Competitiveness to the point of harm seems to be in the news a lot lately. In case you missed it, Newsweek's David Noonan reviewed a documentary about a silent killer among doctors: suicide. About a doctor a day -- between 300 and 400 a year -- takes his life, according to Noonan.

The problem, which plagues this profession marked by intense rotations, is not limited to men.

"While the rate of depression over a lifetime is basically the same for male physicians and the general population of men—about 12 percent—the doctors' suicide rate is 1.4 times higher. Female docs have double the rate of depression and 2.3 times the rate of suicide compared with the general population of women. (Some studies report equal rates of depression for women doctors; others report even higher suicide rates for physicians.)

So why aren't depressed docs seeking treatment for a common illness that millions of Americans have learned to manage with therapy and readily available medications? Because they worry—not without reason—that if they admit to a mental-health problem they could lose respect, referrals, income and even their licenses. Because, despite the steady increase in the number of women in the field, medicine is still very much a macho profession; physicians are supposed to be the strong ones who care for the sick, not the sick ones who need to be cared for."

Also, unlike the general population, doctors have access to prescription drugs and are more likely to die in a suicide attempt, according to Noonan's story.

>>>

Newsweek: Doctors Who Kill Themselves

Every year, between 300 and 400 doctors take their own lives—roughly one a day. No other profession has a higher suicide rate.
Apr 28, 2008 Issue
David Noonan
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132887

Hmmmm, someone's left a door open, right. I think I've lost the thread.

Have a fruitful week, y'all....d'y'hear. No bitterness... ripe golden plums will keep yer regular in a less Purgatory way. ;)

What's yer fruit Uncle Tree? What's that poisson (sp) swimming round yer roots? Whatson the tip of yer branches?

I Love you.....

#1 It's guilt, Vanessa. An apple a day keeps the doc away. I eat two a day and an apple!

Time to Get a Killer Instinct Against Clinton
by Matt Stoller
Open Left

I'm aware that Moveon and all of us have endorsed Obama and denounced Clinton for all sorts of reasons. Clinton has become more conservative of late, throwing away her policy-integrity just to pick off a few more older white voters with a gas holiday scam. Here's Paul Krugman:

"I've been on the road (actually doing a public dialog with Barney Frank on financial reform), so I'm just catching up. Anyway, John McCain has a really bad idea on gasoline, Hillary Clinton is emulating him (but with a twist that makes her plan pointless rather than evil), and Barack Obama, to his credit, says no."

I actually think her plan could easily be turned into one that is evil through political machinations, ie. a gas tax holiday goes through while the oil company profits tax is stripped out, but the point is that Clinton is running as a full-blown conservative. And why shouldn't she do that and go on O'Reilly? We have rejected her, so she has to find her votes somewhere. Nevertheless, it's time to recognize that she is an opponent of liberals, and act that way.

Moveon and SEIU are probably the only groups with the capacity to do this, but basically, the Bosnia sniper fire lie needs to be replayed over and over in Indiana, and then spliced with this tax scam and the quote that her plan will lose 300,000 highway jobs because she will say anything to get elected. Clinton needs to be called out as a liar who is a weak candidate, and it is Obama-supporting Moveon members that could do this. Obviously the group would have trouble since many of its members do like Clinton, but honestly, we need a killer instinct here and not more praise of Obama.

Alternatively, SEIU could do it, but they run into a similar institutional hurdle of having ties to Clinton. Maybe the only group that could do it would be a savvy group of wealthy Obama backers who could form a 527 and just get this done.

Clinton is very weak, she's come after liberals, and we should just put her away. And if we can't, let's figure out how to fix this institutional lack of a killer instinct.

Hillary's gay problem and gay bashing...

John Aravosis(a gay man) at Americablog writes, April 29:

...Now why would Hillary embrace gay-bashing to help her campaign? Well, putting aside the Clintons' history of embracing gay-bashing when it suited them, take a look at what Ben Smith wrote this morning:

"Easley[Governor of NC, Clinton's top surrogate in the state] is a meaningful ally in the culture war she's waging against Senator Barack Obama, as she seeks to cast him as a hopelessly unelectable liberal elitist..."

Oh, so Hillary has launched a "culture war" against Obama. And what are the three elements of the culture wars? God, guns, and gays. Hillary already pulled the God and gun card on Obama in Pennsylvania, where she couldn't even say when she last went to church, and then claimed she was a hunter after a lifetime as one of America's top gun control advocates. And now she's gay-bashing.

And actually, she started subtly gay-bashing a while back. Remember all of her "San Francisco" references? Then there was her top aides calling Obama supporters "latte sippers who only care about "feelings" (i.e., they're a bit effeminate and effete). (Then again, look who's advising her.)

It's ironic. Hillary is afraid to use the word "gay," and gets visibly uncomfortable when answering questions about gay issues. But using slurs for "fag"" doesn't bother her in the least. Hillary and her people will say anything to get elected. And if that means gay-bashing to win the bubba vote, then so be it. And her people wonder why so many have turned on Hillary in the past few months.

Hillary's gay problem
John Aravosis (DC)
4/23/2008

My friend Phil Attey asks why Obama keeps mentioning gays and lesbians in his speeches - speeches he makes to the public at large, not just gay audiences - and Hillary never does. Phil writes:

"Last month, a gay Philadelphian LGBT publisher raised the issue that Senator Obama, though often addressing LGBT issues and including us in his major speeches, was not granting his publication an exclusive interview. Senator Obama quickly addressed the issue and granted an exclusive interview to the national LGBT publication, The Advocate.

Tonight, following the Pennsylvania Primary, Senator Obama once again showed his commitment to our community by including us in his address to the nation. Senator Clinton, speech, once again, did not include us, and it brings up the issue that hers never do."

Phil is right. And he's not the only one to notice:

"But Obama speaks movingly of gay equality, and not just before gay audiences. He has raised the issue among white farmers and in black churches, where the message is both unwelcome and needed.

Clinton, by contrast, rarely raises the issue on her own, never does so before unfriendly audiences, and seems reluctant even to say the word “gay.”

Obama “gets it” in a way that no previous candidate for president has. Part of this is generational, but it is nonetheless real."

Obama mentions us in his speeches, a lot. And yes, Hillary will say those are just words. But you know, Obama was willing to chastize his own community for their homophobia in a speech given on Martin Luther King's birthday in MLK's own church to thousands of black leaders. Those are words that matter. Here's to hoping that Hillary can find it in herself to utter the word gay (and even lesbian) in a setting that isn't limited to a gay audience.

One more thing, watch this interview Hillary did with the gay cable network, Logo. First, the issue comes up about her never using the g-word, and she does use it, once during an entire 5 minute interview with a gay station about gay issues, while mentioning "gay organizations." But notice how repeatedly in the interview Hillary hesitates and stumbles at places where you would naturally expect her to say the word "gay" - she doesn't say it - she kind of stops, doesn't say gay, then moves on. Watch the video for yourself. She's not comfortable saying the word. Obama is. I think that tells you something about how they feel about the issue inside. It's likely generational - he's in his 40s, my generation, she's 60. A transcript of the worst part follows the video, below - note particularly the question and her answer 1 minute and 2 seconds in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hep7iVSOswo

1:02 LOGO: "Your opponent, Senator Obama, regularly mentions gay people in his stump speech... You don't mention gay rights all the time in your stump speech, you do when you're in front of gay audiences, why is that?"

1:21 CLINTON: "Well I do mention, uh, from time to time, um, you know I don't mention, you know, everything in every speech that I give, but uh people, you know, know how committed I am and they know what I've done, and that I led the efforts uh to try and defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment, working with you know all of the major uh gay rights organizations, uh, so you know I'm gonna continue to not just talk about what I will do but demonstrate by my actions what I have done and will do."

http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/hillarys-gay-problem.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Saturday, April 26, 2008
Hillary's gay problem, Part II
by John Aravosis (DC)

I wrote the other day about how Hillary seems downright afraid of saying the word "gay" (and don't even try to get her to say "lesbian"). I thought it might be interesting to see, in a real-world gay event, just how often Hillary used the words gay, lesbian and lgbt as compared to Obama. Well, what better event to test the candidates than the LOGO gay forum last August where all the Dem candidates were quizzed about gay issues. Here's what we found, in terms of how often Obama and Hillary used the following gay-related words:

Obama: 7 gay, 5 lgbt, 3 lesbian
Clinton: 2 gay, 1 lgbt, 0 lesbian

So that's 15 references for Obama, 3 for Hillary. And notably, no "lesbian" at all for Hillary.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hillary's top NC surrogate bashes gays in front of her this morning, she does nothing

by John Aravosis (DC)
4/29/2008

Pansy? Standing next to Clinton, her top surrogate in North Carolina actually used the word "pansy" this morning.

