 NYDaily News

The President of the United States doesn't have to give back the Nobel Peace Prize just because people in his own country don't think he deserves it, he doesn't have to apologize for it or act like getting caught with a Nobel is like a talk-show host getting caught with an intern.

The Nobel hasn't suddenly become more trivial than the People's Choice Awards because Barack Obama wasn't supposed to get it. And just because the committee finally found another American President it thought worthy of this honor doesn't mean Obama really wants to be President of the whole world.

That was the guy before him.

This really is a first with the Nobel, all these sudden and self-righteous experts on the prize actually wondering how badly an honor like this hurts Obama.

Chicago loses the Olympics, Obama is the one who really lost. He wins the Nobel Prize and is told he's some kind of bum loser again. Forget that he was surprised and properly humbled and said so. Forget that the $1.4 million he got for the prize goes to charity.

The truth is that the ones who hate him, hate anything he tries to do, don't want him to win any prize with the word "peace" attached to it, not at a time when they want him to be a big-war President and give the generals what generals always want, which is more troops.

Right now Obama has to do the hardest thing any President ever has to do: Be smart and right in a time of war. People keep saying that the opposition he faces right now is as mean and hateful as what Bill Clinton faced. No, it isn't. There was no war for Clinton when he took office. It changes everything.

Gen. William Westmoreland always wanted another 100,000 troops from Lyndon Johnson to send to Vietnam. Johnson kept going along until he finally said no. It was much too late for Johnson by then, of course, his legacy was shot, the American President who signed the Civil Rights Act and who signed Medicare into law was going to be remembered for Vietnam, the war that finally made him quit on his stool in the spring of 1968.

Now, the only way Obama is supposed to get the armies of the right off his back is to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal what he wants, as many as 40,000 more troops for Afghanistan, maybe as many as 60,000.

Obama put himself on this road when he sent more troops over there and said he had to, it wasn't just his war, it was America's war, and a war of necessity. Right. So was Vietnam. At the beginning of 1964, there were 16,000 military "advisers" in Vietnam. By 1967, the number of ground troops had grown to nearly half a million.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/10/12/2009-10-12_nobelity_in_wartime_bam_copes_with_peace_prize_critics_hawks.html#ixzz0Tj0Zl5Pg

Guardian UK, Wednesday 7 October 2009

The US threatened to derail a deal on global climate change today in a public showdown with China by expressing deep opposition to the existing Koyoto protocol. The US team also urged other rich countries to join it in setting up a new legal agreement which would, unlike Kyoto, force all countries to reduce emissions.

In a further development, the EU sided strongly with the US in seeking a new agreement, but said that it hoped the best elements of Kyoto could be kept. China and many developing countries immediately hit back stating that the protocol, the world's only legally binding commitment to get countries to reduce emissions, was "not negotiable".

With only a few days of formal UN negotiations remaining before the crunch Copenhagen meeting in December, and the world's two largest emitters refusing to give ground, a third way may now have to be found to secure a climate change agreement. Last night it emerged that lawyers for the EU are in talks with the US delegation urgently seeking a way out of the impasse that now threatens a strong climate deal.

In a day of high international rhetoric, chief US negotiator Jonathan Pershing said the US had moved significantly in the last year. "There has been a startling change in the US position. There is now engagement. We have had a 10-fold increase finance from the US. We have put $80bn into a green economic stimulus package. One year ago there was no commitment to a global agreement."

But he forcefully outlined America's opposition to the Kyoto protocol. "We are not going to be in the Kyoto protocol. We are not going to be part of an agreement that we cannot meet. We say a new agreement has to [be signed] by all countries. Things have changed since Kyoto. Where countries were in 1990 and today is very different. We cannot be stuck with an agreement 20 years old. We want action from all countries."

Yu Qingtai, China's special representative on climate talks, said rich countries should not desert the Kyoto agreement, which all industrialised countries except the US signed up to and was ratified in 2002 after many years of negotiations. It contains no requirement for developing countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as both their current and historical emissions are low in most cases. However, China, with its surging economy and rapidly expanding population is now the world's biggest polluter.

"The Kyoto protocol is not negotiable. We want [it] to be strengthened. We don't want to kill Kyoto. We really want a revival, a strengthening of the treaty. That can only be done by Annex Industrialised countries having a target of 40% cuts by 2020," said Yu.

"We have an agreement. If you take that away [you remove] the basis of negotiations. There are specific provisions for parties [like the US] who are not signed up to the Kyoto protocol."

China was backed strongly by the G77 group of 130 countries and the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis), made up of Caribbean and Pacific countries which expect to be made uninhabitable in the next few generations if a strong climate agreement is not secured.

"We face an emergency. We want commitments. We did not create the problem. Any mechanism currently in use is one we want to maintain. National actions are important but they are no substitutes for an international framework," said Dessima Williams, a Grenadian spokeswoman for Aosis.

The EU, today sided openly with the US for the first time. "We look at the Kyoto protocol, but since it came into force we have seen emissions increase. It has not decreased emissions. It's not enough and we need more," said spokesman Karl Falkenberg.

"We are very unlikely to see the US join Kyoto, but we are working with the US to find a legal framework to allow the US to participate and which will allow large emitters [such as China] to participate."

The difference between the sides is now considered to threaten the success of the talks. In essence, the US is insisting on a completely new agreement, with all countries signed up and all countries free to choose and set their own targets and timetable. Most other countries want to keep the existing agreement as a basis for negotiations, to ensure that rich countries are held by international law to agreed cuts. China in particular wants cuts calculated on a per capita basis.

Diplomats last night suggested that the only way out could be for the US to be asked to sign a separate agreement acceptable to developing countries, which would see it cutting emissions at a comparable speed to other countries.

The G77 countries are meeting to consider their oppositions. One diplomat said: "They are very angry. People have talked of walking out."

However, lawyers said it would be difficult to terminate the Kyoto protocol because all parties have to formally agree by consensus to end it. In addition, if no further commitment periods after 2012 are established for rich countries, it would be a breach of their own legal agreements.

DAILY NEWS Friday, October 2nd 2009

Outraged residents of the Westchester town where Libyan leader Col. Moammar Khadafy's supporters pitched a tent during the United Nations summit will get payback.

The tenant who leased Donald Trump's lavish estate on behalf of the Libyan government agreed Thursday that it would plead guilty to four criminal violations of the town's zoning laws, according to Bedford Town attorney Joel Sachs.

Belleweather Strategies, which has offices in midtown Manhattan, will pay a $1,000 fine.

"People are very relieved," Sachs said.

"They were very upset to begin with that anybody would rent their property to what people in the town believed was a known terrorist and a known mass murderer," he added.

"They were outraged about it," Sachs said.

The Trump organization, which owns the property, will not face any charges, because they pointed out that obtaining permits to erect the tent on the grounds was the responsibility of the tenants.

DAILY NEWS  Thursday, October 1st 2009

Hero pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger climbed back in his beloved pilot's chair Thursday morning, flying his first planeload of passengers since

January's miraculous Hudson splashdown.

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is Captain Sullenberger," he said, and then had to wait for a huge wave of excited applause to die down.

The Daily News was the only news organization with a reporter aboard Sully's first flight: the 7:55 a.m. US Airways flight from Charlotte. N.C., to New York City.

"It's a beautiful day for flying. We expect nice weather - smooth flying all the way," the captain said, as passengers grinned at each other.

The flight had 68 passengers on board, with at least a dozen seats open - unlike the overbooked return flight from LaGuardia to Charlotte, which US Airways had billed as Sully's first flight.

His trusty co-pilot Jeff Skiles, equally level-headed in a crisis, was by his side.

Flight 1050 landed smoothly at LaGuardia at 9:31 a.m. - four minutes early. No birds were encountered en route.

Asked how he liked landing on tarmac for a change, Sullenberger laughed. "Good. Real good," he said.

The celeb pilots stopped to chat and shake hands with airport workers jamming the jetway.

"New York has been very good to us," Sullenberger said. "It's great to be back."

Skiles said it was a terrific reunion.

"It was great flying with Sully again. He's the professional's professional. All in all, it was a very nice flight. Clear skies. It was beautiful," Skiles said.

At Gate 15, passengers and employees pressed their noses to the windows to watch the routine touchdown, and applauded when Sullenberger walked into the terminal.

"There is our hero!" someone yelled.

Sexologist Dr. Ruth, who was waiting for a flight, stopped Skiles to say, "I'm glad you're not retiring, but rewiring."

One of the passengers on the flight had been booked on the January flight that ended up in the Hudson - but missed it.

"It's ironic. I was happy to avoid being with him that day, and I'm happy to be with him this time," said Craig Baldauf, 39, a lawyer for Bank of America who had an aisle seat in row 21.

"He's a celebrity now. He could have retired. It's neat he came back."

At Charlotte's Douglas Airport, Sullenberger and Skiles walked into the terminal just after 7 a.m., rolling their wheelie bags side by side.

Waiting passengers who had no idea the men who famously saved 155 lives eight months ago would be at the controls were thrilled and proclaimed themselves the safest fliers in America.

"I feel like I'm flying with angels," said Linda Culbertson, 68, of Leicester, N.C., retired Bell South employee coming to see Broadway hits "South Paciific" and "Billy Elliot."

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

By David MorganWASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most Americans would pay higher taxes to fund healthcare reforms that provide the best quality of care, but only a minority expects Washington to deliver it, according to a survey released on Wednesday.

 

The telephone survey of 3,003 U.S. adults conducted by Thomson Reuters found 63 percent willing to pay for healthcare reform, though most also said they are happy with their own doctors, insurance plans and out-of-pocket costs.

However, only 35 percent of those surveyed said President Barack Obama's reform agenda and the debate in Congress will lead to better health service, while 41 percent said they would expect it to lead to lower costs.

