I AM A DIASPORAL JEW OF THE ASHKENAZ TRIBE AND I HEREBY DECLARE BUELAHMAN AND LYNDA OF BUELAHMAN'S REDSTATE REVOLT TO BE ABSOLUTELY FREE OF ANTI-SEMITISM OF ANY KIND. THEIR VIEWS ON AMERICA'S ISRAEL POLICY IS THE SAME AS MINE. IT IS THE SAME AS WELL OVER 30% OF THE ISRAELI PEOPLE AND OVER 70% OF THE DIASPORAL ASHKENAZ COMMUNITY IN THE WORLD OUTSIDE BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL.
SCOTTSDALE, AZ—In an act designed to completely reassure voters about his health, presidential candidate John McCain checked himself into the Mayo Clinic yesterday, where he successfully completed another unbearably bloody, invasive, and most foul operation. “Sen. McCain’s enterocutaneous fistula was treated swiftly and without incident, ” said Dr. Michael Yardley, standing before the press covered in the 72-year-old’s blood and fecal matter. “After we breached the abdominal wall to take numerous tissue samples from his small intestine, it was clear the senator was in perfect health for his age. A few more simple blood and mucus tests too horrifying to discuss here and the senator will be fit as a fiddle.” Next month, doctors at the Cleveland Clinic will manually disimpact stool from McCain’s fetid rectum in what is expected to be a painless procedure for the spry and virile Arizona senator.
BALTIMORE – A man alleging a Maryland doctor stapled his rectum shut during an operation — causing him to go without defecating for 17 days — took his federal lawsuit to trial Monday in Baltimore.
Ronald Watkins, 64, of West Virginia, is suing Manuel Casiano, a doctor in Frederick County, for allegedly botching a 2004 surgery that left Watkins with permanent bowel problems.
“The reason for suing Dr. Casiano is very simple: His rectum was stapled shut,” said Julia Lodowski, who with attorney Emily Malarkey is representing Watkins and his wife, Brenda.
Lodowski told jurors in U.S. District Court that Watkins now experiences “rectal discharge” and needs to wipe himself between 12 and 15 times a day.
He’s also had to have four “unnecessary surgeries” because of Casiano’s actions, Lodowski said.
The doctor’s attorney, Conrad Varner, said Watkins’ bowels merely became “swollen shut” because of medical problems — not because of stapling.
Varner said Watkins’ habitual smoking — two packs a day — contributed to his bowel problems, because nicotine constricts blood vessels.
Watkins underwent surgery Sept. 8, 2004, for a newly diagnosed rectal tumor, during which Casiano made the mistake, according to his lawsuit against the Foris Surgical Group.
Watkins then complained of increasing rectal pressure, and an inability to pass gas, his lawsuit states.
In a subsequent surgery, Casiano found that Watkins’ rectum was closed because of staples, according to the lawsuit.
“He couldn’t get past the staple line,” Lodowski told jurors.
“How else do we know that his rectum was stapled shut? Most importantly, Dr. Casiano said so.”
A graduate of New York School of Medicine who works at Frederick Memorial Hospital, Casiano has no record of any disciplinary actions, according to the Maryland Board of Physicians.
Watkins’ lawsuit does not seek a specific amount of damages.
The League of Women Voters is an American political organization founded in 1920[1] by Carrie Chapman Catt during the last meeting of the National American Woman Suffrage Association approximately six months before the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution gave U.S. women the right to vote. It began as a “mighty political experiment” aimed to help newly-enfranchised women exercise their responsibilities as voters. Originally, only women could join the league; but in 1973 the charter was modified to include men. The league is a grassroots organization with chapters in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The league has approximately 150,000 members (as of 2006).[2]
The league is nonpartisan, refusing to endorse or oppose political candidates or parties at any level of government. The league does support or oppose many political issues after studying them and coming to a consensus on a position. The league works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and to influence public policy through education and advocacy, as well as through political lobbying of Congress.
The league is organized into two complementary halves: Voter service and citizen education; and program and action.
Voter service and citizen education
The Voter Service and Citizen Education portion of the league informs and educates voters about candidates, the electoral process and issues on which the league has no position.
The league Education Fund sponsored the 1976, 1980, and 1984 presidential debates. In 1988, the league withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were to be conducted, which ultimately resulted in the Democratic and Republican parties forming the Commission on Presidential Debates which gave the parties greater control over the debate environment.
On October 2, 1988, the league’s 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:
“The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debates . . . because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The league has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”
Published on Monday, September 22, 2008 by The Nation
by John Nichols
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, like rival John McCain, has yet to take a stand one way of the other on the proposal to have U.S. taxpayers bail out the worst players in the U.S. financial system with a scheme to buy up $700 billion worth of bad loans.
Obama calls McCain “the great deregulator” and warned that the Republican would do to the health care system what had been done to the banking.