"After touring a bio-manufacturing training center, Gov. Easley, First Lady of North Carolina Mary Easley and Clinton held a ceremony at NC State University. The Governor formally expressed his support saying that there was "nothing I love more than a strong powerful woman." Easley concluded his remarks saying Clinton -- "makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy"."

In case anyone has been living under a rock, pansy is slang for "fag."

pan·sy

a. Used as a disparaging term for a man or boy who is considered effeminate.

b. Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual man.

So, Hillary isn't gay? Or Hillary isn't a weak gay? And of course, gays are something bad that need to be avoided. Now why would Hillary embrace gay-bashing to help her campaign?

ZRII - A Nutritional Health Beverage!

ZRII is still in PRE-LAUNCH and scheduled to launch worldwide May 22nd!

Don't miss this opportunity to be at the VERY TOP of a Network Marketing Company guaranteed to take the world by storm!

ZRII was founded and created by Bill Farley, a VERY successful businessman and head of a BILLION dollar empire!

Also Co-founded and endorsed by our very own "WORLD FAMOUS CHOPRA CENTER FOR WELL BEING."

ZRII Represents... Light... Luster... Splendor... Beauty... Love... Joy... Happiness... Peace... Good Fortune... Prosperity and Wealth!

Discover why ZRII translates to Prosperity and Wealth. Initial membership is $49 with a monthly autoship for as low as $120/mo.

Click on my name and watch the short video clip!

Lily S.

Hi Vanessa,

I am reading a book at the moment that you may have seen advertised on TV. It is by a guy called Eckhart Tolle and the book is called A New Earth.

In there he talks about stuff that I mainly know already but in particular he speaks about how most people are suffering from mental illness brought about by thinking/mind based sense of self.

He gives a life experience of his own where by he recounts back to when he was a student in London and his University lecturer; a man he held in such high esteem as being a great thinker and great man; shot himself.

People are possesed by thought, being a doctor or being an intillectual does not mean that one has exclusive understanding; on the contrary; the more content one adds to their life, to their mind, the more problems they will be faced with if they are living in the head.

I learned a long time ago that Intelligence and Wisdom are two very different things maybe even opposites at times.

Meditation is probably the only therapy the body really ever needs if the truth was known.

In the Book I mentioned above; he talks about how all things on earth grow. Maybe this is even the purpose if you want to put a purpose on life. Even Human beings are growing even into old age we are growing not just physicaly but spiritualy and this seems to be what the main purpose of life is. For us to grow up.

xx Simon

I love you, too, Ed...

Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered?

There is a fasanating debate occuring at Slashdot.org (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/26/210230&from=rss) on this very subject.

Both sides have a good argument -- is something discovered or what is already there... one side say that the mathematic relationships are a form of abstraction that our mind uses to explain the universe... and as such they are invented by humans... whereas the other side argues that these mathematic truths were always there, whether we had discovered them or not...

Hey Keith,

How the hell you doing young fella?

LTNS

#8 Could it be, Simon, that 'God' is 'growing' into this particular neck of the woods as much as we allow It? He's a patient Woman.

I asked Vanessa before about ET. I hope she finds time to answer you ;)

Canada is often looked up to as a green country, well, maybe not so green after all!

Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta Is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (And Doesn't Seem to Care) (Hardcover)
by William Marsden (Author)

One reader says this:

“This should be mandatory reading for all high-school, college and University students. Every Canadian should be reading this one. As an Albertan and someone who works in the oil industry - this one is an eye-opener for myself and I've seen things those not working in Syncrude, Suncor and in Edmonton wouldn't believe.

Please Canada: Save us from our selves. We've elected more losers to make foreign companies rich, while starving our own people and the rest of Canada. Help, we're Stupid to the Last Drop and there is no 'seeming' about, we really don't care!”

~ A Collective Dysfunction ~

Recognize the ego for what it is: a collective dysfunction,
the insanity of the human mind. When you recognize it for what it is,
you no longer misperceive it as somebody's identity.

Once you see the ego for what it is, it becomes much easier to
remain nonreactive toward it. You don't take it personally anymore.
There is no complaining, blaming, accusing, or making wrong.
Nobody is wrong. It is the ego in someone, that's all.

Compassion arises when you recognize that all are suffering
from the same sickness of the mind, some more acutely than others.
You do not fuel the drama anymore that is part of all egoic relationships.

What is its fuel? Reactivity. The ego thrives on it.

~ Eckhart Tolle
A New Earth

Dowd is a Lieberman of journalism. A fake liberal. Nah... calling her a fake liberal would imply that she has an ideological position. She honestly hasn't given the policy positions that much thought. It isn't about that for her; she has other axes to grind.

Like, basically against any strong, empowered, independent spouse in politics. Which means de facto Democratic spouses. :-(

She's just a snark. Thinks she's funny.

Maureen Dowd is all about Maureen Dowd. To further the cause of Maureen Dowd, she employs her only real tools - a penchant for cutesy phrase making, and an overly clever prose style that constantly calls attention to itself - to conceal the fact that she has nothing of substance to say. Once in a great while, however, she accidentally says something that is actually true. This may explain why she still has a job at the Times.

Dowd only deals in caricatures which is bad enough, but Bill Kristol takes the cake. The guy is completely shameless and is the classic example of having been born on 3rd base and growing up thinking he’s hit a triple. I’m a long-time subscriber to the NYT, and I have yet to get past the 2nd paragraph of any column of his I’ve seen. David Brooks strikes me as nothing more than a Kristol wanna-be, and I can think of nothing more inane than that.

You can expect the kind of crap that Brooks and Kristol dole out, since they are unrepentant Republicans. But Dowd spent both the Gore/Bush and the Kerry/Bush campaigns lustily trashing the Democratic candidates, and then purported to be upset when Bush turned out to be such a stinker of a president. She's on the loose again, and she burns me to the core.

NYT has gone to bat for Obama lately.

Good to see. Hopefully the "double standard" can be revealed, and we can shine a light on McCain's hypocricy.

Even Paul Krugman finally said something positive about an Obama position in contrast to Clinton. The right wing opinion writers will probably still push race baiting anti-Obama themes.

Krugman is still in the tank for HRC, still shilling away. Yes, he criticized Clinton and McCain for the gas tax holiday... while giving Obama "credit" for opposing it.

BUT THEN... he had go and add a paragraph at the end slamming Obama for the completely unrelated issue of "universal healthcare." I think Krugman only gets paid by the insurance companies on the days he attacks Obama.

Still a HACK opinion columnist. Krugman's not a journalist. He's a professor of economics who writes opinion columns for the op-ed page of a large newspaper. There is a difference.

Despite the opprobrium heaped on the profession of journalism, there are still some journalists who do try to uphold the ideals, to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. Too few, unfortunately, are writing/talking via the major media sources in this country.

Dowd is a Lieberman of journalism. A fake liberal. Nah... calling her a fake liberal would imply that she has an ideological position. She honestly hasn't given the policy positions that much thought. It isn't about that for her; she has other axes to grind.

Like, basically against any strong, empowered, independent spouse in politics. Which means de facto Democratic spouses. :-(

She's just a snark. Thinks she's funny.

Maureen Dowd is all about Maureen Dowd. To further the cause of Maureen Dowd, she employs her only real tools - a penchant for cutesy phrase making, and an overly clever prose style that constantly calls attention to itself - to conceal the fact that she has nothing of substance to say. Once in a great while, however, she accidentally says something that is actually true. This may explain why she still has a job at the Times.

Dowd only deals in caricatures which is bad enough, but Bill Kristol takes the cake. The guy is completely shameless and is the classic example of having been born on 3rd base and growing up thinking he’s hit a triple. I’m a long-time subscriber to the NYT, and I have yet to get past the 2nd paragraph of any column of his I’ve seen. David Brooks strikes me as nothing more than a Kristol wanna-be, and I can think of nothing more inane than that.

You can expect the kind of crap that Brooks and Kristol dole out, since they are unrepentant Republicans. But Dowd spent both the Gore/Bush and the Kerry/Bush campaigns lustily trashing the Democratic candidates, and then purported to be upset when Bush turned out to be such a stinker of a president. She's on the loose again, and she burns me to the core.

NYT has gone to bat for Obama lately.

Good to see. Hopefully the "double standard" can be revealed, and we can shine a light on McCain's hypocricy.

Even Paul Krugman finally said something positive about an Obama position in contrast to Clinton. The right wing opinion writers will probably still push race baiting anti-Obama themes.

Krugman is still in the tank for HRC, still shilling away. Yes, he criticized Clinton and McCain for the gas tax holiday... while giving Obama "credit" for opposing it.