"There's skepticism that the government can deliver value," said Gary Perkins, chief research officer for Thomson Reuters' healthcare and science research business. Thomson Reuters is the parent company of global news agency Reuters.

"But underlying this is a fairly strong belief that people are entitled to the best healthcare," Perkins added. "This is a value statement: that people are entitled not just to good but to the best healthcare. And people are willing to pay for it."

The survey began September 8, the day before Obama sought to jump-start the congressional debate with a prime-time speech to lawmakers. Researchers wound up their polling on September 17. The findings have a 2 percent margin of error.

The survey period also followed a summer of rancorous debate in Washington and angry exchanges between healthcare reform advocates and adversaries at political town hall meetings across the country.

The survey showed that 76 percent of those polled believe Americans deserve the best healthcare. But only 43 percent said they actually receive it.

Readiness to pay for effective reform crossed party lines, with 78 percent of Democrats willing to accept higher taxes, as well as 64 percent of independents and 48 percent of Republicans.

Expectations split sharply with party affiliation. Seventy-two percent of Democrats but only 35 percent of independents and 12 percent of Republicans expected the reforms to drive down costs.

Sixty-six percent of Democrats said reform will bring better healthcare service, versus 29 percent of independents and 8 percent of Republicans.

And 77 percent said they were satisfied with their doctors, 68 percent with their health insurance coverage and 53 percent with out-of-pocket expenses.

Posted on 29 September 2009

---

BY Michael Mcauliffe and Kenneth Bazinet
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Monday, September 28th 2009

Washibgton - Health care reform won't work without a government-run insurance option, and Sen Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) vowed Sunday to jam the provision into the Senate bill.

Schumer and Sen Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va) are readying for a showdown tomorrow with Sen Max Baucus (D-Mont), theconservative chairman of the Finance Committee, who offered a compromise of creating nonprofit insurance co-ops to drive down costs.

The compromise is also backed by several other Democrats, and even Schumer toyed with the idea. He is joining Rockefeller in saying co-ops won't work, and mounting an insurrection.

"The bill that is signed into law by the President will be a good, strong, robust public option," Schumer said.

If health reform passes, it will require people to buy insurance, and fine them if they don't.

The fear is that if a Medicare-like public plan doesn't exist, then private firms won't lower rates, leaving people unable to afford policies - and penalized for not getting them.

Here's hoping that our GT Lime Family and Friends who live in Atlanta are all safe and sound........ for those of you who are caught up in this, you are in our thoughts and prayers......

http://projects.ajc.com.coxnewsweb.com/gallery/view/metro/atlanta/atlanta-flood-aerial-0922/

By Michael Saul and David Saltonstall
DAILY NEWS

President Obama presided over an extraordinarily rare, face-to-face meeting Tuesday between Palestinian and Israeli leaders, who shook hands and promptly got a stern lecture.
 
"Simply put, it is past time to talk about starting negotiations - it is time to move forward," Obama said before his first-ever sit-down with Israli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Moahmoud Abbas, held at the stately Waldorf=Astoria Hotel in Manhattan.

"My message to these two leaders is clear," Obama added. "We have to summon the will to break the deadlock that has trapped generations of Israelis and Palestinians in an endless cycle of conflict and suffering."

It was Obama's most direct involvement in the Middle East peace process to date and underscored that - unlike his predecessor, {resident George W Bush - Obama is willing to be an active participant in Middle East talks, even if no major breakthroughs are guaranteed.

"We knew this wasn't going to be easy," Obama's special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, said afterwards.

"It's a mark of the President's deep, personal and ongoing commitment to peace that he chose to participate directly at this juncture."

There were still plenty of symbolic steps forward yesterday, beyond the first-ever handshake between Netanyahu and Abbas - an iconic image that will no doubt find a permanent spot in Obama's diplomatic scrapbook.

Tuesday's meeting marked the first trilateral talks of Obama's presidency and the first high-level meeting between Israelis and Palestinians in nearly a year.

Just nine months ago, the two sides were at war as Palestinian rocket attacks rained down daily on Isreal, and Israel responded with a devastating military attack on the Gaza Strip.

In his private meeting with the two leaders, Obama laid his views - and his own political capital - on the line, saying, "We all must take risks for peace," Mitchell told reporters later.

At the end of the day, however, the major stumbling blocks remained largely unmoved in a conflict that has defied U.S.. diplomatic efforts for decades.
 
Abbas insisted that Israel freeze construction at its settlements, an idea resisted by Netanyahu. And Netanyahu, in turn, demanded that the Palestinians finally recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

But even the hawkish Netanyahu conceded that the meeting helped "break the ice," and he pledged his government's cooperation in trying to restart real peace talks.

"The possibilites are there," Netanyahu told CNN later. "Let's just get on with it."

The President announced that Mitchell will huddle with the parties next week in Washington. And Obama directed Secretary of State Clinton to report back to him by mid-October.

The diplomatic jousting came as Obama raced around Manhattan all day, seeming to confront global challenges at every turn.

He grappled over global warming at the United Nations, held a working lunch with African leaders, and made nice with China's President Jintao Hu in the afternoon.

Later at a symposium hosted by former President Bill Clinton, Obama sketched what he called "a new spirit of global partnership" based on mutual economic development and traded jokes with the former president.

Obama's comments on climate change, made earlier in the day at the U.N., also generated significant buzz.
 
As in Middle East diplomacy, Obama set a decidedly different course than ex-President Bush, who for years disputed the science behind global warming.

The threat "is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing," Obama said. Although Obama never mentioned Bush by name, he clearly copped to America's past foot-dragging on the issue.

"It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat. It is true of my own country as well," Obama said. "We recognize that."

Obama To Make First UN Speech

POSTED: Tuesday, September 22, 2009

 

By Kenneth R. Bazinet
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

 Friday, September 18th 2009

WASHINGTON - The First Ladies of the Obama White House went to bat Friday for health care reform.

Michelle Obama shared a personal story about daughter Sasha's health scare, while Hillary Clinton, who quarterbacked her husband's failed reform effort in the 1990s, chimed in with perspective.

"Some of the political opposition is so overheated," Clinton said, referring to protests and the "You lie!" shout by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.).

"We just have to calm down here, take two aspirin, go to bed, think about it in the morning," the secretary of state said during a question-and-answer session on foreign policy.

Clinton scoffed at the Republican vitriol, saying that Democratic health reform plans are "fundamentally so conservative" compared to the British or Canadian systems.

"I'm very optimistic," Clinton said. "We will end up with a bill for the President to sign."

While Clinton zeroed in on politics, Michelle Obama, with a tale of her daughter's brush with bacterial meningitis, tried to tug at the heartstrings to push forward her husband's reform plan, which aims to expand access to care.

"I will never forget the time eight years ago, when Sasha was four months, that she would not stop crying," Obama said.

"Fortunately, were able to take her to our pediatrician that next morning. He examined her and said, 'Something's wrong.'

"We didn't know what, but he told us that she could have meningitis. So we were terrified. He said, 'Get to the emergency room right away.'

"And fortunately for us, things worked out," Obama recalled.

President Obama is tasking his wife to play the role of passionate surrogate. She'll host more events next month, reaching out to mothers and wives - frequently caregivers for the sick.

"If we want to achieve true equality for women ... we have to reform this system," she told a mostly female audience at the White House.With Richard Sisk

Caribbean Net News
Published on Thursday, September 17, 2009
WASHINGTON, USA -- The Organization of American States (OAS) has convened a high-level meeting to launch a new partnership to fighting poverty in the Americas that comes at a time when the current economic crisis could reverse advances in poverty reduction made during the past five years. The meeting will be held on September 22 in New York City, and will be inaugurated by OAS Secretary General, José Miguel Insulza, as well as US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton; President of Chile, Michele Bachelet; President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe; and New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, among other high-level officials. It will launch a new approach, called the Inter-American Social Protection Network or IASPN, to facilitate the exchange of information on best practices, policies, experiences and programs for fighting poverty and inequality in the Americas. The day-long event will feature a variety of experts on subjects related to public and private initiatives that help the poor, protect the vulnerable against livelihood risks, and enhance the social status and rights of the excluded. Participants include high-level government officials, international organization representatives, civil society and private sector representatives, and academics. It will take place at the Westin in Times Square. Dr Francisco Pilotti, Director of the Department of Social Development and Employment of the OAS, is in charge of the project. He said the IASPN has received strong political support. “The purpose of this Network is to be a network for teaching and learning,” he said. “It is a mechanism facilitated by the Organization of American States to assist countries in getting to know initiatives developed in sister countries and in that way to be able to strengthen their own institutions to better confront the challenge of halving poverty by the year 2015, a goal that was clearly established as the First Millennium Development Goal.” Dr Pilotti also indicated that the reason the Network has received such a strong political backing is that “in the region we still have more than 30 percent of our population living in conditions of poverty, 13 percent in extreme poverty. The poor today amount to more than 200 million people, and this has an evidently negative impact from every point of view: economic, social and also political, and that explains the preoccupation of heads of state with this project. “The Network does nothing more than acknowledge that many countries in the region in recent years, especially during periods of democracy, have innovated, have created extremely successful, efficient and effective social programs. It is the case for example of Brazil, with Bolsa Familia, or of Mexico with Oportunidades, Familias en Acción of Colombia, Chile’s El Chile Solidario, and other countries that have undertaken more recent programs, Paraguay Solidario; these are examples of programs that have had a positive impact on overcoming poverty that has been empirically proven, and also in overcoming inequality. We don’t speak any longer only of overcoming poverty, which continues to be a very important goal and more specifically one of the Millennium Development Goals, but also of overcoming inequality. “This is going to be a very interesting moment to be able to see the various forms of cooperation, not the typical North-South, from developed country to developing nation, but inversely, the assistance that our developing countries can provide to the developed world,” Pilotti concluded. In recent years, many countries in the region, among them Chile, Mexico and Paraguay, have implemented social protection systems to combat extreme poverty with some success. Between 2003 and 2008, poverty levels in Latin America and the Caribbean fell from 44 to 33 percent of the total population, and indigence fell from 19 to 13 percent. Yet the region remains the most unequal, in terms of income, in the world, while the current economic crisis threatens its successes. Studies estimate that the richest 10 percent of the population receives between 40 and 47 percent of total income, while the 20 poorest only receives between 2 and 4 percent of total income. The IASPN originated in the V Summit of the Americas this year, when heads of state pledged to facilitate the exchange of information to address issues of poverty and inequality in the region. It was also inspired by agreements reached at the First Meeting of Ministers and High Authorities of Social Development. The OAS has a long tradition of inter-American cooperation and has developed a close relationship with social development agencies throughout the region. As coordinator of the IASPN, the OAS will establish partnerships with a diversity of institutions with expertise in social protection policies and programs.

