Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Obama Reverses Campaign Message. Will Allow Offshore Drilling.

Feel that sharp pain in your back? It's a big knife driven into the collective backs of liberals, Democrats and environmentalists of all political persuasions. And it's not dripping blood but black, toxic oil. That's because despite campaign promises to the contrary, President Obama is now announcing that he will allow for oil drilling offshore from the pristine Florida beaches as well as others along the East coast. And additional drilling off the coast of Alaska--America's last wild frontier.

Et Tu, Barack? If you don't think this is a big deal then travel to the gulf coast off Louisiana and see the eye sores that are the line of oil pipes and rigs doting the coast line. Would you want to go to the beach in Florida to see the ocean only to have it scarred by oil platforms? And that's not even taking into account the oil spills that are likely to come with time that wreck havoc on the fishing industry and the ecology of marine life. Opening up these new regions to drill for oil is like handing a needle to a heroin addict.

We are addicted to oil and it will continue to cause wars, destroy the environment, pollute the atmosphere, which in turns damages our health. We need to go into rehab and get clean. The technology for a green energy plan is there but the political will is another story. The oil and natural gas lobby has oceans of money and have infested t.v. advertising with propaganda that oil and natural gas is essential to our modern way of life. This is a bald face lie, however but with their slick "family friendly" commercials I can see why people buy into this notion that oil companies are our friends.

I am seriously disappointed with the president on this one. It appears that he's doing this to try and get support from Republicans but they aren't slapping him on the back. They are still criticizing him regardless saying it doesn't go far enough. I expected the president to make monumental changes on green energy to get us off oil. I agree that oil will most likely be needed in a small amount for our military but other than that we should be moving toward weening us off oil--not doubling down. But I think the best defense against what Obama has just done is from---Obama himself!!

PHOTO CREDIT: Port Fourchon, Louisiana. Mario Villafuerte/Getty Images

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Insurance Mandate Was Originally Republican Idea.

WASHINGTON Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it. The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s.

These days, Republicans call it government overreach. Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as
"a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

TPJ: It's so deliciously ironic that Romney (who is considered the Republican front runner for president in 2012 by many expert predictions) was defending the mandate by saying it is a matter of personal responsibility because that's what we Democrats have been saying about a mandate as well!! I really think the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner with all their wild rhetoric. The Democrats might lose a lot of seats in the November election but I think they won't lose a majority.

And now Americans will see the benefits of the law in a tangible way instead of in a theoretical way, which will improve their opinion of the law and this charade will end up backfiring on the Republican party. If they would have just come half-way and helped craft this law then they could have had some influence on it but as it is now they've essentially ceded the health care issue to the Democrats for possibly generations.

Who is going to vote for ending the ban on using pre-existing conditions to deny children health care? Who is going to vote to strip away the prescription drug benefits that seniors will receive, and who is going to vote to end tax breaks for small business owners to help them pay for the health care of their employees? Who is going to vote to maintain the status quo that says children can not stay on their parents health care until their 25? Because that is all in this Obama health care law. If they think they can win an election on that? Good luck.

---End of Transmission---

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Republicans: The Party of Hell No.

We all know that the Republicans have turned into the "Party of No" where they don't push solutions to problems nearly as much as they reject everything. They talk about legislation being shoved down their throat. Well, what do you expect if you refuse to work with the president and his ruling party? But the fact of the matter is that it only takes a majority of votes to pass legislation--a majority means democracy that is fueled by elections is working as it should. I guess they've forgotten the consequences of elections.

However, instead of learning the lesson that in elections people want to know what you are for, (and what solutions you propose) because it takes motivated people to build a barn (a stronger country). Yet any jackass can whine and kick it (progress) down. It's easy to throw bricks from the side lines and criticize everything but actually committing to lead the people and do something positive takes true leadership. Any jackass politician can kick down attempts at progress but in the end, regardless of party, people want to see shit getting done.