BUT THEN... he had go and add a paragraph at the end slamming Obama for the completely unrelated issue of "universal healthcare." I think Krugman only gets paid by the insurance companies on the days he attacks Obama.

Still a HACK opinion columnist. Krugman's not a journalist. He's a professor of economics who writes opinion columns for the op-ed page of a large newspaper. There is a difference.

Despite the opprobrium heaped on the profession of journalism, there are still some journalists who do try to uphold the ideals, to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. Too few, unfortunately, are writing/talking via the major media sources in this country.

Hola my dear, playing three degree's of seperation to meet you, I would very much like to have a coffee with you someday, I do beleive your real, but i would love to know for sure.

Love
Tammy

TO:Deepak
From: Tammy

Dowd is a Lieberman of journalism. A fake liberal. Nah... calling her a fake liberal would imply that she has an ideological position. She honestly hasn't given the policy positions that much thought. It isn't about that for her; she has other axes to grind.

Like, basically against any strong, empowered, independent spouse in politics. Which means de facto Democratic spouses. :-(

She's just a snark. Thinks she's funny.

Maureen Dowd is all about Maureen Dowd. To further the cause of Maureen Dowd, she employs her only real tools - a penchant for cutesy phrase making, and an overly clever prose style that constantly calls attention to itself - to conceal the fact that she has nothing of substance to say. Once in a great while, however, she accidentally says something that is actually true. This may explain why she still has a job at the Times.

Dowd only deals in caricatures which is bad enough, but Bill Kristol takes the cake. The guy is completely shameless and is the classic example of having been born on 3rd base and growing up thinking he’s hit a triple. I’m a long-time subscriber to the NYT, and I have yet to get past the 2nd paragraph of any column of his I’ve seen. David Brooks strikes me as nothing more than a Kristol wanna-be, and I can think of nothing more inane than that.

You can expect the kind of crap that Brooks and Kristol dole out, since they are unrepentant Republicans. But Dowd spent both the Gore/Bush and the Kerry/Bush campaigns lustily trashing the Democratic candidates, and then purported to be upset when Bush turned out to be such a stinker of a president. She's on the loose again, and she burns me to the core.

NYT has gone to bat for Obama lately.

Good to see. Hopefully the "double standard" can be revealed, and we can shine a light on McCain's hypocricy.

Even Paul Krugman finally said something positive about an Obama position in contrast to Clinton. The right wing opinion writers will probably still push race baiting anti-Obama themes.

Krugman is still in the tank for HRC, still shilling away. Yes, he criticized Clinton and McCain for the gas tax holiday... while giving Obama "credit" for opposing it.

BUT THEN... he had go and add a paragraph at the end slamming Obama for the completely unrelated issue of "universal healthcare." I think Krugman only gets paid by the insurance companies on the days he attacks Obama.

Still a HACK opinion columnist. Krugman's not a journalist. He's a professor of economics who writes opinion columns for the op-ed page of a large newspaper. There is a difference.

Despite the opprobrium heaped on the profession of journalism, there are still some journalists who do try to uphold the ideals, to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. Too few, unfortunately, are writing/talking via the major media sources in this country.

Lessons Learned
by Hunter

Things I have learned during this campaign season:

In a race that includes a former First Lady of the United States and a multimillionaire Republican senator rumored to share up to eight residences with his wife, the black guy from Chicago is unforgivably elitist.

Racism in America is caused primarily by black Chicago preachers.

The guy who keeps getting confused over the relationship between Iraq, Iran, and al Qaeda is the foreign policy expert.

The guy who goes to campaign stops on his wife's private jet aircraft is the most down-to-earth.

The guy who changed his stance on tax cuts, Roe v. Wade, immigration, gun control, the confederate flag, torture, public financing, and his own anti-earmark rhetoric is the "straight talker".

People in the heartland don't like it when you call them bitter, but they do like it when you explain to them that they're too dumb to understand issues more important than whether or not they like to be called bitter.

Arugula is the measure of a man.

Bowling is the measure of a man.

Orange juice is the measure of a man.

Flag pins are the measure of a man.

Success in Iraq consists of any reduction in violence, except when violence increases that's good too.

A recession is only a recession if you call it one.

Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove, Maureen Dowd, David Brooks, David Broder, Charles Krauthammer and Bob Novak are all intensely interested in giving advice to the Democratic candidates because they just want to be helpful.

There are people in this world dumb enough to believe every one of these things.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/30/5116/10167/257/506203

***

Hunter (Michael Lazzaro)

As a Daily Kos contributing editor, Michael Lazzaro, 38, —a.k.a. ”Hunter”—has gained a reputation for passionate, explorative, and offbeat progressive writing. His wide-ranging essays and editorials are alternately probing and combative, provide stirring defenses of progressive and liberal ideals, and frequently explore the underlying dynamics of the progressive and liberal online communities themselves.

McCain-Clinton Gas Tax Holiday Proposal Slammed
by SusanG
dKos

File this under "It Didn't Even Seem Like a Good Idea at the Time":

>>>>>>>>>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A gas tax holiday proposed by U.S. presidential hopefuls John McCain and Hillary Clinton is viewed as a bad idea by many economists and has drawn unexpected support for Clinton rival Barack Obama, who also is opposed.

"Score one for Obama," wrote Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. "In light of the side effects associated with driving ... gasoline taxes should be higher than they are, not lower.">>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Reuters article cites Bush's former chariman of the Council of Economics advisors, economics professors, think tank wonks and Paul Krugman, all agreeing that the proposal sucks eggs. When you have Krugman and former Bush officials agreeing on something, it must truly be bad.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Economists said that since refineries cannot increase their supply of gasoline in the space of a few summer months, lower prices will just boost demand and the benefits will flow to oil companies, not consumers.

"You are just going to push up the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut," said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington.">>>>>>>>>>>

Obama threw out a great quote about the proposal yesterday; "This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election."

Confirmation of Obama's take was provided this morning by the Washington Post:

>>>>>>>>>>>>Clinton aides think that even if the measure is a limited way to reduce gas prices, it allows the candidate to bash oil companies and cast her opponent against an idea that has political appeal.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Aside from the political ploy aspect, there is the long-term cost of convincing the public that such an elementary quick fix will solve our energy problems, as the Reuters article points out:

>>>>>>>>>>>>Many economists implicitly agreed with Obama and said the McCain-Clinton gas tax plan sent the wrong signal on energy efficiency and was at odds with their pledges to combat climate change by encouraging lower U.S. carbon emissions.>>>>>>>>>>>>

Update: To get an extra taste of how bad it is, here's an excerpt from uber-Clinton supporter Krugman's analysis:

>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, John McCain has a really bad idea on gasoline, Hillary Clinton is emulating him (but with a twist that makes her plan pointless rather than evil), and Barack Obama, to his credit, says no....The Clinton twist is that she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies. In one pocket, out the other. So it’s pointless, not evil. But it is pointless, and disappointing.>>>>>>>>>

Update #2: And here's Tom Friedman on it as well:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/30/111541/259/121/506355

***

SusanG (Susan Gardner)
Executive Editor

Susan Gardner is a native Southern Californian, born in 1958. She attended Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts and returned to California to work for the Riverside Press-Enterprise Company as editor and publisher of one of its large community weekly newspapers during the 1980’s. After taking a decade and a half off to raise a family, she returned to politics and writing via Daily Kos several years ago and became a contributing editor in 2006. She’s also been a freelance editor and writer, general manager of a special education curriculum company and the exhausted mother of four children. She lives in Santa Barbara, California.

Well Vanessa there lies the answer to your suicide for doctors questions/article.

#12

Hi Ed,

Yes it could be.

Something I accepted a while back was that the greatest miracle that God has ever performed is just simply the miracle of all is possible.

All of the magic tricks and healings of the profits do not compare to the miracle of all things being possible through god.

Even if I make up the most stupidest of ideas right now and say it is true then somewhere it can be true.

I don't have a problem with anybody elses ideology because it is all God.

The only thing we can really be busy doing above all else is God Realisation. It is the most fundamental purpose of living if indeed there needs to be a purpose in the first place for you to follow it.

Growing up is essentially about realising God and that may happen in a second or it could take ten thousand years but it is just the process of growing up.

Contemplate God with an empty mind and nothing else is needed.

Love

Simon xx

Indeed Simon.

Oprah is doing a big deal with Eckhart
Tolle. It has been discussed here and elsewhere. After Oprah's Jan 2008 book recommendation, "A New Earth"(2005) seems to have sold well over 4 million copies and over half a million people from over 100 countries have signed up for book reading seminars with Oprah and ET.