The President's formative years are well documented, but only now are his mother's exploits in Indonesia coming to light, reports Judith Kampfner

Wednesday, 16 September 2009

 

 

 

 

Sen. Max Baucus says he’ll have a formal proposal by midweek

WASHINGTON - Senate health care negotiators said Monday they've narrowed their differences on a host of difficult issues with just a day or so left to seal an elusive bipartisan deal that could change the course of the contentious debate over President Barack Obama's ambitious plans to overhaul health care.

After months of closed-door negotiations, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said, "We're getting very close." But it remained unclear if the Democrat could strike a bargain that would mark a turning point for Obama's top domestic priority.

The negotiators pared the cost of their 10-year coverage plan to under $880 billion, and also reported progress on several issues, including health insurance for the poor, restrictions on federal funding for abortions, a verification system to prevent illegal immigrants from getting benefits, and ways to encourage alternatives to malpractice lawsuits.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32844083/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

By Thom Shanker  New York Times

WASHINGTON — Despite a recession that knocked down global arms sales last year, the United States expanded its role as the world’s leading weapons supplier, increasing its share to more than two-thirds of all foreign armaments deals, according to a new Congressional study.

The United States signed weapons agreements valued at $37.8 billion in 2008, or 68.4 percent of all business in the global arms bazaar, up significantly from American sales of $25.4 billion the year before.

Italy was a distant second, with $3.7 billion in worldwide weapons sales in 2008, while Russia was third with $3.5 billion in arms sales last year — down considerably from the $10.8 billion in weapons deals signed by Moscow in 2007.

The growth in weapons sales by the United States last year was particularly noticeable against worldwide trends. The value of global arms sales in 2008 was $55.2 billion, a drop of 7.6 percent from 2007 and the lowest total for international weapons agreements since 2005.

The increase in American weapons sales around the world “was attributable not only to major new orders from clients in the Near East and in Asia, but also to the continuation of significant equipment and support services contracts with a broad-based number of U.S. clients globally,” according to the study, titled “Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations.”

The annual report was produced by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, a division of the Library of Congress. Regarded as the most detailed collection of unclassified global arms sales data available to the general public, it was delivered to the House and Senate on Friday, ready for members’ return from the Labor Day recess.

The overall decline in weapons sales worldwide in 2008 can be explained by the reluctance of many nations to place new arms orders “in the face of the severe international recession,” wrote Richard F. Grimmett, a specialist in international security at the Congressional Research Service and author of the study.

Mr. Grimmett’s report stated that the growth of weapons sales by the United States was “extraordinary” in a time of global recession and resulted from new arms deals as well as the sustained cost of maintenance, upgrades, ammunition and spare parts to nations that bought American weapons in the past.

In the highly competitive global arms market, nations vie for both profit and political influence through weapons sales, in particular to developing nations, which remain “the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by weapons suppliers,” according to the study.

Weapons sales to developing nations reached $42.2 billion in 2008, only a nominal increase from the $41.1 billion in 2007.

The United States was the leader not only in arms sales worldwide, but also in sales to nations in the developing world, signing $29.6 billion in weapons agreements with these nations, or 70.1 percent of all such deals.

The study found that the larger arms deals concluded by the United States with developing nations last year included a $6.5 billion air defense system for the United Arab Emirates, a $2.1 billion jet fighter deal with Morocco and a $2 billion attack helicopter agreement with Taiwan. Other large weapons agreements were reached between the United States and India, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, South Korea and Brazil.

Russia was far behind in 2008 with $3.3 billion in weapons sales to the developing world, about 7.8 percent of all such agreements. The report says that while Russia continues to have China and India as its main weapons clients, Russia’s new focus is on arms sales to Latin American nations, in particular to Venezuela.

France was third with $2.5 billion in arms sales to developing nations, or about 5.9 percent of weapons deals with these countries.

The top buyers in the developing world in 2008 were the United Arab Emirates, which signed $9.7 billion in arms deals; Saudi Arabia, which signed $8.7 billion in weapons agreements; and Morocco, with $5.4 billion in arms purchases.

The study uses figures in 2008 dollars, with amounts for previous years adjusted for inflation to give a constant financial measurement.

(CNN) -- Solemn memorial services in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on Friday will mark the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Eight years ago, al Qaeda terrorists hijacked airplanes to crash them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- twin symbols of America's financial and military might. Another hijacked plane crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania -- its intended target was the White House or the Capitol.

New York will honor the 2,751 people who lost their lives after American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the north and south towers of the World Trade Center. The commemoration will include the reading of names to honor the dead.

In Washington, President Obama, the first lady and White House staff will observe a moment of silence on the South Lawn at 8:46 a.m., the moment Flight 11 hit the north tower.

The president will then go to the Pentagon, where he will make remarks and participate in a wreath-laying ceremony for the 184 victims killed when American Airlines Flight 77 struck the building's west wall.

In Shanksville, a ceremony will be held just before 10 a.m. to remember the 40 passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93, who died when the hijacked plane went down in a field there. The passengers and crew, aware of the fate of at least some of the other hijacked planes, fought the men who had taken control of their aircraft, leading to its crash.

Country singer Trace Adkins will sing the national anthem. Colin Powell, former U.S. secretary of state, will give the keynote address.

A $58 million memorial is being constructed at the 2,200-acre site and is to open on the 10th anniversary of the attack.

On the eighth anniversary of the attacks, the level of concern about terrorism in the United States is roughly half of what it was immediately after September 11 and is down 20 points since the five-year anniversary in 2006, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

Thirty-four percent of Americans think an act of terrorism is likely in the United States over the next few weeks. More than six in 10 are confident in the Obama administration's ability to protect the nation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Despite 9/12 fears, fortress NYC didn’t happen.......  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32793225/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

Obama's message on this solemn day.....  http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/09/11/2009-09-11_obamas_message_on_911.html

DAILY NEWS STAFF

Thursday, September 10th 2009

Highlights of President Obama's health care plan:

What's in it

- Individuals will be required to carry health insurance, and businesses will be required to provide it. Some hardship exemptions.

- $900 billion cost over 10 years, much of it recovered through more efficiency and waste reduction in existing programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

- Restrictions of caps on private coverage that now force people with serious illnesses to go broke paying for out-of-pocket expenses.

- Health insurance exchanges: a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for coverage at competitive prices.

- Tax credits for individuals and businesses who still cannot afford insurance.

- Pilot projects to encourage lawsuit-wary doctors to stop practicing expensive "defensive" medicine.

What's not in it

- "Death panels" that could deny expensive life-saving care.

- Forcing people satisfied with existing coverage to give it up.

- Coverage for illegal immigrants.

What's negotiable

- The public option: a government plan that would compete with private insurers to offer affordable alternative.

- "High-risk pools" to help people who have trouble getting insurance because of health conditions.

What's not negotiable

- Obama won't accept a plan that falls short of necessary reforms to greatly expand access to affordable coverage.

- A plan must stop health insurers from canceling or cutting coverage when people get sick.

- People with preexisting conditions must have access to affordable insurance.

 

Obama's speech a move to display his authority to Congress

WASHINGTON - On one level, President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night was what it seemed: an attempt to corral lawmakers into approving the signature initiative of his presidency, the healthcare overhaul that has eluded Washington, as Mr. Obama said, for 65 years.

But the speech was about more than health care.

It was an attempt by this still new president to display his authority to a Congress that had begun to question his fortitude, to show that he was as strong a political leader as he was a political candidate and to show that he was not — to use the shorthand of the day — another Jimmy Carter professorial, aloof, a micromanager who perhaps was not ready to be the nation’s chief executive.

It is one thing to create and surf a political movement, as Mr. Obama did in capturing the White House. It is quite another to lead an uneasy country and a politically divided Congress toward tough decisions that create winners and losers.

“That’s what this is about,” said Joe Trippi, a Democratic consultant. “We know he can be a candidate; he may even have the right ideas. Now he has to reach down there and make something big happen in the country — either a lot of Americans changing their minds, or members of Congress backing his agenda even if it puts their own political hides at risk. Can he get people to do these things?”

For nearly an hour, Mr. Obama spoke strongly and passionately, pausing only to acknowledge the repeated cheers from his audience as he made what appeared to be his clearest and most concise case yet on a complicated issue that had repeatedly defied his communications skills.

He managed to invest his case with both economic and emotional urgency — particularly when he invoked the memory of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, whose widow, Victoria, was in the audience — without getting bogged down in too many details. Mr. Obama had clearly decided to speak more to the American people watching on television than to the lawmakers arrayed in front of him in the House chamber. On this evening, at least, Congress was part of the political theater, both in the form of the constant applause from fellow Democrats and in the person of the Republican congressman who yelled out “lie” when Mr. Obama asserted that nothing in his plan would provide coverage for illegal immigrants.