---End of Transmission---

Friday, March 26, 2010

Tea Party Anti-Government Activists Want Government to Create Jobs.

TPJ: My comments are below the story:

Tea Party sympathizers are against government "socialism" except when it comes to their own jobs, a new poll has found. Seventy percent of those who identify as Tea Partiers -- a platform that strongly decries government intervention in public life -- want an interventionist government to create jobs, and only about one in three believe Medicaid and Medicare are "socialist" programs, according to a new Bloomberg poll.

"Tea Party activists, who are becoming a force in U.S. politics, want the federal government out of their lives except when it comes to creating jobs," the wire notes wryly.

"More than 90 percent of Tea Party backers interviewed in a new Bloomberg National Poll say the U.S. is verging more toward socialism than capitalism, the federal government is trying to control too many aspects of private life and more decisions should be made at the state level," it adds. "At the same time, 70 percent of those who sympathize with the Tea Party, which organized protests this week against President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, want a federal government that fosters job creation."

TPJ: Oh the irony is too good to pass up on this one!! This gives me more proof that a large chunk of these Tea Party activists don't know what the hell they're talking about and are inconsistent in their beliefs. As if that's a surprise but it explains the violence and intimidation that has been coming from them. People who don't know what they're talking about in a debate will often resort to name calling and yelling. These threats of violence are exactly that kind of behavior. Hearing them scream about government programs out of one side of their mouth, and yet demand their Medicare and Social Security benefits is all you need to know about their viability and command of the issues. They're like a loose canon on the deck of a ship--It's powerful but unreliable, and often dangerous.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Right-Wing Violence and Threats Explode.

It is obvious to anyone who has been following the health care debate for the last 15 months that many (though not all) on the right-wing of the political spectrum (Tea Party folks especially, but also regular Republicans too) are frothing at the mouth in anger at Democrats for seeking health care reform. All the while encouraged by Republicans law makers. One couldn't go a day without hearing a radical speech from the likes of Representative Michele Bachmann proclaiming that Obama is anti-American, Rep. John Boehner called the health care bill, "The greatest threat to freedom" he's seen in his career, and Mike Pence, with charges of a socialist, government take over that hearkens back to the days of the "Red Scare" during the 1950s.

To hear some of these Republicans talk you'd think that a Bolshevik revolution was about to begin. They've been pounding into the heads of these people that the Democrats are shredding the Constitution. You need look no further for radicalism coming from the right-wing than the many vile signs seen at their rallies. So, given all these incendiary comments by GOP leaders, it's no wonder why so many are now whipped into a frenzy that they are committing acts of violence and intimidation.

If they honestly think that communism is marching on them to beat down their door and enslave America, that Obama isn't an American citizen, or that the very freedom of America is in danger then it shouldn't be shocking to those Republican leaders when these people act out in extremist behavior. Yet instead of taking full responsibility for the things that Republican lawmakers have said to incite people, Rep. Eric Cantor today blamed the DEMOCRATS!! He said that Democrats are fanning the flames of extremism by criticizing these tactics and putting the blame where it belongs--at the feet of Republican leaders.

Look, Mr. Cantor. You guys have been feeding off the Tea Party folks for a year now to intimidate the Democrats. You've been bullying them via some of the very rhetoric that some tea party activists and other conservatives are using to justify these aggressive actions. And now that it is backfiring on you and you can no longer control your mobs you want to say the Democrats are the ones "fanning the flames???" For what? Calling you out on your bullying? That's just like a bully to blame the victims. Nice try buddy. The independents have been watching and I know many are turned off by the tactics and behavior used by Republican leaders and Tea Party activists. This is all tragically ironic given that much of the health care law is based on the health care system started by Republican Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Republicans Misleading on Polls.