Something I just learned that I was unaware of is that she is taking a big hit for this from some Xian Fundies, who are calling her an Antichrist. It's not that he is a flaming Satanist but just popular and offering an alternative to Xian Kindergarten. She takes the hit because of her enormous wealth and power and because she's black and Barack Obama's most prominent supporter.

A sample discussion:
http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/talk_radio/2008/04/know-thy-enema.html

Blatherwatch's premise and slogan: Listening to Talk Radio so you don't have to

Love ~ Kahlil Gibran

When love beckons to you, follow him,
Though his ways are hard and steep.
And when his wings enfold you yield to him,
Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.
And when he speaks to you believe in him,
Though his voice may shatter your dreams
as the north wind lays waste the garden.

For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for
your growth so is he for your pruning.
Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches
that quiver in the sun,
So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to
the earth.

Like sheaves of corn he gathers you unto himself.
He threshes you to make you naked.
He sifts you to free you from your husks.
He grinds you to whiteness.
He kneads you until you are pliant;
And then he assigns you to his sacred fire, that you may become sacred
bread for God's sacred feast.

All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets
of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life's heart.

But if in your fear you would seek only love's peace and love's pleasure,
Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out
of love's threshing-floor,
Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your
laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears.
Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself.
Love possesses not nor would it be possessed;
For love is sufficient unto love.

When you love you should not say, "God is in my heart," but rather, "I
am in the heart of God."
And think not you can direct the course of love, for love, if it finds
you worthy, directs your course.