It will take time to see if this works. Bill Clinton gave a similarly well-received address on this very subject in the chamber 16 years ago, to an audience that included many of the same people, among them his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, then an author of an ambitious health care plan, now secretary of state. But there was a key difference between Mr. Clinton in 1993 and Mr. Obama today. For Mr. Clinton, it was the beginning of the process; Mr. Obama was ushering in what he hopes to be an endgame, at a moment, as he noted, when four Congressional committees have already reported out bills.

In a recognition of the current political atmosphere, Mr. Obama used his speech to ease away from what had been another defining aspect of his candidacy: the promise to transcend the partisanship in Washington.

RELATED ARTICLES:

'You lie': Republican Joe Wilson's outburst at Obama health speech..... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/10/you-lie-joe-wilson-obama-speech

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After months of criticism that he has failed to outline a specific health care reform plan, President Obama will address a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night in a speech aides say will be to the point.

At stake for the president: getting Democratic factions on board with his plan and convincing Americans of the need for health care reform.

"He's going into full campaign mode" with this speech, said Gloria Borger, CNN senior political analyst.

Some have even deemed it one of the key legislative speeches of his presidency to date.

"Wednesday night's health care speech may be one of the toughest he has faced," said CNN contributor David Gergen.

Obama, for the most part, has issued broad reform ideas, but he has left most of the specific legislative details to leaders in Congress, who have faced sometimes contentious negotiations.

GOP strategist and CNN contributor Ed Rollins said that Obama must be "clear and very honest" with Americans on the specifics.

Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist and CNN contributor, added that Obama must speak to the uninsured on what he'll support and show Americans how he'll "help them find insurance and keep insurance."

The White House has seemingly taken note.

Vice President Joe Biden said last week that Obama will delve into specifics in Wednesday's speech and will be "laying out in understandable, clear terms" what the administration wants for health care.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he thinks Obama's speech will clarify the debate.

"I have every belief that when he finishes his speech tomorrow, the American people will be able to put aside some of the ridiculous falsehoods that have been perpetrated these past few weeks," Reid, D-Nevada, said on Tuesday.

A House Democrat said Obama's specifics could be a game-changer in answering Americans' anger and concern over health care reform, displayed in sometimes violent and rowdy town halls over the summer.

"The president is clearly not running away from this battle, but rather confronting the challenges we've encountered these last few weeks head-on," Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York has said. "He's pulling out all the stops, and this level of involvement from the president could well be a game-changer."

Rangel said the speech could be a great way to turn public opinion on health care around.

A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll showed that Americans are evenly split over whether to support or oppose Obama's health care plan.

Six in 10 younger Americans support the plan; six in 10 senior citizens oppose it.

Obama's own party also is split: Liberals demand a public option while conservative Democrats are wary of the cost.

A public option is a government-funded, government-run health care option, similar to Medicare. Under the plan, people would pay premiums 10 to 20 percent less than private insurance.

Bridging that divide, Gergen noted, is a must on Wednesday.

"The president must overcome tensions within his own Democratic party," he said. "But Democrats already know that to win, they cannot count on Republicans, but instead must achieve unity among themselves. ... No one knows whether Obama can heal the obvious divisions" within his party.

The address Wednesday will be Obama's second speech to the full Congress since he took office in January. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Reid formally invited Obama to make the address, as required.

On Tuesday, Obama met with the Democratic leaders at the White House to discuss the speech, among other things. After the discussion, Reid said the president and vice president were "very positive" about negotiations.

"And that's in keeping with the conversation by members in the past week: We're ready to do health care reform," he said.

As for the speech, Reid said Obama didn't "give us a dress rehearsal of the speech, but he did tell us that he's going to outline to the American people and of course the Congress on the health care reform plan he hopes we will do."

Pelosi, meanwhile, said a public option is essential to bringing down health care costs and providing competition to insurance companies, a position she has touted over the past few months.

So far, Democratic proposals in both chambers have come under withering Republican opposition and fierce attacks by conservative commentators, who argue it will raise the already skyrocketing deficit.

The so-called "Gang of Six," three Democrats and three Republicans, met Tuesday to consider a plan by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. The plan includes dropping the public option, taxing the priciest insurance plans and using health care cooperatives.

After the meeting, the Montana Democrat asked members of the committee to come back to him on Wednesday morning with ideas and counterproposals. Another meeting will take place later in the afternoon to discuss whether they can reach a deal before Obama's speech, Baucus added.

Another option, from Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, would put forth a safety net, or "trigger," for a public health care option as part of a key compromise

Snowe said she didn't think there was time to reach a deal before Obama's speech, but she hoped the group would continue to negotiate afterward

.

BY Michael Saul
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

Tuesday, September 8th 2009, 4:00 AM

A "fired-up" President Obama declared that it's finally "time to act" on overhauling the nation's health care system.

"Every debate, at some point, comes to an end. At some point, it's time to decide. At some point, it's time to act," he told labor leaders in Cincinnati on Monday afternoon.

"It's time to act and get this thing done," he insisted.

Obama dusted off his "fired-up, ready-to-go" campaign chant during the speech in hopes of recapturing his mojo and setting the tone for what could be a make-or-break week for his presidency.

Lawmakers return to Capitol Hill Tuesday following a turbulent summer.

Obama and Democrats in his corner were repeatedly attacked by conservatives and constituents angry or confused over plans to revamp the nation's health care system. Republican support evaporated.

The President's poll numbers plummeted.

To wrestle the debate back onto his turf - and on his terms - Obama is delivering a prime-time speech tomorrow to Congress. If his call to action fails to motivate lawmakers, experts say, it could damage him politically.

The President got a boost yesterday from former First Lady Laura Bush, who told CNN she thought Obama was doing a good job. "I think he has got a lot on his plate, and he has tackled a lot to start with, and that has probably made it more difficult," she said.

Bush expressed regret for how polarized U.S politics has become. "All of us need to do what we can to come together on issues," she said.

Obama's talk to the AFL-CIO served as a passionate preview of what's in store tomorrow night.

"We have never been this close. We've never had such broad agreement on what needs to be done," Obama said.

"And because we're so close to real reform, suddenly the special interests are doing what they always do, which is just try to scare the heck out of people."

"I've got a question for all those folks [opposing health care reform]: What are you going to do?" Obama asked.

"What's your answer? What's your solution?" he added. "And you know what? They don't have one. Their answer is to do nothing."

The President said doing nothing is a prescription for soaring consumer costs and shrinking insurance coverage.

Obama maintains he still stands by one of the most controversial elements of his health care reform proposal - a government insurance option designed to compete with private insurance companies.

"I continue to believe that a public option within that basket of insurance choices will help improve quality and bring down costs," said Obama, although aides have indicated the White House may be willing to compromise.

Coming off a vacation to Martha's Vineyard and a few days at Camp David, the President appeared rested and ready for Washington-style combat.

Obama's speech yesterday was most notable for his rousing, campaign-style rhetoric.

He even ended his remarks with one of his favorite anecdotes from the campaign trail.

As the story goes, a woman from South Carolina livened up a humdrum event by chanting "fired up, ready to go" - a slogan the candidate adopted.

"It just goes to show you how one voice can change a room. And if it can change a room, it can change a city. And if it can change a city, it can change a state. If it can change a state, it can change a nation. If it can change a nation, it can change the world," Obama said to growing cheers. "Your voice can change the world. Your voice will get health care passed."

"Are you fired up?" the President asked the crowd. "Fired up," came the answer.

RELATED ARTICLE:

President to be 'very forceful' in Wednesday address..... 
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Senator's proposal could aid health care reform......  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32724122/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

The President: Hello everyone – how’s everybody doing today? I’m here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we’ve got students tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through twelfth grade. I’m glad you all could join us today.

I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it’s your first day in a new school, so it’s understandable if you’re a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. And no matter what grade you’re in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could’ve stayed in bed just a little longer this morning.

I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday – at 4:30 in the morning.

Now I wasn’t too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I’d fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I’d complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster."

So I know some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. But I’m here today because I have something important to discuss with you. I’m here because I want to talk with you about your education and what’s expected of all of you in this new school year.

Now I’ve given a lot of speeches about education. And I’ve talked a lot about responsibility.

I’ve talked about your teachers’ responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to learn.

I’ve talked about your parents’ responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox.

I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren’t working where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve.

‘Put in the hard work’
But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.

And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.

Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide.

 

Maybe you could be a good writer – maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper – but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor – maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine – but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.

And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.

This from the washington post....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090302859_pf.html

Obama, the Mortal By Charles Krauthammer Friday, September 4, 2009

What happened to President Obama? His wax wings having melted, he is the man who fell to earth. What happened to bring his popularity down further than that of any new president in polling history save Gerald Ford (post-Nixon pardon)?

The conventional wisdom is that Obama made a tactical mistake by farming out his agenda to Congress and allowing himself to be pulled left by the doctrinaire liberals of the Democratic congressional leadership. But the idea of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pulling Obama left is quite ridiculous. Where do you think he came from, this friend of Chávista ex-terrorist William Ayers, of PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi, of racialist inciter Jeremiah Wright?

But forget the character witnesses. Just look at Obama's behavior as president, beginning with his first address to Congress. Unbidden, unforced and unpushed by the congressional leadership, Obama gave his most deeply felt vision of America, delivering the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president. In American politics, you can't get more left than that speech and still be on the playing field.

In a center-right country, that was problem enough. Obama then compounded it by vastly misreading his mandate. He assumed it was personal. This, after winning by a mere seven points in a year of true economic catastrophe, of an extraordinarily unpopular Republican incumbent, and of a politically weak and unsteady opponent. Nonetheless, Obama imagined that, as Fouad Ajami so brilliantly observed, he had won the kind of banana-republic plebiscite that grants caudillo-like authority to remake everything in one's own image.