You know how the conservatives keep saying that a majority of Americans are against health care reform? Well, what they (and the media) have neglected to note is that a lot of those who are against it, are so because they feel the bill doesn't go far enough. This is exactly what the CNN poll buried in the end of their poll report:

The title of this story from CNN is misleading: CNN poll: Americans don’t like health care bill. Even ignoring the evidence from previous polls that Americans primarily do not like the bill because they do not understand what is actually in it (and support it when they do find out), the poll actually shows majority support for reform. Reading down towards the bottom of the report we find:
Roughly one in five of respondents who said they opposed the bill did so because it was not liberal enough, and those people are unlikely to vote Republican. Take them out of the picture and opposition to the bill because it is too liberal is 43 percent.
In other words, 52 percent either support the current legislation or think it should be more liberal while 43 percent believe the plan is too liberal.

TPJ: This is mirrored by the USA Today poll that emerged from the smoke of the health care battle, which saw the passage of this historic bill:
WASHINGTON — More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation. By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."
TPJ: This underlines something in the numbers that I thought was there but not flushed out. I believe that many in these polls were down on the bill simply because they were frustrated that it represented a failure in Washington to get things done. Now that the bill was passed, and the Democrats showed that they can lead; it appears these people are giving them credit and are thus more willing to look at the good in it.

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Republicans Seek to Repeal Healthcare Bill and/or Challenge it in Court.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said Monday that he was joining with attorneys general from at least 11 states who are mounting a legal challenge to the health care overhaul that Congress passed Sunday. So far, all of the attorneys general challenging the bill — which President Barack Obama is expected to sign into law today — are Republicans. But Suthers said the legal action isn't about politics.

TPJ: Sure. It has nothing to do with the fact that Republicans said "no" from day one of this reform. It has nothing to do with the Republican Senators and Representatives who said that they'd do whatever it takes to stop the reform. It has nothing to do with politics when there are no Democratic attorneys genera signing onto this lawsuit. Sure. So, they want to repeal the health care bill. What parts? Getting rid of ending pre-existing conditions for children? Re-opening the "donut hole" and yanking the new insurance plans for the 30 million this bill will help. "I know you just got health care but, just kidding!! We're going to take it away." Oh and you'd be repealing the savings that the bill provides. "Small businesses could see up to $3,000 in savings (per employee) on their health care costs."

Republicans would also have to repeal: Seniors receiving a rebate to reduce drug costs not yet covered under Medicare, young people being able to stay on parents coverage until 26, Early retirees will receive help to reduce premium costs, and Insured Americans will be protected from seeing their insurance revoked when they get sick, or facing restrictive annual limits on the care they receive. Not to mention the $1.2 trillion the bill shaves off the deficit. That's a terrible platform for the election year. Vote for us and we'll end progress!!

As for taking this to court on the basis that the mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional based on the 10th amendment, the federal government mandates that we do all kinds of things: Car manufactures are mandated to buy the materials for the mandatory seat belt law as imposed by the federal government and The EPA mandates companies buy cleaner products to protect the environment. Plus, you can't work in this country without buying Medicare insurance. So I don't see their lawsuit holding much water. And it seems that our friends on the right conveniently forget that the federal government is to "promote for the general welfare" as listed in the pre-amble to the Constitution. Welfare includes health. These lawsuits have nothing to do with improving the health of the American people. They are about lawsuits from a party that is playing politics with your health.

And what ever happened to the Republican mantra of reforming the lawsuit process so that frivolous lawsuits meant to politically grandstand are reduced? They clearly want the Supreme Court to overturn this piece of legislation passed by a majority of the democratically elected Congressional leaders. Isn't that looking for activist judges to "legislate from the bench?" And haven't they claimed that they are dead-set against "legislating from the bench" by activist judges? Absolutely. Ironically one of their main talking points against the health care reform was that it will cost too much. Yet, is taking this lawsuit to the supreme court really a good use of tax payers money? Where is the Tea Bagging outrage on fiscal responsibility?!!