Love has no other desire but to fulfill itself.
But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires:
To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night.
To know the pain of too much tenderness.
To be wounded by your own understanding of love;
And to bleed willingly and joyfully.
To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of
loving;
To rest at the noon hour and meditate love's ecstasy;
To return home at eventide with gratitude;
And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a
song of praise upon your lips.

~~~~~~

Only love exists...everything else is man-made and subject to errors of interpretation.

v

Hey Simon!

I'm still hangin' out here as you can see.

I like it when strangers with strange names write to me.

That way I know I'm not dead to the world. Oh!

Somebody pinch me, I feels too good to be real! XXOO

.

The devil doesn't want you to think he's real.

What? No devil? Nowhere? Not even in the details?

But...but...but, if there is only God...then what?

Me2 included. There is no frikin'up. And there's no down, either.

No back, no forth. Laws, laws, laws, Jesus Christ III!!!

Everything is possible, including liars, thieves and chumps like me!

Xian kindergarten.. pretty good
almost as good as red diaper doper babies

btw, when is the next big Oprah/Obama rally scheduled?

A surprising tidbit(from ABC News blog): Despite the 19-hour days she puts in on the trail, she's apparently never heard of the energy drink Red Bull. Asked if she's ever had one, she replied, "No. What is it?"

very non-elitist!

Ask her about luxury alcohol brands like Crown Royal XR (Bottle costs $180), which she shamelessly drank before a nation of impressionable teens, just before the Pennsylvania primary.

Obama doesn't need Oprah for "big" rallies. His biggest rally of the campaign was in Philly just days before the Penn primaries. He attracted more than 35,000 people. For comparison of crowd size, the Pope a day before Obama rally, in NYC, attracted 40,000 people.

btw, he won Philly area by 30 points (65%-35%)

NBC Video: Hillary Clinton in a convenience story trying to get some coffee.

April 30, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C9bkuJliMY

Very down to earth, non-elitist!

I see Vanessa and Indy wrote about Hillary's gas tax scam, but this is interesting:

Sam Stein: Expert Support For Gas Tax Holiday Appears Nonexistent

...I emailed Howard Wolfson, Clinton's spokesperson, asking him to put me in touch with an economic or environmental analyst who favored his boss' plan. He never wrote back.

So I took the task upon myself. I would call experts from all sides of the ideological aisle to get a sense of where the debate stood. In the end, every single analyst I surveyed judged the gas tax holiday proposal to be, roughly speaking, a silly, superfluous, or outright pandering idea.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/expert-support-for-gas-ta_n_99474.html

Haven’t followed the Barack vs Hillary thing very much but watched Michael Moore on Larry King tonight.

If we want to believe Mr Moore, Hillary has changed big time and is not a very nice person anymore!

Politico throws ice water in the face of Hillary's fantasy.

Wow. If these guys are including this much honesty in an article, maybe the tide really has changed.

Hillary's Fantasy World.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9994.html

"What’s wrong with this picture?

First, Clinton does not lead Obama in the popular vote. It is a fantasy.

Second, the people she most needs to convince that this fantasy is true are the people least likely to believe it.

Let’s first deal with Clinton’s fantasy lead in the popular vote.

"I’m very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else," Clinton said the day after her victory in the April 22 Pennsylvania primary.

But has she really? No. Not really. Not unless you throw out the existing rules of the Democratic Party and invent a new set of Hillary Rules."

Report says majority of House and Senate superdelagtes privately support Obama.

Senator: Obama has dozens of super delagates lined up.

He picked up more (8-4) superdelegates than Clinton even after the Pennsylvania loss.

As per her gas tax gimmick, the Clinton camp is defending and attacking with more deception, hoping to win more dumb votes.

Here's an interesting artcile by Peter Roebuck on the ongoing IPL T20 Cricket extravaganza...

Four thumbs up

The IPL has showcased a high standard of cricket, emphasised sportsmanship, fostered camaraderie, and treated spectators right. More power to it.

May 1, 2008

Cricinfo

Although still in its infancy, and therefore capable of experiencing a troubled adolescence and disappointing adulthood, the IPL has so far surpassed expectations. Reports indicate that India has been in a ferment and sometimes even a frenzy. Of course, there is nothing unusual about that. Taken as a whole, cricket followers in the region are not inclined to sit in an armchair smoking a pipe before offering an opinion about the selectors, Greg Chappell, Shoaib Akhtar, or whoever else is currently tickling their ivories. To the contrary, the customary modus operandi is to act upon the thought with an alacrity calculated to please Mrs Macbeth and shame Hamlet.

That India is agog is not altogether surprising, for the IPL has been an Indian enterprise driven by Indian money and staged on Indian soil. Presumably the players have been feeding upon dosas. Apart from Sachin Tendulkar, whose untimely injury has robbed his team of its lustre and its leadership (alas, his replacement has again betrayed a lack of restraint and manners), Indian cricket and the country itself have been seen in all their glory. The IPL has been a splendid advertisement for the nation.

Altogether more significant, though, has been the response overseas. Cricket folk around the world have been closely following the unfolding drama. Never mind that winter sports have taken hold in Australia and South Africa, the IPL games have held their own. Never mind that its soccer teams have been dominating the European stage and that no Englishmen have been playing in the IPL so far, England has also become involved

Even stuffed shirts have grudgingly admitted that the tournament has so far been a success. These stiff collars tend to take cricket a little too seriously. It is worth remembering that an IPL match lasts as long as an opera (except those written by the more Germanic composers) or a Shakespearean play (unless staged by a Norwegian director). First and foremost, these works of art offered a good night out. They existed in theatres and on stages and only later on paper. Otherwise they were dead in the water. The Swan of Avon did not hesitate to include Fools and songs in his tragedies, nor did he scorn farces. Audiences can forgive anything except tedium. Afterwards the masterpieces were identified and their virtues extolled and examined.

In short, cricket ought not to be shy of providing brief entertainment to the population at large. In some opinions the IPL has laid it on a bit thick, but then, traditionalists are not forced to attend. Suggestions that the game will be permanently damaged by these exuberances are also unduly pessimistic. The trouble with traditionalists is that they present themselves as protectors of the game's values but are actually doomed romantics. They lament the present state of affairs yet resist innovation. Casting themselves as heavyweight, they reject the slap-happy, mistaking it for the slapdash. But it is a mistake to overestimate the past. It was not such a fine place. Nor is it possible to pin cricket into a book, like a dead butterfly.

That the game is in poor health and could hardly sink much further could be argued with equal force. All the more reason to break the chains, to let the game try its luck in a different format. Doubtless there will be a price to pay, but is there so much to lose? Take a closer look at the situation.

Full artcile...

http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/348180.html

Peter Roebuck is a former captain of Somerset and the author, most recently, of In It to Win It

© Cricinfo ESPN

Why no?
Why no?

Maybe united inside illusions of peace-actions
Words of light

So, no love-echo for sure
But
But I understood it was not enough

Me voy
So sad but it's my fault
Me voy

Should I learn to not put anything-blind in my basket
So sad, there was much more to feel
Me voy...

In response to Clinton's and McCain's recent calls for a gas tax "holiday," former Clinton Energy Secretary Federico Pena released the following statement today:

"Today we're seeing another example of Washington politics at its worst. Senator Clinton is running TV ads and launching repeated attacks on Barack Obama for not supporting the gas tax holiday she's supporting, but today her own aides told the Washington Post that they know that this is a questionable plan and that they are using it to make it appear they're against big oil. The Clinton gas tax gimmick does little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and will actually increase oil prices. It is the kind of pandering that insults people's intelligence. With energy prices skyrocketing, we're looking for real solutions—not political posturing to get elected."

It's Hillary vs. the coffee machine
by Joe Sudbay
Amerciablog
Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Got a tip from a reader (one of our friends, Paddy who writes at Cliff Schechter's blog) that after Hillary's fake visit to the gas station, the woman-of-the-people (who as AP noted "hasn't driven a car or pumped gas in many years") decided to get herself a cup of Joe (except we hear it was a cappuccino -- she wanted the fancy stuff.) That's typically hypocritical when one of her own supporters slammed latte drinkers today while praising Hillary's "testicular fortitude."

Except, one small problem: Hillary's been in her bubble for so long, she didn't know how to work the machine. Just watch the video as Hillary tries to figure out the buttons. It's going to be a classic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C9bkuJliMY

That's called flubbing the photo op.

Bill Clinton doubles down and defends the much-derided gas tax holiday.

Reuters reports that every policy wonk thinks its a bad idea.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUKN3038243520080430

.

Non-Democratic voters will decide the close race in Indiana -- Republicans favor Clinton, Independents favor Obama:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/04/29/nondemocrats_will_decide_indiana.html

.

And Rush Limbaugh re-starts Operation Chaos. Jonathan Martin points out that this time it could actually make a difference:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0408/Limbaugh_calls_for_restart_to_Operation_Choas_.html

Ketchikan, Alaska Is Now Part of Canada!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUsH6Sj7oVs

LOL

#22 Oo, I love that One, Vanessa. (Kahlil Gibran)

I do think whatever Man makes is still fashioned out of Love, which you imply. It pursues us, so to speak.
I perceive you have very neatly given us your view on ET. Kahlil socks it to us, ET.....hmmm...sucks?

MERRY-GO-ROUND

Every time we drove our neighbor
& her daughter to the park
it was the same story
Aisha would head for the merry-go-round
which is a piece of playground equipment
that consists of a sturdy steel platform
round with solid metal bars running
from the perimeter to the inside
which will spin around its center

The kids would grab one of the bars
& run around to get it going
then jump on & ride
Aisha would announce
“My friend Steve will push us”
& I would
I had developed a method of
cupping my hands
catching every third bar that passed
& flinging it a little harder each time
so it would build up speed

“Faster! Faster!
Is that all the faster you can go?
Come on! Faster!”
The kids would shout
laughing & demanding more
Then suddenly everything changed
No more smiles & laughing
The shouts of joy became cries for help
“Stop! Stop!
I’m getting sick! Stop!”

I had developed a method of
catching every third bar
with the flat of my hand
slowing it a little more each time
until it came to a stop
It was always “Faster! Faster!”
or “Stop! Stop!”
Never for a moment
was it the right speed

--sstoth0(Steve Toth)
Apr 29, 2008
Poetry Chaikhana

http://www.poetry-chaikhana.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=4876

The Hound of Heaven.
I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Up vistaed hopes I sped;
And shot, precipitated,
Adown Titanic glooms of chasmed fears,
From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.
But with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
They beat--and a Voice beat
More instant than the Feet--