Accordingly, Obama unveiled his plans for a grand makeover of the American system, animating that vision by enacting measure after measure that greatly enlarged state power, government spending and national debt. Not surprisingly, these measures engendered powerful popular skepticism that burst into tea-party town-hall resistance.

Obama's reaction to that resistance made things worse. Obama fancies himself tribune of the people, spokesman for the grass roots, harbinger of a new kind of politics from below that would upset the established lobbyist special-interest order of Washington. Yet faced with protests from a real grass-roots movement, his party and his supporters called it a mob -- misinformed, misled, irrational, angry, unhinged, bordering on racist. All this while the administration was cutting backroom deals with every manner of special interest -- from drug companies to auto unions to doctors -- in which favors worth billions were quietly and opaquely exchanged.

"Get out of the way" and "don't do a lot of talking," the great bipartisan scolded opponents whom he blamed for creating the "mess" from which he is merely trying to save us. If only they could see. So with boundless confidence in his own persuasiveness, Obama undertook a summer campaign to enlighten the masses by addressing substantive objections to his reforms.

Things got worse still. With answers so slippery and implausible and, well, fishy, he began jeopardizing the most fundamental asset of any new president -- trust. You can't say that the system is totally broken and in need of radical reconstruction, but nothing will change for you; that Medicare is bankrupting the country, but $500 billion in cuts will have no effect on care; that you will expand coverage while reducing deficits -- and not inspire incredulity and mistrust. When ordinary citizens understand they are being played for fools, they bristle.

After a disastrous summer -- mistaking his mandate, believing his press, centralizing power, governing left, disdaining citizens for (of all things) organizing -- Obama is in trouble.

Let's be clear: This is a fall, not a collapse. He's not been repudiated or even defeated. He will likely regroup and pass some version of health insurance reform that will restore some of his clout and popularity.

But what has occurred -- irreversibly -- is this: He's become ordinary. The spell is broken. The charismatic conjurer of 2008 has shed his magic. He's regressed to the mean, tellingly expressed in poll numbers hovering at 50 percent.

For a man who only recently bred a cult, ordinariness is a great burden, and for his acolytes, a crushing disappointment. Obama has become a politician like others. And like other flailing presidents, he will try to salvage a cherished reform -- and his own standing -- with yet another prime-time speech.

But for the first time since election night in Grant Park, he will appear in the most unfamiliar of guises -- mere mortal, a treacherous transformation to which a man of Obama's supreme self-regard may never adapt.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

BY Thomas M. Defrank
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

Sept 4, 2009

WASHINGTON - Having already hitched his presidency's wellness to health care, Barack Obama has now raised the stakes yet again.

His Wednesday prime-time speech to Congress aims to recapture the momentum he and his handlers squandered over the summer - and rehabilitate his own political credibility.

Obama insiders know the double-down speech is more about reasserting the President's authority than a desperate bid to revive health care reform from life support.

In fact, inside the Beltway, even die-hard Republican opponents recognize a bill of some kind is all but certain to pass Congress this fall. Though it will likely be less than Obama wants, he'll reap some credit. What it won't do is cure all that ails Obama.

As his sagging poll numbers demonstrate, Obama's public standing was shredded over the summer. His July press conference, designed to jawbone Congress to act by the August recess, fizzled badly.

As legislation languished and Congress went home, an impassioned minority hijacked the debate, booing their senators and congressmen at town hall meetings. By the time he himself managed a brief vacation, Obama was on the political defensive.

In some ways, he's still playing D - especially with House liberals who are clamoring for a more comprehensive reform package and think Obama should be doing more.

"His aides don't want him criticized for not doing enough to get a stronger bill," said a Democratic source who consults frequently with the White House.

Obama's main purpose in addressing a joint congressional session, however, is to reclaim the moral imperative and the public's trust. He's striving to become what one Democrat calls "the decisive engine" in shaping the debate in the next few critical weeks.

The moment is ripe for a rousing populist speech with a pinch of demagoguery sprinkled in for dramatic impact. Aides know that Obama's professorial briefs, skillfully marshaled to win an argument, will be less effective than a dose of moral indignation.

In effect, he has to tell the death-panel fringe, profiteering insurers, professional haters, timid Democrats and obstructionist Republicans: time to knock it off - people are hurting.

"Who wants to be the ones defending corporations who deny people coverage for preexisting conditions and other outrages?" a Democratic operative observed. "He needs to concentrate on the three or four things that make everyone's blood boil."

Focusing on health care horrors, his aides believe, can shore up conservative Democrats and perhaps entice a few moderate Republicans to sign on.

In crafting his appeal, Obama has the luxury of ignoring Republican lawmakers. They've opted out, eagerly counting their gains in next fall's midterm elections.

But he has to find a middle course that blunts the summer's town hall fury and doesn't cost his party House seats in November of next year.

It's a tricky proposition. Aides are convinced Obama will prevail, even as they acknowledge the downside risk of failure.

"The danger is, he does this and the numbers don't move," said one Obama strategist. "Then he looks weak."

Or worse: irrelevant.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/09/04/2009-09-04_obama_and_his_health_plan_are_ailing.html#ixzz0Q9gJIBME

President would be more specific about top priorities, White House says

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama, increasingly impatient with Senate negotiations over health care, is weighing a plan to offer more details of his goals for overhauling the nation's health system, the White House said Tuesday.

The president is considering a speech in the next week or so in which he would be "more prescriptive" about what he feels Congress must include in a bill, top adviser David Axelrod said in an interview. The speech might occur before the Sept. 15 deadline that was given to Senate negotiators to seek a bipartisan bill, said Axelrod, who suggested that two key Republicans have not bargained in good faith.

Congress reconvenes next Tuesday after an August recess in which critics of Obama's health proposals dominated many public forums

Some Obama allies, watching his approval ratings tumble in polls along with support for a health care overhaul, have urged the president to take a more hands-on approach. They feel he gave too much leeway to Congress, where one bill has passed three House committees, another has passed a Senate committee, and a third has been bogged down in protracted negotiations in the Senate Finance Committee.

Axelrod indicated that Obama would not offer new proposals but would be more specific about his top priorities.

"The ideas are all there on the table," Axelrod said. "Now we are in a new phase and it's time to pull the strands of these together."

He said there is serious discussion in the White House of Obama "giving a speech that lays out in specific way what he thinks" about the essential elements of a health care bill.

Supporters seek to recapture energy from last year’s triumphant campaign

By Dan Eggan. Washington Post  Aug 31, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Obama's supporters hope to recapture the energy of last year's triumphant election campaign in a bid to regain control of the health-care debate, planning more than 2,000 house parties, rallies and town hall meetings across the country over the next two weeks.

The initiative began Wednesday with a rally at a labor hall in Phoenix that featured the Obama sunrise logo and placards that became fixtures of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Organizing for America, a nationwide group of Obama supporters run by the Democratic National Committee, also brought along a colorful bus featuring the slogan, "Health Insurance Reform Now: Let's Get it Done." The vehicle is on an 11-city tour advocating for health-care reform.   read more.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32623972/ns/politics-washington_post/

RELATED ARTICLE:

Health care Reform after  Kennedy...... http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1919246,00.html?xid=rss-politics-cnn

Thu August 27, 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For almost 50 years, Sen. Ted Kennedy pushed unsuccessfully for legislation that would reform the health care system and ensure coverage for every American.

Ironically, his death might bring about a change of tactics that would help reach the goal he was unable to achieve in life, one veteran political analyst says.

"Kennedy's departure may in fact increase the chances that we get a more sweeping health care bill," American Enterprise Institute analyst Norman Ornstein recently told CNN.

As Congress prepares to reconvene and resume the fight over President Obama's top domestic priority, Democratic leaders are expressing concern over the consequences of Kennedy's passing.

Kennedy was the chairman of the critical Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and provided a potential 60th Democratic vote, which would be needed to break a Republican Senate filibuster. 

He also was a highly respected negotiator, capable of crafting compromises with political opponents on the thorniest issues.

He had "a unique way of sitting down with the parties at a table and making the right concessions, which really are the essence of successful negotiations," Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." 

The White House is still publicly pushing for a bipartisan compromise. And a group of six Senate negotiators -- three Democrats and three Republicans -- is working on a bill capable of winning votes on both sides of the aisle.

But Kennedy's death, Ornstein argued, could change Democratic calculations on how to proceed from this point.

"The possibility the Democrats have of getting a bill with 60 votes now -- which requires compromising and getting Republicans -- has just gone down," Ornstein told CNN.

Without Kennedy, Democrats now have 57 senators. Two independents -- Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont -- caucus with the Democrats. 

One Democrat -- 91-year-old Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia -- is in questionable health and may not be able to play any role in the health care debate. Current Massachusetts law does not allow that state's Democratic governor to appoint an interim replacement for Kennedy, and a special election to fill his seat will not occur for several months.

As a result, Ornstein argued, Democratic leaders may now try to short-circuit the traditional Senate legislative process by passing a more partisan bill through an obscure tactic known as reconciliation, a type of budget maneuver that requires only a simple majority -- 51 votes -- to pass.

Republicans have equated such a move to legislative warfare.

"That is really sort of denying democracy," GOP Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said on "FOX News Sunday" last weekend. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has called it "an abuse of the process."

Some Democrats have also expressed discomfort with the idea.

Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, one of the Democrats working to hammer out a bipartisan bill, recently argued that using the reconciliation tactic "does not work very well."

"When you examine the way reconciliation works, it was designed solely for deficit reduction. ... It never contemplated substantive legislation," he said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Ramming a bill through on a party-line vote may also be unpopular with the public as a whole. A Quinnipiac University survey in early August showed that 59 percent of registered voters nationwide oppose passage of health-care legislation if the bill fails to win bipartisan support.