---End of Transmission---

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Immediate Benefits of the Obama Health Care Bill.

Here is some of what President Obama said today before the big health care vote. And I paraphrase:

With this new health care bill--IMMEDIATELY--this year, small business will get tax credits to offer health insurance to their employees. Small businesses could see up to $3,000 in savings (per employee) on their health care costs. This according to the Business Round Table. THIS YEAR parents won't have to worry anymore about not being able to get coverage for their kids due to a pre-existing condition. This year insurance companies won't be able to drop your coverage when you get sick. Nor will they be able to continue to impose lifetime limits.

James: This shouldn't be passed for Obama's sake or for the good of the Democratic Party but for the sake of those who will be able to get health care who are dying and/or without help because of a pre-existing condition. It comes down to what we value most--people, or politics? See the rest of the President's remarks because it was one of his most stirring and clear speeches yet that I've heard on what this health care reform really means for all of us:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

What is Deem and Pass?

By Jason Linkins

Another day in the health care reform debate brings with it another battle over parliamentary procedure, and another example of the
media struggling to get some basic facts right. Today, the battle is joined over deeming resolutions, the process by which House Democrats may finally overcome hurdles and worries to get the process of passing reform moving forward.

The GOP has advanced the idea that the "deem and pass" process -- also known as "The Slaughter Rule" because the idea was suggested by Representative Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) -- is tantamount to passing health care reform without voting on it. The media has largely accepted, or at least lent credence to this premise. But does that sound right to you, Marc Ambinder? "that's wrong. House Democrats aren't doing that. In fact, they ARE taking an up or down vote on the Senate health care bill. They're just doing it AT THE SAME TIME as they're passing the reconciliation language, which countermands several controversial provisions.

Here's what's going on. The House is stuck having to basically pass the Senate health care bill, because the bill cannot be reconciled in conference committee. Why? Because it will be filibustered. However, House members are averse to doing anything that looks like they approve of the various side-deals that were made in the Senate -- like the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback." The House intends to remove those unpopular features in budget reconciliation, but if they pursue budget reconciliation on a standard legislative timeline -- where they pass the Senate bill outright first and then go back to pass a reconciliation package of fixes -- they'd still appear to be endorsing the sketchy side deals, and then the GOP would jump up and down on their heads.

Enter "deem and pass." Under this process, the House will simply skip to approving the reconciliation fixes, and "deem" the Senate bill to be passed. By doing it this way, the Democrats get the Senate bill passed while simultaneously coming out against the unpopular features of the same. YES. All of this is basically motivated by concerns over perceptions and other such cosmetic bullshit. This is all about the House Democrats being scared out of their minds that they'll have to spend even an hour explaining, "No, we do not approve of the Cornhusker Kickback." But that's America, circa 2010. It makes the Democrats look timid, but it doesn't make them wrong. This is now the third round of opposition that's been put before the media ever since the "Slaughter Rule" was first proposed. The first round featured Republicans going nuts about it, on the grounds that it was some sort of unprecedented legislative maneuver. Just like they said about budget reconciliation! Sadly, that doesn't bear up under scrutiny. As Ryan Grim reports, however, deeming resolutions are pretty darned precedented:

The first time that the chamber used what's known as a "deeming resolution" -- the mechanism Democrats are leaning toward using to pass the Senate health care bill through the House -- was March 16, 1933.

Then, as now, it involved a bill that had little support in the chamber among individual Democrats, but all of them knew they had to pass it. Very few Democrats want to vote for the Senate version of health care reform, but most are okay with it as long as it's amended through reconciliation. Less than two weeks into FDR's first 100 days, Congress needed to raise its debt ceiling, a ritual vote that hasn't gotten any easier for the majority party in the intervening 77 years -- and is still political fodder for partisan opponents. Instead of voting on the underlying Senate bill to raise the debt ceiling in 1933, the House voted on Resolution 63, which stated that "immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the bill H.R. 2820, with Senate amendments thereto, be, and the same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table to the end that all Senate amendments be, and the same are hereby, agreed to." More recently, Grim notes that deeming resolutions were used by Republicans "36 times in 2005 and 2006," and by Democrats "49 times in 2007 and 2008."

