Awhile back I wrote about an effort by New Hampshire's Democratic Governor, John Lynch, trying to lead a bipartisan effort to ensure quality healthcare for American children. At the end of that article, I mentioned my own Governor, Eliot Spitzer, was threatening to sue George Bush over healthcare.
Well, Spitzer was true to his word. While Bush and the "drown America in a bathtub" Republicans try to cut healthcare for Americans even further, Eliot Spitzer, joined by Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire, Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland, Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey, and Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, are suing the Bush Administration for its failure to follow the law requiring provision of healthcare for America's children.
From the NY State Governor's website:
Governor Eliot Spitzer today announced that a group of states will be pursuing legal challenges against the Bush Administration for violating provisions of the federal State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which provides affordable health coverage for children in families that cannot afford to buy private health insurance.
The state action was triggered in August when the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) arbitrarily imposed new rules that block states from expanding their children’s health insurance programs. Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, Arizona, California and New Hampshire will participate in litigation, either as plaintiffs or by filing supporting briefs, against the Bush Administration for violating the provisions of the SCHIP statute. more this way»
[Note from the blogdiva : This was first posted in June. I just saw it and decided it needed rescuing from the forums for your cynical enjoyment.]
***
According to a report not yet released, the Council on Science and Public Health of the American Medical Association has recommended that a chronic and widespread affliction of Americans be officially declared a psychiatric disorder. It has been named the Political Attention Deficit Disorder (PADD). It is recommended that the disorder be included in a widely used mental illness manual created and published by the American Psychiatric Association. The current manual was published in 1994; the next edition is to be completed in 2012. The benefit to people of an official classification is coverage by health insurance.
“The symptoms of PADD are all around us and treating it professionally can do more for our country than any election,†said Dr. Mable Wank in the report’s introduction; she is chairwoman of the Council and a professor at UCLA.
Here are the Council’s main findings on PADD:
Nearly 80 percent of adult American citizens are unable to pay sustained attention to issues and problems associated with their government. They are unable to accept their responsibility as citizens, including their obligation to vote, read in-depth articles and books on political issues, become active members of politically oriented groups, and initiate discussions on current events with friends and family. “The decades-old decline in voter turnout is a direct result of a national epidemic of PADD,†said the report. more this way»
George W. had one of the greatest resources in foreign relations and political experience in the world -- his old man! What if he didn't have this hubris of 'I am going to do it on my own'? If he had listened to his old man in terms of what to do after 9/11 and everything, he wouldn't have been in the mess he is in right now, and the country would not be in the mess it is right now.
This comes from Bob Fertik, our friend at Democrats.com. Seems the media jumped on a story about terrorists coming into the US on student visas. This is expected to be something Bush focuses on in his misState of the Union message and is the latest attempt by Bush to boost his sagging popularity (now finally dipping below Nixon's lowest low) using fear. There are two problems with this. First, people aren't turning to him and trusting him when he whips up the fear machine. They actually realize that if they are still afraid, it shows he has failed. But more importantly, it seems the whole story is based on one single document that has been unsubstantiated. This is reminiscent of the use of false intelligence reports to claim that Iraq was getting enriched uranium from Africa which was used as a (false) excuse to justify invasion. That was also unsubstantiated rumor.
So here, in Bob Fertik's words, is the scoop:
The incomparable Joseph Cannon has once again scooped the media by discovering the Big Lie that will be the centerpiece of Bush's SOTU: the fictional tale of an Al-Zarqawi plot (under direct written orders from Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri) to send 19 terrorists into the U.S using student visas.
After reviewing the three published versions of this story [see Fertik's diary for his review of each version], it's perfectly clear there are no credible facts - no independently verified documents, no identified witnesses, and no suspects. The whole story hinges on a single document, which was not seen by any of the reporters and probably does not exist. more this way»
Following close on the heels of my diary on Angry White Men and Conveniently Compassionate White Men, Michael Bouldin posted a pefect video of the person who seems to be the God of the Angry White Men, the person they still think is a good president. This video shows their God in his top form. So here it is, the God of the Angry White Men:
This is out President. This is the man who runs our nation and who feels he is Tsar of the world, Supreme Soviet dictator of all the people. This is the man who the Angry White Men still love despite the failure of all he has done.
In my occasional visits to Daily Kos, I notice that one of the things that will get a comment troll rated faster than anything is advocacy of assassinating George Bush. Given the rhetoric many on the left have towards Bush, citing the huge numbers of deaths he is responsible for, citing his advocacy of torture and his dismantling of Constitutional rights, why NOT discuss assassination as a solution? If someone is that much of a threat to world stability and to American Democracy, shouldn't assassination be considered as a political tool?
Let me be clear: I do not advocate assassination. Advocacy of said action is not the purpose of this diary. Rather I am questioning the taboo that has been placed on the topic. Now let me go into why...
Assassination has always been a political tool, for better or worse. In ancient Rome, although the rights of citizens were gradually eroded by the rising strength of the military and the supreme dictator (what they called the Augustus and we call Emperor), one consistent check and balance to the power of that dictator was the fear of assassination. If the situation got too bad, either soldiers or Senators or both would resort to assassination. Some if the worst Emperors (Gaius Caligula, Nero, Elegabalus...) were removed though assassination. Some of the best Emperors rose to power in the wake of assassinations or imperial suicides under the threat of assassination (Vespasian, and the so-called "5 Good Emperors"). more this way»
Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.
Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.
Front-runners are usually focused on racing each other. They often do not realize that when people cannot decide between two leading candidates -- and it doesn't matter whether we are talking about politicians or consumer appliances -- our decision can be subtly swayed by whoever is in third place.
Psychologists call this the decoy effect: In a perfectly rational world, third candidates should only siphon votes away from one or both of the leading contenders. Under no circumstances should they cause the vote share of either front-runner to increase. In the actual world, however, third candidates regularly have the unintended effect of making one of the front-runners look better than before in the minds of undecided voters.