If Democrats nevertheless resort to reconciliation, Ornstein said, they would be "sorely tempted" to include the kind of government-funded public health insurance option favored by Kennedy and the rest of the party's liberal base.

Almost every Republican opposes such an option, claiming it would destroy the current private-insurance-based system.

But if Democrats go it alone, by one line of reasoning, there is no reason not to get as much as possible.

"So there may be a great irony here," Ornstein said. "Kennedy, by not being there, may have increased the chances of getting something closer to what he would have preferred."

Can Democratic leaders use the emotion tied to Kennedy's death to forge a compromise with Republicans?

"My hope is that this will cause people to take a breath, and step back and start talking to each other again in civil tones about what needs to be done," Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a close Kennedy friend, said Wednesday.

"Hopefully, at this moment of reflection some people will reconsider the positions they've taken," added Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a member of the House Democratic leadership.

Not likely, Ornstein argued.

"Now that Kennedy is gone, certainly some close Republican friends of [his] like Hatch are going to be asked to do one for Teddy. I don't think that inducement will work," he said. When it comes to health care, there are "very real, substantive, ideological and partisan differences. One person's memory will not make all the difference."

Kennedy "did not live to see the goal of health care reform," Ornstein said. "But I am sure that his supporters, his family and his friends are hoping that the legacy will still be there even in his absence."

Supporters on both sides sift facts to fit preconceived views, survey says

Heated partisan debate over President Obama's health care plan, erupting at town hall meetings and in the blogosphere, has more to do with our illogical thought processes than reality, sociologists are finding.

The problem: People on both sides of the political aisle often work backward from a firm conclusion to find supporting facts, rather than letting evidence inform their views.

The result: A survey out this week finds voters split strongly along party lines regarding their beliefs about key parts of the plan. Example: About 91 percent of Republicans think the proposal would increase wait times for surgeries and other health services, while only 37 percent of Democrats think so.

Irrational thinking
A totally rational person would lay out — and evaluate objectively — the pros and cons of a health care overhaul before choosing to support or oppose a plan. But we humans are not so rational, according to Steve Hoffman, a visiting professor of sociology at the University of Buffalo.

"People get deeply attached to their beliefs," Hoffman said. "We form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in our personal identity and sense of morality, irrespective of the facts of the matter."

And to keep our sense of personal and social identity, Hoffman said, we tend to use a backward type of reasoning in order to justify such beliefs.

Similarly, past research by Dolores Albarracin, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has shown in particular that people who are less confident in their beliefs are more reluctant than others to seek out opposing perspectives. So these people avoid counter evidence all together. The same could apply to the health care debate, Albarracin said.

"Even if you have free press, freedom of speech, it doesn't make people listen to all points of view," she said.

Just about everybody is vulnerable to the phenomenon of holding onto our beliefs even in the face of iron-clad evidence to the contrary, Hoffman said. Why? Because it's hard to do otherwise. "It's an amazing challenge to constantly break out the Nietzschean hammer and destroy your world view and belief system and evaluate others," Hoffman said.

Just the facts you need
Hoffman's idea is based on a study he and colleagues did of nearly 50 participants, who were all Republican and reported believing in the link between the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and Saddam Hussein. Participants were given the mounting evidence that no link existed and then asked to justify their belief.

(The findings should apply to any political bent. "We're not making the claim that Democratic or liberal partisans don't do the same thing. They do," Hoffman said.)

All but one held onto the belief, using a variety of so-called motivated reasoning strategies. "Motivated reasoning is essentially starting with a conclusion you hope to reach and then selectively evaluating evidence in order to reach that conclusion," explained Hoffman's colleague, sociologist Andrew Perrin of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

For instance, some participants used a backward chain of reasoning in which the individual supported the decision to go to warand so assumed any evidence necessary to support that decision, including the link between 9/11 and Hussein.

"For these voters, the sheer fact that we were engaged in war led to a post-hoc search for a justification for that war," Hoffman said. "People were basically making up justifications for the fact that we were at war."

Their research is published in the most recent issue of the journal Sociological Inquiry.

Hot health care debate
The proposed health care plan has all the right ingredients for such wonky reasoning, the researchers say.

The issue is both complex (no single correct answer), emotionally charged and potentially history changing, while debates often occur with like-minded peers in town hall settings. The result is staunch supporters and just-as-staunch critics who are sticking to their guns.

"The health care debate would be vulnerable to motivated reasoning, because it is, and has become, so highly emotionally and symbolically charged," Perrin said during a telephone interview, adding that images equating the plan with Nazi Germany illustrate the symbolic nature of the arguments.

In addition, the town hall settings make for even more rigid beliefs. That's because changing one's mind about a complex issue can rattle a person's sense of identity and sense of belonging within a community. If everyone around you is a neighbor or friend, you'd be less likely to change your opinion, the researchers say.

"In these one-shot town hall meetings, where you have an emotionally laden complex issue like health care, it's very likely you're going to get these ramped up emotionally laden debates. They're going to be hot debates," Hoffman told LiveScience.

In keeping with Senator Kennedy's dream the following article seems appropriate:  

An American Disease

Monday 24 August 2009

by: Favilla  |  Visit article original @ Les Echos

 

 

The authors writing as Favilla for France's premier business paper, Les Echos, deem that President Obama cannot yield to the "immoral coalition" of vested interests arrayed against health care reform, since "it would then destroy American society.": Sara D. Davis / Getty Images North America)

    Barack Obama is laboring mightily. After a state of grace, he now must confront virulent opposition to his great plan to reform the American health care system. Yet, his goal is indisputable and was featured in the program for his candidacy: assuring health insurance coverage for the 46 million Americans who are excluded from it by the present system, a system obviously unworthy of a country that purports to be developed. Moreover, at the beginning of the summer, 70 percent of Americans declared themselves to be in favor of it. In mid-August, they are but 43 percent versus 49 percent against. This collapse of popular support may be put down to an unprecedented unleashing of imprecations and abuse, orchestrated by conservative extremists and pressure groups unremitting in the defense of their own rents. On the pretext that the plan tries to introduce a bit of morality and general interest, it is accused of collectivism and an attack on individual freedoms. Untruths and outrageous allegations abound, to the point that it is useless to quote them. The regressive evolution of public opinion confirms the effectiveness of even the false propaganda.

    Yet, the issue is one of blinding clarity. The United States devotes 18 percent of its GDP to health care expenses, even as a sixth of its population is not covered, while France or Germany pay 12 percent and cover everyone. For once, American democracy is adding the prize of injustice to the red light on competitiveness. But one must reckon with the impressive parasitic architecture of vested interests and received ideas. With respect to ideas, there's the visceral distrust of any collective organization and blind devotion to individual freedom in principle. With respect to vested interests - an even more solid base - it's the profits reaped from the present system by laboratories, doctors, auxiliary health services, insurance companies; without counting the activism of "lawyers," who, by increasing juicy suits against care providers, raise the price of their insurance. This coalition, which one may well call immoral, that costs at least 6 percent of GDP (the low estimate), threatens the president himself. He cannot yield to it, since it would then destroy American society. This will be his most difficult, but most noble fight.

 

 

 

 

Liberal lion loses yearlong battle with brain cancer at Massachusetts home

MSNBC NEWS/Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images file Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in September 2007.  View related photos

Video   Legendary figure NBC's Brian Williams looks back at the charmed childhood, family tragedies and political career of U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. Nightly News

JT, as usual it is always a pleasure. 

 

With all due respect, allow me to say that I do believe we need health care reform.  Second, I have not heard anyone not even Tanner make a good argument against health care reform, all I hear is rhetoric and see strange erratic behavior by some.  So since you have such a comprehension of the subject that allowed you to draw what appears to be a solid conclusion please feel free to enlighten me without the finger pointing and talking points.

 

Your words:

 

“Who wants a bill passed with over a thousand pages of socialist left wing garbage? I thought you guys had learnt from Burnham, but you obviously didn't. Obama is trying to push this thing through before next year, because after that he doesn't have a chance in hell. If you think the government can run the health care business, then you are delusional. Show me one thing the government has run efficiently. This is nothing more than a plan to tax the young workers of America into paying for something they do not need. And to have the gaul to threaten small businesses with increase taxation if they don't go along with his plan is downright tyrannical if you ask me. I can't wait to see this lunatic out of the white house! Change my ass!   

Is this what you liberals want for the whole country? Look at mass and california. Look at all the liberal run states, all going down the drain. yet you people like to talk trash about Alaska and texas....two states with money in the bank. You liberals are all the same. DELUSIONAL.  

When Massachusetts passed its pioneering health care reforms in 2006, critics warned that they would result in a slow but steady spiral downward toward a government-run health care system. Three years later, those predictions appear to be coming true”

 

 

WELL HURRAY TO EX GOV. MITT ROMNEY.  THE HANDSOME REPUBLICAN.  HE SIGNED THE BILL INTO LAW AND ALLOW ME PLEASE TO POST SOME OF HIS WORDS ON THE SUBJECT BACK IN 2006:

Gov. Romney, a Republican and a former businessman, bases his support on economics. When Romney became governor three years ago, a business colleague urged him to do something about the 500,000 or more Massachusetts residents without health insurance. Nearly nine out of ten are in working families.

After studying the problem, Romney says, he came away with a key insight: "People who don't have insurance nonetheless receive health care. And it's expensive."

Medical care for Massachusetts patients who lack health insurance is paid for by businesses. Companies -- mostly ones that already offer coverage to their employees -- subsidize a fund that pays for so-called "free" care when uninsured people end up in hospitals.

"We're spending a billion dollars giving health care to people who don't have insurance," Romney says. "And my question was: Could we take that billion dollars and help the poor purchase insurance? Let them pay what they can afford. We'll subsidize what they can't."