But the way that some journalists are describing it, you'd think the House Democrats were willing a bill into law by magic. "House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it," blared a Washington Post headline. The Post's only explanation of the tactic came from Nancy Pelosi, who said, "It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know."

The Wall Street Journal editorial board went even further, beginning their editorial with a cutesy fairy tale setup. We're not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely "deem" that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway. None of this is new! Does one side want health care and the other side not want health care and nobody wants to compromise? Yay! SHINY HORSE RACE FOR THE MEDIA TO COVER. Who cares if the contention that Nancy Pelosi wants to pass health care reform without a vote is a lie? To the political press, a lie is just an "interesting point of view."

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, March 11, 2010

CBO: Obama Health Care Bill Would Reduce Deficit.

WASHINGTON — Congressional budget referees say Senate legislation that's now the foundation for President Barack Obama's health care plan would cut the federal deficit by $118 billion over 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says the $875 billion, 10-year plan would provide coverage to 31 million people who'd otherwise be uninsured. And it says the cost would be more than offset in savings from changes in Medicare and other programs.

TPJ: So much for the right's talking point that the health reform would add to the deficit. The CBO is a non-partisan federal agency which provides economic data to Congress. Also, The president talked about letters he gets of seniors who have been mislead and confused about his proposals:

"The president went on to make a serious point, saying that many senior citizens wrote to him to tell him to keep the government's hands off Medicare, a health plan for elderly people. He said he wrote back to these people to point out that Medicare is in fact a federally administered program."

TPJ: It really pisses me off that the right-wing has purposefully misled seniors by bolstering their confusion and adding to it. They should be ashamed of themselves for using our frailest citizens this way. Our politicians should be in the business of educating the public not manipulating them to serve their selfishness, greed and lust for power. They have used our senior citizens (ours an their parents and grandparents) as pawns in a game to win back power in Congress by any means necessary.

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Liberalism, Atheism and Male Sexual Exclusivity Linked to IQ.

TPJ: I include some briefs comments after this article:

Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds. Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be. The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them. "The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."

Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger. "It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said. Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion," Bailey said.

The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights. "Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said. Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach -- looking out for the people around you first -- fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. "It's unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers." he said.

It also makes sense that "conservatism" as a worldview of keeping things stable would be a safer approach than venturing toward the unfamiliar, Bailey said. Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said. This also fits into Bailey's idea that unconventional preferences appeal to people with higher intelligence.

TPJ: Maybe conservatives will stop saying the university system is a liberal indoctrination institution. If intelligence is related to liberalism as this study shows, then it's only logical that more students would develop liberal beliefs. It doesn't necessarily have to be associated with indoctrination. In fact, I had several good professors who I couldn't tell their political leanings--even after years of working with them!! If you look at history and study those who were the ones pushing society forward such as those during the enlightenment, you see that they were often shunned by the established system. Those who wanted to advance society were even sometimes burned at the stake!! Now, this all said I know plenty of conservatives who are intelligent but interestingly they are usually more moderate.

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Limbaugh to Leave U.S. if Health care Passes.