McCain’s campaign called Obama a “directionless driver” on the economy.
Obama was for helping Wall Street and Main Street, which was better than just helping Wall Street… but not much, when you consider that Main Street rarely wins these wrestling matches. McCain was for keeping “people in their homes and (safeguarding) the life savings of all Americans by protecting our financial system and capital markets,” which is this week’s variation on the “sound economy” in “crisis” dichotomy of last week.
But neither candidate took a clear stand on the proposal that’s being placed on the table.
So what should the contenders — especially Obama — be saying?
How about borrowing a page from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who served as a member of the House banking committee before his election to the Senate, where he is now a member of the budget committee.
Sanders actually understands how the current crisis got started.
And the independent senator understands that what is being proposed by the Washington and Wall Street mandarins who got us into this mess as a fix is actually bad policy on steroids.
Here’s what Sanders says — and what Obama and the Democrats should be saying:
For years, as a member of the House Banking Committee and now as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I have heard the Bush Administration tell us how “robust” our economy was and how strong the “fundamentals” were. That was until a few days ago. Now, we are being told that if Congress does not act immediately and approve the $700 billion Wall Street bailout proposal these “free marketers” have just written up, there will be an unprecedented economic meltdown in the United States and an unraveling of the global economy.
This proposal as presented is an unacceptable attempt to force middle income families (and our children) to pick up the cost of fixing the horrendous economic mess that is the product of the Bush Administration’s deregulatory fever and Wall Street’s insatiable greed. If the potential danger to our economy was not so dire, this blatant effort to essentially transfer $700 billion up the income ladder to those at the top would be laughable.
Let us be clear. If the economy is on the edge of collapse we need to act. But rescuing the economy does not mean we have to just give away $700 billion of taxpayer money to the banks. (In truth, it could be much more than $700 billion. The bill only says the government is limited to having $700 billion outstanding at any time. By selling the mortgage backed assets it acquires — even at staggering losses — the government will be able to buy even more resulting is a virtually limitless financial exposure on the part of taxpayers.) Any proposal must protect middle income and working families from bearing the burden of this bailout.
I have proposed a three part plan to accomplish that goal which includes a five-year, 10% surtax on the income of individuals above $500,000 a year, and $1 million a year for couples; a requirement that the price the government pays for any mortgage assets are discounted appropriately so that government can recover the amount it paid for them; and, finally, the government should receive equity in the companies it bails out so that when the stock of these companies rises after the bailout, taxpayers also have the opportunity to share in the resulting windfall. Taken together, these measures would provide the best guarantee that at the end of five years, the government will have gotten back the money it put out.
Second, in addition to protecting the average American from being saddled with the cost, any serious proposal has to include reforms so that we end the type of behavior that led to this crisis in the first place. Much of this activity can be traced to specific legislation that broke down regulatory safety walls in the financial sector and allowed banks and others to engage in new types of risky transactions that are at the heart of this crisis. That deregulation needs to be repealed. Wall Street has shown it cannot be trusted to police itself. We need to reinstate a strong regulatory system that protects our economy.
Third, we need to address the needs of working families in this country who are today facing very difficult times. If we can bail out Wall Street, we need to respond with equal vigor to their plight. That means, for example, creating millions of jobs through major investments in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and creating a new renewable energy system. We must also make certain that the most vulnerable Americans don’t freeze in the winter or die because they lack access to primary health care.
Finally, we need to protect ourselves from being at the mercy of giant companies that are “too big to fail,” that is, companies who are so large that their failure would cause systemic harm to the economy. We need to assess which companies fall into this category and insist they are broken up. Otherwise, the American taxpayer will continue to be on the financial hook for the risky behavior, the mismanagement, and even the illegal conduct of these companies’ executives.
These are the last days of the Bush Administration, the most dishonest and incompetent in modern American history. It is imperative that, at this important moment, Congress stand up for the middle class and for fiscal integrity. The future of our country is at stake.
From Vox Populi we have recorded a joke made by Chuck Hagel that ends up being the most important comment he has ever made (even if done in jest). The joke is that everyone there understands that what he said was true, that the only candidate running that has his vision is Ralph Nader. It is funny to the room full of sheeple because those people believe that Ralph Nader has no place in politics and they think the sanity of Hagel’s statement is insanity.
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) delivered an address at Riggs Library earlier this afternoon. While his remarks focused on the perils on the financial crisis and continued US involvement in Iraq, Hagel was asked at the end of the speech, “Who amongst the candidates believes in [your] vision for the future?”
“Everybody is going to want to hear this,” Senator Hagel announced. “Ralph Nader.” And with laughter and clapping in the background, Hagel left for a meeting of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee to work out the details of the Wall Street bailout.
BuelahMan
Lynda
kelsosnuts