The governor's plan was endorsed by Democrats. And before long, it had attracted a coalition of business leaders and consumer advocates, insurance executives and clergymen, hospital CEO's and poor people.

After three years of work, only two legislators voted against the plan -- a carefully crafted, $1.3 billion bill that promises near-universal coverage.

The law says people earning under three times the federal poverty level --- that's $29,000 a year for an individual --- can buy a state-subsidized health plan with no deductibles and rich benefits, including dental care.

In promoting the plan, Romney brushes off those in his party who attacked the plan as just another big-government scheme. He emphasized that those who can afford insurance should get it.

 
 "Otherwise you're just passing your expenses on to someone else," Romney said. "That's not Republican, that's not Democratic, that's not Libertarian. That's just wrong."

Ed Haislmaier, of the The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank, which helped frame the legislation -- agrees with Romney.

For proof of the plan's worth, Haislmaier says, critics should look at who passed it: a Republican governor and a Democrat-dominated House.

"I don't care what the name of the state is," Haislmaier says. "It just tells anybody in the street there must be something there if you can get that to happen."

After all, Haislmaier says, welfare reform didn't happen on the federal level until Wisconsin did it first.

 

Who wants a bill passed with over a thousand pages of socialist left wing garbage? I thought you guys had learnt from Burnham, but you obviously didn't. Obama is trying to push this thing through before next year, because after that he doesn't have a chance in hell. If you think the government can run the health care business, then you are delusional. Show me one thing the government has run efficiently. This is nothing more than a plan to tax the young workers of America into paying for something they do not need. And to have the gaul to threaten small businesses with increase taxation if they don't go along with his plan is downright tyrannical if you ask me. I can't wait to see this lunatic out of the white house! Change my ass!

Is this what you liberals want for the whole country? Look at mass and california. Look at all the liberal run states, all going down the drain. yet you people like to talk trash about Alaska and texas....two states with money in the bank. You liberals are all the same. DELUSIONAL.

When Massachusetts passed its pioneering health care reforms in 2006, critics warned that they would result in a slow but steady spiral downward toward a government-run health care system. Three years later, those predictions appear to be coming true:

Although the state has reduced the number of residents without health insurance, 200,000 people remain uninsured. Moreover, the increase in the number of insured is primarily due to the state's generous subsidies, not the celebrated individual mandate. Health care costs continue to rise much faster than the national average. Since 2006, total state health care spending has increased by 28 percent. Insurance premiums have increased by 8–10 percent per year, nearly double the national average. Michael Tanner is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It (2007).

More by Michael D. Tanner New regulations and bureaucracy are limiting consumer choice and adding to health care costs. Program costs have skyrocketed. Despite tax increases, the program faces huge deficits. The state is considering caps on insurance premiums, cuts in reimbursements to providers, and even the possibility of a "global budget" on health care spending--with its attendant rationing. A shortage of providers, combined with increased demand, is increasing waiting times to see a physician. With the "Massachusetts model" frequently cited as a blueprint for health care reform, it is important to recognize that giving the government greater control over our health care system will have grave consequences for taxpayers, providers, and health care consumers. That is the lesson of the Massachusetts model. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10268

‘Passing a big bill like this is always messy,’ the president says

WASHINGTON - With control of the health care debate slipping from his grasp, President Barack Obama pitched his ambitious plan to both conservative talk radio and his own liberal supporters Thursday — and denied a challenge from one backer that he was "bucklin' a little bit" under Republican criticism.

Liberals were on the verge of revolt as Obama refused to say any final deal must include a government-run insurance option, while Republicans pressed their all-but-unified opposition to the White House effort. Obama, who will leave Washington Friday on vacation, said reason would prevail and it was no time to panic.

"I guarantee you ... we are going to get health care reform done. And I know that there are a lot of people out there who have been hand-wringing, and folks in the press are following every little twist and turn of the legislative process," Obama told a caller to Philadelphia-based radio talk show host Michael Smerconish during a broadcast from the White House Diplomatic Reception Room............read on.......  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32483116/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

Obama tells religious leaders that health coverage is a ‘moral obligation’

Caribbean Net News Published on Thursday, August 20, 2009
By Pascal Fletcher and Jane Sutton MIAMI, USA (Reuters) -- More overseas tax havens could turn into traps for tax cheats as the US-Swiss settlement over UBS AG invigorates an international campaign to flush out hideaways for illicit or undisclosed money. The long-awaited deal finalized on Wednesday, which foresees Switzerland handing over details of some 4,450 UBS bank accounts to US tax investigators, was hailed by experts as a masterpiece of diplomatic compromise that allowed both sides to claim a measure of success. But the experts say that despite this "diplomatic cover," there is little doubt that Switzerland's much vaunted reputation for bank secrecy has taken a dent, sending a powerful deterrent message to tax havens around the world. "This is no mere keyhole into the world of bank secrecy ... This agreement represents a major step forward ... to pierce the veil of bank secrecy and combat offshore tax evasion," US Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Doug Shulman said after Wednesday's UBS settlement details were announced. "The agreement we reached today sends an unmistakable message to people hiding income and assets offshore. The IRS will vigorously pursue tax cheats around the world, no matter how remote or secret the location," he added. Global leaders campaigning for an end to secretive tax havens hope this "nowhere to hide" warning will be heard by tax cheats and jurisdictions which might host them, from tiny Vanuatu in the South Pacific, to bustling trade hub Panama and the historic Alpine principality of Liechtenstein. Tax experts believe the high-profile US-UBS deal, coupled with an ongoing campaign against tax havens by the G20 group of leading industrialized and emerging market nations, will crank up the pressure for offshore financial centers to put their houses in order with regard to tax transparency. "As my old university professor used to say, when a tax loophole becomes well known it turns into a noose," said William Sharp, an attorney with Sharp Kemm PA in Tampa, Florida, who represents American clients of UBS. Some territories in the Caribbean -- a piracy hotspot in centuries past which then gained a modern-day reputation as a hideaway for ill-gotten funds and fugitive financiers -- have scrambled to get themselves dropped from an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development "grey list" of states which have not signed off on transparency accords. Last month, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands joined the OECD "white list" of countries using internationally recognized tax standards after signing at least 12 bilateral tax agreements in line with OECD standards. "The tax haven window is closing down. People do not want to take on the US government," Sharp said. Calls for improved financial regulation and transparency in the Caribbean have increased after the collapse in February of Texas billionaire Allen Stanford's business empire, which was centered on a bank he owned in Antigua and Barbuda. Stanford, a flamboyant sports entrepreneur who was granted a knighthood by Antigua and Barbuda, faces US civil and criminal charges related to an alleged $7 billion fraud that prosecutors say he operated with associates including a top Antiguan financial regulator. Several governments, including the United States, have launched programs inviting tax cheats to come clean and reveal themselves. Britain last month signed with Liechtenstein an agreement to encourage British clients with secret accounts there to voluntarily disclose their untaxed money. But some experts say that despite the recent crackdown and increased scrutiny, tax havens will continue to exist. "There are 55 to 60 airtight secrecy havens that dot the globe which have for the last 25 years been subjected to intense pressure by the industrialized nations -- the G8, US, EU, you name it -- and they withstand the pressure and they don't cave in," former federal prosecutor Charles Intriago told Reuters. Intriago is founder of the International Association for Asset Recovery, an industry group for those who hunt down criminal assets. He believes that between 20 and 25 percent of the UBS accounts sought by US authorities could be hiding "criminally obtained or wrongfully held assets." "For UBS to sanctimoniously say 'We have standards; these are only people who don't like to pay taxes,' that's a bunch of baloney," said Intriago, who called for tougher measures by US authorities to shut off access to tax havens. "The way to stop this is to block financial secrecy havens from dollar clearance in the United States," Intriago said. He said that even in the United States it is easy to create "shell" companies that hide the owners' identity, to set up Internet bank accounts and to move money to offshore havens without leaving a trail. "Just go on the Internet. We've got our own Caymans here," Intriago said.

 

CaribWorldNews, WASHINGTON, D.C., Tues. Aug. 11, 2009:

 Immigrants awaiting immigration reform to legalize their status in the U.S. will have to push their hopes into the New Year.

President Obama, at a summit with the leaders of Canada and Mexico in Guadalajara, Mexico Monday, claimed he has `a pretty big stack of bills` to deal with currently and any immigration reform is not possible until 2010.

Speaking at the end of a two-day summit meeting of North American leaders, Obama said, `When we come back next year . . . we should be in a position to start acting.`

He, however, claimed that his top staffers are meeting with lawmakers to drum up bipartisan support for the effort.

His change of tune was a far cry from candidate Obama, who promised immigrant and Latino voters that he would make immigration "a top priority in my first year as President."

Pro-immigration advocates say they are dismayed by the latest timetable even as President Obama said he is still very much for providing a road to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the United States.

`Now, am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done?` said Obama, speaking on a stage alongside Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. `No.`

`This is going to be difficult; it`s going to require bipartisan cooperation. There are going to be demagogues out there who try to suggest that any form of pathway for legalization for those who are already in the United States is unacceptable.