If Democrats didn't have all the incentive they needed to pass health care reform already, then conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh may have provided the final push they needed by vowing to flee the country if the reform bill is passed. Responding to a caller who asked him where he would go for health care if Congress enacts reform, Limbaugh replied:
I don't know. I'll just tell you this, if this passes and it's five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented -- I am leaving the country. I'll go to Costa Rica.
TPJ: Is that a promise Rush? We're going to hold you too it but seeing how often you delve into the hypocritical, I'm not holding my breath. So much for all that bravado about being a true patriot and defender of America. Rush, just don't move down to Costa Rica until my wife and I have returned from our 10 year wedding anniversary down there because once you show up it will no longer be unspoiled. Oh, and by the way Rush? Costa Rica has UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!!!! Bwahahahaha!!!! And I'd like to personally contribute to a fund to send you down there--If the Costa Ricans will have you!! I have a better destination for a low taxes, small government guy like yourself--SOMALIA!!! They have no real government to speak of and thus, no taxes!!! Perfect for a guy like you.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, March 04, 2010

Anti-Gay Politician, a DUI, a Gay Bar and a Child Prostitution Ring at the Vatican. Oh my!!

Early Wednesday morning, State Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-Calif.) was pulled over and arrested for drunk driving. Sources report that Ashburn -- a fierce opponent of gay rights -- was driving drunk after leaving a gay nightclub; when the officer stopped the state-issued vehicle, there was an unidentified man in the passenger seat of the car.

TPJ: Oh Senator Ashburn, me thinks thou doth protest too much!! Ranting and raving to no end about the "evils of homosexuality" is a classic sign of your own inner, sexual turmoil. I normally don't care about peoples' sex lives unless they themselves make a big deal about the sex lives of everyone else. This isn't very shocking but what would be shocking is if a gay, Republican politician proudly came out of the closet on his/her own rather than being exposed as a self-hating hypocrite. I'm not saying that there aren't hypocrites in the Democratic party because there are but when it comes to sexual hypocrisy? Especially when in-line with homosexuality? The Republicans nearly have a monopoly. Now, in other "news" a child prostitution ring has been exposed in relation to the Vatican:
A papal aide used an intermediary in an elite Vatican choir to solicit young male choristers and seminarians for prostitution. Police wiretaps are expected to result in charges against Angelo Balducci, 63, a Papal Gentleman, as lay attendant are called, and the former chairman of the Holy See's Public Works Department, which is itself caught up in a corruption investigation. According to police, Balducci regularly contacted Chinedu Ehiem Thomas, a Nigerian man who sings in St. Peter's Cappella Giulia, to engage the sexual services of young male members of the choir, along with seminarians and undocumented immigrants seeking residency status. Ehiem, 40, who goes by the nickname Mike, and his assistant Lorenzo Renzi, 33, allegedly arranged for prostitutes for Balducci several times a week. The two men are said to have operated a network of aspiring young priests, choir members and sometimes recruited foreigners seeking to secure their immigration status.
TPJ: I find it ironic that the Catholic church has so many sex scandals and yet has the temerity to get involved in telling other people how they should behave sexually!! What does a celibate person know about sexuality anyway?!! And then the Catholics think they have the credibility to weigh in on the gay marriage debate??? They are up to the eye-balls in priests and officials engaging in sex acts with children, yet they are going to lecture law-abiding homosexuals and heterosexuals on what is "correct sexual conduct???" Bullshit. That's like taking financial advice from Bernie Madoff. I'm so sick of the religious mafia going around and condemning everyone while they leave a trail of pain, abuse and hatred behind them. If these religious organizations are going to insist on involving themselves in political matters then it's about damn time to tax them!!

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Ronald Reagan to Replace Grant on $50 Bill?

RALEIGH, N.C. — A U.S. congressman from North Carolina wants the $50 bill redrawn to feature the face of former President Ronald Reagan. Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry wants Congress to tell the U.S Treasury to replace former President Ulysses S. Grant on the bill. McHenry announced his bill Tuesday. He has 13 Republican co-sponsors.

TPJ: I will "grant" you, (pun intended) that Reagan did some good things but Grant saved the country from splitting in two. He successfully ended the American civil war, helped bring the country back together, signed and enforced civil rights laws AND went on to be president.

I'm not against Reagan being on currency per se but replacing Grant is something this historian can't support. And it's not a political thing because I'd say the same about Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.

---End of Transmission---