"All things betray thee, who betrayest Me."

I pleaded, outlaw-wise,
By many a hearted casement, curtained red,
Trellised with intertwining charities
(For, though I knew His love Who followed,
Yet was I sore adread
Lest having Him, I must have naught beside);
But if one little casement parted wide,
The gust of His approach would clash it to.
Fear wist not to evade, as Love wist to pursue.
Across the margent of the world I fled,
And troubled the gold gateways of the stars,
Smiting for shelter on their clanged bars;
Fretted to dulcet jars
And silvern chatter the pale ports o' the moon.
I said to dawn, Be sudden; to eve, Be soon;
With thy young skyey blossoms heap me over
From this tremendous Lover!
Float thy vague veil about me, lest He see!
I tempted all His servitors, but to find
My own betrayal in their constancy,
In faith to Him their fickleness to me,
Their traitorous trueness, and their loyal deceit.
To all swift things for swiftness did I sue;
Clung to the whistling mane of every wind.
But whether they swept, smoothly fleet,
The long savannahs of the blue;
Or whether, Thunder-driven,
They clanged his chariot 'thwart a heaven
Plashy with flying lightnings round the spurn o' their feet--
Still with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
Came on the following Feet,
And a Voice above their beat--
"Naught shelters thee, who wilt not shelter Me."

I sought no more that after which I strayed
In face of man or maid;
But still within the little children's eyes
Seems something, something that replies;
They at least are for me, surely for me!
I turned me to them very wistfully;
But, just as their young eyes grew sudden fair
With dawning answers there,
Their angel plucked them from me by the hair.
"Come then, ye other children, Nature's--share
With me," said I, "your delicate fellowship;
Let me greet you lip to lip,
Let me twine with you caresses,
Wantoning
With our Lady-Mother's vagrant tresses'
Banqueting
With her in her wind-walled palace,
Underneath her azured daïs,
Quaffing, as your taintless way is,
From a chalice
Lucent-weeping out of the dayspring."
So it was done;
I in their delicate fellowship was one--
Drew the bolt of Nature's secrecies.
I knew all the swift importings
On the wilful face of skies;
I knew how the clouds arise
Spumèd of the wild sea-snortings;
All that's born or dies
Rose and drooped with--made them shapers
Of mine own moods, or wailful or divine--
With them joyed and was bereaven.
I was heavy with the even,
When she lit her glimmering tapers
Round the day's dead sanctities.
I laughed in the morning's eyes.
I triumphed and I saddened with all weather,
Heaven and I wept together,
And its sweet tears were salt with mortal mine;
Against the red throb of its sunset-heart
I laid my own to beat,
And share commingling heat;
But not by that, by that, was eased my human smart.
In vain my tears were wet on Heaven's gray cheek.
For ah! we know not what each other says,
These things and I; in sound I speak--
Their sound is but their stir, they speak by silences.
Nature, poor stepdame, cannot slake my drouth;
Let her, if she would owe me,
Drop yon blue bosom-veil of sky, and show me
The breasts of her tenderness;
Never did any milk of hers once bless
My thirsting mouth.
Nigh and nigh draws the chase,
With unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy;
And past those noisèd Feet
A voice comes yet more fleet--
"Lo naught contents thee, who content'st not Me."

Naked I wait Thy love's uplifted stroke!
My harness piece by piece Thou hast hewn from me,
And smitten me to my knee;
I am defenseless utterly.
I slept, methinks, and woke,
And, slowly gazing, find me stripped in sleep.
In the rash lustihead of my young powers,
I shook the pillaring hours
And pulled my life upon me; grimed with smears,
I stand amid the dust o' the mounded years--
My mangled youth lies dead beneath the heap.
My days have crackled and gone up in smoke,
Have puffed and burst as sun-starts on a stream.
Yea, faileth now even dream
The dreamer, and the lute the lutanist;
Even the linked fantasies, in whose blossomy twist
I swung the earth a trinket at my wrist,
Are yielding; cords of all too weak account
For earth with heavy griefs so overplussed.
Ah! is Thy love indeed
A weed, albeit amaranthine weed,
Suffering no flowers except its own to mount?
Ah! must--
Designer infinite!--
Ah! must Thou char the wood ere Thou canst limn with it?
My freshness spent its wavering shower i' the dust;
And now my heart is a broken fount,
Wherein tear-drippings stagnate, spilt down ever
From the dank thoughts that shiver
Upon the sighful branches of my mind.
Such is; what is to be?
The pulp so bitter, how shall taste the rind?
I dimly guess what Time in mist confounds;
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
From the hid battlements of Eternity;
Those shaken mists a space unsettle, then
But not ere him who summoneth
I first have seen, enwound
With blooming robes, purpureal, cypress-crowned;
His name I know, and what his trumpet saith.
Whether man's heart or life it be which yields
Thee harvest, must Thy harvest fields
Be dunged with rotten death?

Now of that long pursuit
Comes on at hand the bruit;
That Voice is round me like a bursting sea:
"And is thy earth so marred,
Shattered in shard on shard?
Lo, all things fly thee, for thou fliest Me!
Strange, piteous, futile thing,
Wherefore should any set thee love apart?
Seeing none but I makes much of naught," He said,
"And human love needs human meriting,
How hast thou merited--
Of all man's clotted clay rhe dingiest clot?
Alack, thou knowest not
How little worthy of any love thou art!
Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee
Save Me, save only Me?
All which I took from thee I did but take,
Not for thy harms.
But just that thou might'st seek it in my arms.
All which thy child's mistake
Fancies as lost, I have stored for the at home;
Rise, clasp My hand, and come!"

Halts by me that footfall;
Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
"Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."

Francis Thompson (1859-1907)

Ivan Granger shares a haiku in honor of a shining spring day...

dressed in blossoms
spring trees sing
with beesong

Sparrows hide and seek
Cats greet with up-tailed stridings
Hunger gnaws not lambs

The propagation
Which warm, cozy choice-less wombs
Void the mistaken

.

The loose confinement
Seek and slash all ends of means
Yellow ties blue notes

.

Happy May Day!

Womb notes karmic play
Resonant redistribution
Come fevered jazzman

#13
After Walter posted something on the Alberta Tar Sands, look what happened since:

Hundreds of ducks die in oilsands tailings pond

Updated Wed. Apr. 30 2008 2:44 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff
Fingers are being pointed after hundreds of ducks were found dead or dying in a toxic tailings pond belonging to oilsands giant Syncrude Canada Ltd.
CTV Edmonton's Joel Gotlib told Newsnet on Wednesday that it's the worst such incident in the history of northern Alberta's oilsands.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/canada_oil_wildlife_pollution

Earful of talent
Skilled noses lead me in two
Frames remain faceless

Elitism!

Clinton on O'Reilly:

"Rich people, God bless us."

Could you imagine if Obama had said that?

"From bin Laden’s point of view, the whole situation had to be immensely frustrating. He pulls off the crime of the century, of the millennium perhaps, and the victim America turns out to be so wrapped up on its own intramural bullshit that it can’t even give him credit for it. America turned out to be, in a way, psychologically immune to attack; its government was too corrupt to fight back, and its people were too crazy to comprehend their position in the world. We were a nation gone completely mad, blind to everything outside our borders, with our effective institutions co-opted by crooks and thieves and our citizens piddling away the last days of their influence reading sacred tracts and spinning absurd theories about the grassy knoll, WTC7, and the international Masonic conspiracy."

--Matt Taibbi, The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire, due for release May 6, 2008

"Happy May Day!" ~Keith

What day is today according to the White House? It's not May Day. It's not "Mission Accomplished Day." No, George Bush, law-breaker in chief, has declared today "LAW DAY."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080501.html

"...The American legal system is central to protecting the rights and freedoms our Nation holds dear. The theme of this year's Law Day, "The Rule of Law: Foundation for Communities of Opportunity and Equity," recognizes the fundamental role that the rule of law plays in preserving liberty in our Nation and in all free societies. We pay tribute to the men and women in America's legal community. Through hard work and dedication to the rule of law, members of the judiciary and the legal profession help secure the rights of individuals, bring justice to our communities, and reinforce the proud traditions that make America a beacon of light for the world.

Nearly 800 years ago, the Magna Carta placed the authority of government under the rule of law; centuries later, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution marked tremendous advances in the march of liberty. These documents established enduring principles that guide modern democracies. Today, we are reminded of that past and look toward a hopeful future as we work to secure the liberty that is the natural right of every man, woman, and child.

On Law Day, U.S.A., our Nation celebrates our belief in the equality of each person before God and renews our commitment to strive to bring America ever closer to its founding ideals.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, in accordance with Public Law 87-20, as amended, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2008, as Law Day, U.S.A. I call upon all the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I also call upon Government officials to display the flag of the United States in support of this national observance...."

That's a good one.

It's almost funny, in a very dark kind of way.

Jimmy Carter: the measure of victory is delegates

Pres. Carter on CNN:

"BLITZER: [...] What, in your opinion, would be more important as a super-delegate -- who has the most pledged or elected delegates, or who has more of the popular vote in all of these 50-plus contests?

CARTER: The pledged delegates, because that's a whole rule. I mean, there's no rule at all that says the popular vote gets the nomination. The rules of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party only refer to the delegates."

The measure isn't states won, or the popular vote, or "electability", it's delegates. Of course, the math is hostile to the Clintons, so Carter's reaffirmation of it will be seen as covert support for Obama. But I doubt Carter would change his position if Clinton had the commanding lead in the delegate count.

New York Politicians are speaking out today about the McCain/Hillary Gas Tax Bribe:

"[Bloomberg] said, "It’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard in an awful long time from an economic point of view. I don’t understand why you think there’s any merit to it whatsoever.

Bloomberg praised officials who opposed the "summer break on gasoline taxes which would help Chavez, Qaddafi and other people like that. I don’t know why anybody would want to do it."" [Observer]

Governor of New York:

"The benefit of the tax doesn't go directly to the consumer," said Paterson. "There's a middle man. And they can't guarantee that it's going to get there right now."

Also, Pelosi Weighs in

"There is no reason to believe any moratorium on the gas tax will be passed on to consumers. That's first and foremost," she said. "Second, it will defeat everything we've tried to do to lower the cost of oil," noting that Democrats have been trying to shift the nation to alternative fuel sources, not promote gasoline consumption."

Yet the Clinton campaign still tries to defend this crap.

"Rich people -- God bless us" --John #49

Clinton's spokesperson, today:

"On today’s "state of the race" conference call, a reporter asked about an exchange between Hillary Clinton and Bill O’Reilly on yesterday’s show in which Clinton uttered the words, "Rich people—God bless us."

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson denied that’s what she said: "She said ‘God blessed us.’ B-L-E-S-S-E-D."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/05/01/twisting-god-bless-us.aspx

What a liar. Watch it yourself, start at around the 1:40 minute mark:

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

In any case, those of you who aren't rich? It's because God hates you.

God Damn Rich People ... (Rev. Wright)