`But ultimately, I think the American people want fairness.`

Outcry over disowned US rape girl

Offers of help are pouring in for an eight-year-old Liberian girl disowned by her own family in Phoenix, Arizona, after being raped by four boys. The girl is under the care of the Arizona Child Protective Service (CPS) because her parents said she had shamed them, and they did not want her back. Phoenix police said calls had come in from all over the US offering money, or even to adopt the young girl. The boys, Liberian immigrants aged nine to 14, have been charged with rape. The case has sparked outrage across the US and even drawn condemnation from Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, an outspoken anti-rape campaigner. "I think that family is wrong. They should help that child who has been traumatised," Mrs Johnson-Sirleaf told CNN. "They too need serious counselling because clearly they are doing something, something that is no longer acceptable in our society here," she added. Brutal attack Media reports said the girl was lured into a shed on 16 July with promises of chewing gum by the four young boys. There, they held her down and took turns assaulting her for 10 to 15 minutes, before her screams alerted officers nearby. The oldest suspect, a 14-year-old boy, will be tried as an adult on charges of kidnapping and sexual assault, police said on Friday. He is being held in police custody until trial. The other three - aged 9, 10, and 13 - are charged as juveniles with sexual assault and kidnapping. But the police said no charges will be filed against the parents. "They didn't abandon the child," Phoenix police sergeant Andy Hill told AFP news agency. "They committed no crime. They just didn't support the child, which led to CPS coming over there." Sgt Hill said people from eight or nine US states had called wanting to adopt the girl or donate money. "It has been unbelievably fantastic in terms of support for the child," he said.

 

I agree with your comment: "No child should suffer the way this little girl did. May she find love and guidance to help her through this difficult perid in her life."

and I am encouraged to post the following from the article posted: 

"The victim and the boys charged are all from refugee families that have come to the United States from the war-torn West African nation of Liberia, police said.

Detectives said the girl was placed in the custody of Phoenix child protective services after the attack because of her parents' attitude toward her.

"The parents felt that they had been shamed or embarrassed by their child," Phoenix police Sgt. Andy Hill said.

The Phoenix Police Department has a community response unit that assists with such sensitive cases. "They made some initial contacts with the refugee community. They acted as liaison and were present when the child protective services agency took the victim," Hill said.

Protective services officers "will determine what's going to happen in the days ahead and they'll look at the past history with that family, if there is one," he said.

CNN affiliate KTVK said it interviewed the girl's 23-year-old sister, who said she was baby-sitting the girl at the time of the alleged attack.

The sister, who was not identified by name by the station, expressed mixed feelings about her sister's attack. "I came to her and said it's not good for you to be following guys because you are still little," the sister told KTVK. She also said that she wanted the suspects to be released from jail because "we are the same people."

"When she comes back I'm going to tell her don't ever do that again because all of us, we are the same family, we are from the same place. Now she is just bringing confusion among us. Now the other people, they don't want to see her," the sister told KTVK.

Tony Weedor, a Liberian who fled civil war with his family and now lives in the Denver, Colorado, area, told CNN that cultural aspects are deep in the case. In Liberia rape was not against the law until 2006, he said."

Now I ask: where is this child going to get the love and guidance for which you hope?   I can tell you certainly not from the Protective services officers nor the police and most definitely not from her own community unless of course they have adopted a different mind set.   See Tony Weedor's response and know this, Edwin Sele is being a diplomat.

The issues are many and while refugees are an incredibly resilient lot, they face unique challenges.   They need help to attain positive acculturation so that they can adopt to their new community while maintaining some essential cultural values of their homeland; and I can go on and on but will stop here and encourage anyone interested in making a difference, instead of wishing for something with expectation of its fulfillment, to join the Refugee Integration Services thru your Catholic Church if they are involved or thru the Refugee Family Services in your respective state.  

No child should suffer the way this little girl did. May she find love and guidance to help her through this difficult perid in her life.

(CNN) -- With four Phoenix, Arizona, boys ages 9 to 14 charged with sexual assault on an 8-year-old girl, a prosecutor vowed Thursday his office will "seek justice for the young victim in this heartrending situation."

"This is a deeply disturbing case that has gripped our community," said Maricopa County attorney Andrew Thomas.

According to Phoenix police, the girl was lured to a storage shed at an apartment complex on July 16. The four boys, who had offered the girl chewing gum, allegedly restrained and sexually assaulted her. At a news conference about the case Wednesday, police did not release any information on the girl's condition, but officers called the case one of the worst they have investigated in many years.

The 14-year-old was charged as an adult and will face two counts of sexual assault and one count of kidnapping, Thomas said Thursday. The other three boys were charged in juvenile court with sexual assault, and two of them also were charged with kidnapping, Thomas said.

All the suspects except for the 14-year-old live in the same apartment complex, according to Phoenix police Sgt. Andy Hill.

The victim and the boys charged are all from refugee families that have come to the United States from the war-torn West African nation of Liberia, police said.

Detectives said the girl was placed in the custody of Phoenix child protective services after the attack because of her parents' attitude toward her.

"The parents felt that they had been shamed or embarrassed by their child," Phoenix police Sgt. Andy Hill said.

The Phoenix Police Department has a community response unit that assists with such sensitive cases. "They made some initial contacts with the refugee community. They acted as liaison and were present when the child protective services agency took the victim," Hill said.

Protective services officers "will determine what's going to happen in the days ahead and they'll look at the past history with that family, if there is one," he said.

CNN affiliate KTVK said it interviewed the girl's 23-year-old sister, who said she was baby-sitting the girl at the time of the alleged attack.

The sister, who was not identified by name by the station, expressed mixed feelings about her sister's attack. "I came to her and said it's not good for you to be following guys because you are still little," the sister told KTVK. She also said that she wanted the suspects to be released from jail because "we are the same people."

"When she comes back I'm going to tell her don't ever do that again because all of us, we are the same family, we are from the same place. Now she is just bringing confusion among us. Now the other people, they don't want to see her," the sister told KTVK.

Tony Weedor, a Liberian who fled civil war with his family and now lives in the Denver, Colorado, area, told CNN that cultural aspects are deep in the case. In Liberia rape was not against the law until 2006, he said.

"The family [believes they] have been shamed by her, not a crime, but the name of the family has been degraded and news will get back to Liberia. And they're more concerned about that than the crime," said Weedor, who is co-founder of the CenterPoint International Foundation, which aids Liberian refugees in the United States and provides aid for those still in Liberia.

Edwin Sele, the deputy ambassador of Liberia to the United States, also responded to the incident.

"Having heard the story myself, I'm outraged," he said. "In Liberia, the family and law enforcement officers would be embracing the victim. To hear that the family is not doing that, that should be an isolated case."

Resettlement groups around the country help refugees settle into life in the United States. Among them is the Refugee and Immigrants Relief Center in Phoenix, where Omar Dolleh, a refugee from Sierra Leone in West Africa, is the program director.

As a part of the refugee orientation program, he said, his group touches upon the laws in the United States, but the most immediate goal for refugees and organizations that help them is finding employment and places to live.

This following really got me going:  

The 'unfathomable' arrest of a black scholar - CNN.com*

Today's Knowledge News What Is the G8? Today, the news turns to L'Aquila, a mountain town in central Italy and site of this year's G8 summit. On the Group of Eight's agenda: the global financial crisis, the international economic system, international trade, unemployment, food supplies, and climate change. On our agenda: a look at what the G8 is and where it came from. Basically, the Group of Eight is an ultra-exclusive club that every leader in the world would like to join. The club has no regular staff, no headquarters, and no budget. But membership does have its privileges: namely, a seat at the table where eight of the world's richest and most powerful nations address international economic and political issues. G6, G7, G8 . . . G9? There weren't always eight members. At the club's first official meeting, in 1975, there were only six: the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Italy, Germany, and France. French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing revved up the "G6" by inviting the leaders of the other five countries to a meeting outside Paris that focused on economic issues. Why the economic focus? In many ways, the new G6 was a souped-up version of the "Library Group," an informal committee of senior financial officials that had been meeting since 1973 to grapple with issues in international capitalism. The Library Group became the G6 when heads of state started crashing the finance ministers' parties. The G6 turned G7 when Canada got invited in 1976. The following year, the European Union became an official observer. The G7 grew to G8 when Russia joined in 1998, after a six-year courtship. Other leaders often get invitations to the party, but none has an automatic seat at the table, not even the ones with big economies and more than a billion people (sorry, India and China). G-Force As with any gathering of high-ranking executives, someone else has to do most of the actual work. In the case of the G8 (as in the case of K2), the heavy lifting falls mainly to "sherpas." Named for the Nepalese guides who show Western climbers how to summit Himalayan peaks, G8 sherpas (one per nation) meet four or five times a year, hammering out agendas and overseeing agreements. Heads of state frequently show up for the annual G8 summit with full entourages. But only sherpas (and translators) are allowed at the closed-door meetings that count most. Since no video or audio recordings of the meetings are made, the sherpas' notes provide the only record of what gets said. If leaders need pertinent information during the meeting, they can slip notes to their sherpas, who can answer by slipping notes back. If a sherpa doesn't have an answer, he or she can quietly slip out and pass the question on to a "sous-sherpa" (two per nation) waiting patiently outside. G-Money Experts disagree about the G8's importance. According to John Kirton, head of the G8 Research Group at the University of Toronto, "the G8 summit and supporting system have developed into the center of global governance, operating effectively, if largely invisibly, every day of the year." Others disagree, dismissing the G8 as a "ginger group," incapable of dealing with real issues. Either way, G8 membership is an enviable distinction. According to the World Bank, the G8 nations had a combined GDP of about $31 trillion in 2008. That means the G8 countries account for fully 45 percent of the world's economic output. Here's how the World Bank ranked the world's top 15 economies for 2008, as measured by GDP in U.S. dollars, adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP). The G8 countries are in italics. (Basically, a nation's GDP is the value of all the goods and services it produces in a year. Economists adjust GDP for purchasing power parity to account for the fact that a dollar buys more in some places than it does in others.) GDP (PPP), in trillions of U.S. dollars United States: 14.20 China: 7.90 Japan: 4.35 India: 3.39 Germany: 2.93 Russia: 2.29 United Kingdom: 2.18 France: 2.11 Brazil: 1.98 Italy: 1.84 Mexico: 1.54 Spain: 1.46 South Korea: 1.36 Canada: 1.21 Turkey: 1.03 --Steve Sampson