Well that would be divisive and unpatriotic.

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

God Bless Rich People. (Hillary Clinton)

yeah, this is a silly argument . . .

Talk about gotcha stupidity.

More offensive was her attempt to forge bonhomie and common ground with a nativist bomb thrower like O'Reilly.

Jeez, how disgusting.

Obama actually defended his positions when he was on Fox. Hillary spent her time sucking up to O'Reilly.

How can this woman possibly be considered a Democrat?

Hillary is a Lieberman Democrat. No, I'm not impressed that she was on O'Reilly. His barrage of critiques against her in general are not wildly different from attacks he's levelled at McCain, and yes, even Lieberman.

So here's what I'm tired of hearing from some democrats...

*"We have 2 equally strong candidates."

No, we don't. We have a guy who earned scholarships and worked his way up from nothing, who has a vision for the future, and who pays attention. And we have a privileged woman whose success later in life is owed very much to her wandering husband's name, job, and Rolodex from the past, and who votes for wars but can't be bothered to read intelligence estimates.

*"We'll all rally around the Democratic nominee, and vote Democrat."

No, we won't. I won't. I'll vote Democrat, but I'm not voting for a DINO (Democrat In Name Only).

*"Then you must want McCain to win. Are you SERIOUS!?"

Why, yes. Yes, I am serious, and thank you for asking. Maybe I'll vote Green. Or not at all. Like to know why?

Because I don't see those "2 equally strong Democratic candidates" that I keep being told are there. I see one strong Democratic candidate and a Lieberman Democrat. Version 2.0. Wherein instead of starting her own independent party and running anyway, primaries be damned, she destroys the party she's in just enough, hoping that in the end, she'll emerge from its ashes as Party Heroine and Savior, as she and her errant spouse ride in to Save The Party From Itself.

To me, this isn't a choice between 2 genuine Democrats. It's a choice between a Democrat and a Liberal Republican. At best.

Her votes show it:
The war.
No Child Left Behind.
The bankruptcy bill.
Iranian guard a terrorist organization.
Her praise for McCain shows it.
Her comments to totally "obliterate" Iran with nukes shows it.
Her "gee, that gas holiday is a great idea" shows it.

Same old, same old - different date.

LOL Irvine. Obama should have thought of lying. "I said Pennsylvanians like 'butter, not that they are 'bitter.'"

There seems to be compelling evidence from several sources that Hillary Clinton ruined health care reform back in the early 1990s. My hope is to further the debate about that. I think her performance then is crucial to understanding her suitability to be president.

Here's a quote from Andrew Sullivan's Atlantic Monthly piece, 'Take Two: Hillary's Choice'. It concerns Jim Cooper, the Tennessee Congressman who helped create an alternative to Hillary's health care plan. He's a conservative, and Hillary supporters are tough on him, arguing that his plan contained no real reform. On to the quote:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/green-hillary

"One Saturday in late September, Schneider, Cooper, and Bill Clinton set out for an early-morning round of golf at the Army-Navy Club. Discussion soon turned to health care. Ever the deal maker, Clinton started probing Cooper for the possibility of a compromise. "Clinton was an artist at negotiation," says one member of the group. "There was a lot of common ground there, and he had a good sense of the public mood about health care."

It started to drizzle, so Clinton invited the group back to the White House, where the talk continued into the afternoon over beers. Cooper canceled a trip to Tennessee and kept listening. By the time he left that evening, says the source, "it was very close to a handshake." Clinton’s parting words were, "Look, I think we can make this work. But Hillary’s leading this, and you’ll need to have a meeting with her."

Cooper agreed. But when he met with the first lady shortly thereafter, it was as if the golf outing had been just a dream. "She was looking for Jim to surrender 100 percent," says one source with knowledge of the meeting. "It was brutal," Cooper told me. Things collapsed quickly, and no deal was struck. Hillary Clinton’s major initiative died ignominiously many months later, without even coming to a vote."

Part of what intrigued me about the above passage is that Clinton seemed so deferential to Hillary that he couldn't rescue the compromise he had forged. I would've loved to have been a fly on the wall when the two of them discussed the compromise.

Again, I'm not trying to shove this down everybody's throat as though it were decisive proof. I'm just trying to further the debate about who she really is.

To many of us, her current scorched earth approach to campaigning against Obama seems a re-emergence of the kind of vitriol she demonstrated many times in during the 1993-1994. To us, it seems that she just doesn't have the temperament needed to forge the kind of consensus needed to make real reforms.

Adding to Freyja's comment. Here's the definitive 1994 New Yorker article by Connie Bruck on Clinton...

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1994/05/30/1994_05_30_058_TNY_CARDS_000366533?printable=true

In my opinion it is the best and most exhaustively researched telling of Hillary Clinton and her health care plan saga. I won't attempt to pull out clips or paraphrase it as you must read it in its entirety. I believe it shows how Ms. Clinton uses (misuses) power and misunderstands how to develop a policy consensus. The person described in this essay would make a disastrous president, no matter what she's supposedly "learned" about health care policy. She has run her campaign just like she ran this effort. Secretively and ineffectively.

Here we go again. The Audacity of Hypocrisy. Bill Clinton is apparently on a campaign to build inter-party unity between Democrats and Republicans in our shared revulsion with him. Leave it to Bill to single handedly destroy his own legacy. Why did we ever see fit to defend him? Were Republicans more insightful with regard to his character (or lack thereof) than we? Republicans?? Those mean-spirited little people, remarkable mainly for their infinite willingness to defend their own (Gingrich, Delay) no matter how deceitful?

Bill Clinton, campaigning for his wife in West Virginia, had this to say:

"The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it's by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules."

Who could he possibly be talking about?

He went on to add:

"In West Virginia and Arkansas, we know that when we see it."

Isn't that charming?

Regardless of whether one sees racial overtones in Clinton's words, and setting aside the "us against them," "divide and conquer" quasi-Republican nature of it all, I find it remarkable that the Clintons (of all people) could accuse ANYONE of having a different set of rules for themselves and everyone else. Heck, Bill and Hillary keep making up rules as it suits them. Remember those halcyon days when she, then ahead in delegates, kept spouting off about this being a "delegate race," droning on and on about how delegates are all that matter.

I'll leave it at that. Bill's comment leaves me all but speechless.

Isn't it always true that the criticisms we make of others are the one's most ingrained in ourselves?

Perhaps the Dalai Lama has conquered that one. Call the Spanish Inquisition. A little torturing might prove who is God.

Subliminal nudge
Silent actors show the way
Quiet! Follow me

Enters right miming
Prompted from on high eye cue
Leaves left after tree

john and irvine = same...LOL at each other...damn!

Twister poised to strike
Betwixt the hurricane's fangs
Bolts electric tongues

"The Audacity of Hypocrisy" ~Vanessa #61

Bill Clinton, ostensibly referring to Barack Obama's supporters:

"The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it's by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules," he said. "In West Virginia and Arkansas, we know that when we see it."

Let's think about this for a minute: Bill Clinton is a driving force behind the campaign that has tried to insist that Florida and Michigan should count, even though the rules say they don't. Even though its own top advisors voted for the rules that say Florida and Michigan don't count. That's the same campaign that has tried to discount caucus states, even though the rules say they count. The campaign that has tried to get the press to rechristen super delegates as automatic delegates. This is a campaign that has shown time and again that there is not a rule of the Democratic nomination process they will not attempt to undercut if it will benefit Hillary Clinton.

And Bill Clinton wants to talk about how Obama's supporters think they should play by a different set of rules?

I have another definition for Bill. Psychological projection(from wiki: Projection bias):

* "Projection is the opposite defense mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

* "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

* "Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies."

Deja vu. Uh oh.

From the Carpetbagger Report:
--------------------------------------------------
"I want to know where people stand and I want them to tell us, are they with us or against us when it comes to taking on the oil companies?" [Clinton] added.
[...]

Wait, with us or against us? Isn’t that Bush’s line?

Making matters slightly worse, the Clinton campaign acknowledged yesterday that every policy expert of every ideological stripe has described the McCain-Clinton idea as nonsense, but they don’t care.

"There are times that a president will take a position that a broad support of quote-unquote experts agree with," spokesperson Howard Wolfson said. "And there are times they will take a position that quote-unquote experts do not agree with."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15404.html#more-15404
--------------------------------------------------

Remember the last time a president took a "with us or against us" line? And remember the last time a president ignored what the policy experts cautioned?

Yeah, me too. I have no desire to relive the Bush Administration yet again.

Because when you ignore the policy experts, you end up with the exact opposite of what you think you are trying to accomplish, as Steve Benen notes:

-------------------------------------------------
In the with-us-or-against-us formulation, it’s particularly odd that Clinton insists opponents of her gas-tax idea "stand with the oil companies." By all indications, she has it backwards.

Economists ... say the oil companies may end up the biggest beneficiaries, while the aid to families wouldn’t be enough to buy a $35 backpack.

The trouble with the plan, they say, is that oil prices are rising because of low supplies, and companies will continue to charge the average $3.60 a gallon and just pocket the money that would have gone to federal taxes.

"That’s $10 billion, and it’s going into the pockets of oil refiners," said Leonard Burman of the Tax Policy Center in Washington. "The last time I checked, they didn’t need it."

Supplies are "being cleared at the current price," said Donald Parsons, an economics professor at George Washington University in Washington. "If you take away the tax, you’ll have the same number of consumers willing to buy the gas at the same total price."
--------------------------------------------------

Clinton may have a political winner on her hand. I have no doubt it's been worth a few points in Indiana and North Carolina. But invading Iraq was a political winner for Bush, until Middle East experts (and by "experts", I don't mean the morons at the conservative think tank AEI) were proven correct by reality.

It would be nice to have a president who LISTENS to REASON, and not one who panders with bad policy in the mad pursuit of power.

Umm Al Kheir ‘Donkey Story’ -- An account by Boaz detailed below has been published on Ha’aretz

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/971762.html

Here is a short quote:

"…As we talked and gazed at the impressive landscape of the edge of the desert, it emerged that our hosts were in big trouble: Their two donkeys had crossed the few meters to the road that links the settlement to its expansion. If they dare approach, they can expect beatings and trouble with the police.

I immediately offered to save the situation; after all, I belong to the lords of the land and no one will get hurt. We hastened to restore the donkeys (maybe she-asses) to their owners and we thought that in so doing we had prevented an unpleasant local incident.

The members of our people from the settlement thought otherwise. The local security forces were called immediately, and they arrived in an all-terrain vehicle and a patrol truck belonging to the security coordinator…"

Umm Al Kheir ‘Donkey Story’ -- An account by Boaz detailed below has been published on Ha’aretz

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/971762.html

Here is a short quote:

"…As we talked and gazed at the impressive landscape of the edge of the desert, it emerged that our hosts were in big trouble: Their two donkeys had crossed the few meters to the road that links the settlement to its expansion. If they dare approach, they can expect beatings and trouble with the police.

I immediately offered to save the situation; after all, I belong to the lords of the land and no one will get hurt. We hastened to restore the donkeys (maybe she-asses) to their owners and we thought that in so doing we had prevented an unpleasant local incident.

The members of our people from the settlement thought otherwise. The local security forces were called immediately, and they arrived in an all-terrain vehicle and a patrol truck belonging to the security coordinator…"

Umm Al Kheir ‘Donkey Story’ -- An account by Boaz detailed below has been published on Ha’aretz

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/971762.html

Here is a short quote:

"…As we talked and gazed at the impressive landscape of the edge of the desert, it emerged that our hosts were in big trouble: Their two donkeys had crossed the few meters to the road that links the settlement to its expansion. If they dare approach, they can expect beatings and trouble with the police.

I immediately offered to save the situation; after all, I belong to the lords of the land and no one will get hurt. We hastened to restore the donkeys (maybe she-a**es) to their owners and we thought that in so doing we had prevented an unpleasant local incident.

The members of our people from the settlement thought otherwise. The local security forces were called immediately, and they arrived in an all-terrain vehicle and a patrol truck belonging to the security coordinator…"

A must read by Carl Bernstein on Hillary Clinton:
May 2, 2008

For several weeks, the Clinton campaign has been distributing literature and disseminating incendiary notions -- which figured significantly in Pennsylvania, and are now central to the candidate's message in Indiana and North Carolina -- assailing Barack Obama for his association with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground, the radical, violent organization responsible for bombing several government buildings in the early 1970s.

In their debate in Philadelphia, after moderator George Stephanoplous had raised the question of Obama's relationship with Ayers, Hillary Clinton elaborated on the subject, seeking to add to its significance:

"SEN. CLINTON: ...I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position. And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is -- you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about."

Whether this is 21st century McCarthyism--as argued by several important commentators not publicly allied with Obama -- among them Stanley Fish in the New York Times (who has written several admiring columns about her candidacy) and Rick Hertzberg of the New Yorker -- is a matter readers will have to decide.

Whatever name it is called, Hillary Clinton, perhaps better than any contemporary political figure of our time, knows the insidious nature of this kind of guilt by association, for she (like Bill Clinton) has been a victim of it herself over a political lifetime.

Precisely because she knows the destructive power of such assertions and how unfair they can be, she has sought for a quarter-century to hide and minimize her own activities, associations, student fascination, and personal history with the radical Left. Those associations -- logical, explicable, and (her acolytes have always maintained) even character-building in the context of the times -- are far more extensive than any radical past that has come to be known about Barack Obama.

Which raises the question: Is the Clinton campaign's emphasis on the Ayrers-Obama connection significantly different or less spurious than the familiar (McCarthyite?) smears against Hillary, particularly those promulgated and disseminated by the forces she labeled "the vast right-wing conspiracy" in the 1990s?

Like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has (at least so far as this reporter and biographer has been able to determine) consistently rejected the ideological rigidity of the radical Left and -- especially -- the notion of revolutionary violence as a means of political change in contemporary America, despite claims to the contrary by the VRWC. Like Obama -- and John McCain for that matter -- she has valued her friendships with individuals who figured in the Left-wing and anti-war movements of the 60s and Vietnam era. And like Obama and McCain, she has never wavered from her belief and faith in establishment politics, within the two-party system.

But her past associations -- and her evasions about them -- may tell us much about the formation of Hillary Clinton, both as a product of her youthful time -- the sixties and seventies, when radical student movements and the anti-war movement were a hugely potent force on campus and in American politics generally -- and as a presidential candidate. The facts are fairly simple:

In the 60s, as an undergraduate at Wellesley, she exhibited an academic fascination with the Left and radicalism; rejected more extreme forms of political protest and violence as a student leader (there is no evidence I know that Obama has ever done anything but the same); wrote her senior thesis on the radical Chicago community-organizer Saul Alinsky (whose best-known philosophical mantra was, "Whatever works to get power to the people, use it."); and then, during the 1992 presidential campaign and White House years, insured that the thesis was locked up in the Wellesley archives and unavailable to reporters.

At Yale law school she embraced some leftist causes she perhaps wishes she hadn't today (the Black Panthers' claim that they couldn't get a fair trial, more about which later); worked in the most important radical law firm of the day -- Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, in Oakland, which represented the Communist Party and defended the Panthers in their murder trials; and became associate editor of an alternative law review at Yale which ran stories and pictures depicting policemen as pigs and murderers.

In her 2003 "memoir," Living History, Hillary mentions not a word about her role in the Panther trial in New Haven--during which she directed Yale law students monitoring the proceedings for evidence of government misconduct in its prosecution of the Panthers accused of murder. "It meant going in and out of the Black Panther headquarters to obtain documentation and other information," a classmate told Donnie Radcliff of the Washington Post, quoted in Hillary Rodham Clinton: A First Lady For Our Time. "Hillary's job was to organize shifts for her classmates and make certain no proceeding went unmonitored...[for] civil rights abuses..."

As for her summer at the law firm, Hillary's one-sentence mention of it in Living History gives the impression that Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein might as well been handling postal rate increases, rather than defending the Panthers, members of the communist party, and accepting cases that mainstream lawfirms were afraid to take -- particularly civil liberties cases -- in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. "I told Bill about my summer plans to clerk at Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, a small law firm in Oakland California, and he soon said he would like to go to California with me."

That is the total verbiage expended on so formative an experience, and the lasting -- but distant friendship -- she maintained for the next twenty-some years with Bob Treuhaft and his wife, the muckraking journalist (and, like her husband) former communist party member Jessica Mitford.

"The reason she came to us," Treuhaft told me [the quotation is in my biography of Hillary Clinton, A Woman In Charge] "the only reason I could think of, because none of us knew her, was because we were a so-called "Movement law firm at the time. There was no reason except politics for a girl from Yale" to intern at the firm. "She certainly... was in sympathy with all the Left causes, and there was a sharp dividing line at the time. We still weren't very far out of the McCarthy era."

And might not still be, to judge from the 2008 presidential campaign.

In the 1980s, Jessica Mitford visited the Clintons at the governor's mansion in Little Rock. She and Treuhaft had left the communist party in 1958, years after the revelation of Stalin's murderous crimes, but -- Jessica Mitford wrote in her memoir, A Fine Old Conflict, she quit "not primarily over some issue of high principle, but because it had become dull....boring. Rather like London's debutante circuit."

When Jessica Mitford died in 1996, Hillary Clinton wrote Bob Treuhaft a lovely condolence letter from the White House, characteristically filled with the kind of heart-felt personal touches that the senator's friends have always remarked upon.

Which, of course, no more raises the question "Is Hillary Clinton a Stalinist?," or a communist sympathizer, than "Is Barack Obama a Weatherman?" or a weatherman sympathizer, because of his association with Bill Ayres.

Aside from the candidate herself, her prime-most abettor in pushing the Bill Ayers-Weatherman-Obama line is, inevitably, Sidney Blumenthal, who has also been distributing many other questionable allegations about Obama he has plucked from and disseminated to, at times, of all places--organs of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

As in the Clinton White House, where he was the archivist of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy's plots, Blumenthal is no independent operator. He maintains an ongoing personal and strategic dialogue with his patrons, Hillary and Bill Clinton.

- -

One of Hillary Clinton's most winning attributes -- and Bill Clinton's too -- has always been their understanding of the complexity of American politics, and the danger of ideological demagoguery (witness their fight against the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and excesses). The resort by Hillary and her campaign to guilt-by-association--of which the Bill Ayres allegations are but one example: see Louis Farrakhan, or a comparatively-obscure African-American writer and perhaps -- communist party member named Frank Marshal Dixon, whom Obama knew in high school in Hawaii -- is, even for some of her most steadfast advocates, particularly dismaying. Like Gov. Bill Richardson and Senator Christopher Dodd, among others who have abandoned the Clintons, many old Clinton hands had hoped, judging from Hillary's triumphant and collegial senate years, that she -- and Bill -- had left behind such tactics when the Clinton Presidency ended in 2001 and the Right-wing threat to the Clintons' tenure in the White House had abated.

"The sad irony," noted Jonathan Alter in Newsweek, "is that these are the same [guilt-by-association] attacks used against her husband in the elections of the 1990s. The GOP tried to destroy Bill Clinton for his relationships (much closer than Obama's tangential connections) with Arkansas crooks, sleazy fund-raisers and unsavory women. But 'The Man From Hope,' while seen as less honest than Bush or Bob Dole, bet that issues and uplift were more important to voters than his character. He won...."

- -

"Shame on you, Barack Obama," said Hillary Clinton in Ohio, asserting that the Obama campaign had misrepresented her health-care plan.

Shame indeed.

- -

Carl Bernstein is, most recently, the author of A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton, published in paperback in 2008 by Vintage, and a CNN political analyst.

From today's edition of Democracy Now!

After More than Six Years, Al Jazeera Cameraman Sami al-Haj Released from Guantánamo Bay

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/2/after_more_than_6_years_al

"Arrested in Pakistan in December 2001, Sami al-Haj spent nearly six-and-a-half years at Guantánamo without charge or trial. He had been on a more than a year-long hunger strike to protest his imprisonment. We hear al-Haj’s first public remarks from his hospital bed in Sudan ...

Al-Haj, who’s been on a hunger strike since January of 2007, was taken to a hospital immediately after landing in Khartoum. After a tearful reun