A Win For Bloomberg

Recently our government, first under Bush and then with Obama, gave the financial sector a ton of flipping money to help them avoid a crash and burn….money by the way was from the taxpayers…and when they, the Fed was asked to tell the taxpayer where their money had gone, the Fed declined and in turn Bloomberg sued them for that information.

The Federal Reserve must for the first time identify the companies in its emergency lending programs after losing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled against the central bank yesterday, rejecting the argument that loan records aren’t covered by the law because their disclosure would harm borrowers’ competitive positions.

The Fed has refused to name the financial firms it lent to or disclose the amounts or the assets put up as collateral under 11 programs, most put in place during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression, saying that doing so might set off a run by depositors and unsettle shareholders. Bloomberg LP, the New York-based company majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued on Nov. 7 on behalf of its Bloomberg News unit.

“The Federal Reserve has to be accountable for the decisions that it makes,” said U.S. Representative Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, after Preska’s ruling. “It’s one thing to say that the Federal Reserve is an independent institution. It’s another thing to say that it can keep us all in the dark.”

The case is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

I am sure that there will be an appeato the ruling…but for now….the taxpayers have a win in their column, not that it will do much to help them with their economic struggles, but maybe we can see who got what and why.

Goodbye Teddy

The “Liberal Lion” of the Senate is gone.

“Edward M. Kennedy, the husband, father, grandfather, brother and uncle we loved so deeply, died late Tuesday night at home in Hyannis Port (Massachusetts),” the Kennedy family said in a statement early Wednesday.

He was one of only few true statesmen we had in the US Congress….he will be sorely missed.

Goodbye Teddy!

Is It Implied Violence?

***This was a post that I originally wrote for Progressive Independence (go to blogroll to visit).

By now most Americans have seen all the images of the common man branishing his gun at the townhalls across the country.  Some bill them as “average” Americans dis hearted by the government take over.

I have heard several pundits state that this people are exercising their 2nd Amendment right by appearing in the protests while packing.  That is all well and good but what does packing a gun have to do with health care?  I guess it is just a constitutional thing, huh?

Back to the “average” Americans with guns….most of these mach little pricks have been exp[osed as members or supporters of right wing militias.  And in case you do not know, most of them see the government as something evil and needs to be confronted whenever possible.

Carrying a gun at a public townhall meeting with a public figure is “implied violence”, no matter which side of the political spectrum you stand on…it is Implied Violence!  The cowards in the city governments that are allowing this are playing with fire.  They allow this so they cannot be sued for some constitutioonal busting law suit.  They are AFRAID!

What would be the outcome if a person from an anarchist group showed up with a gun?  Would they be treated with kid gloves like the macho morons on the right?  If the anarchist is a threat why is the right wing militia member not a threat?

If violence is not implied why pack heat?  The carrying of a weapon is in NO way part of the conversation on health care.

How long will this continue?  How long will the Secret Service look the other way?  How long will ALL law enforcement people look the other way?  How long will it be before someone packing over-reacts?  Will it take the injury to a president before these dipsticks are taken out of the public?

Sad to say, that it looks like the death of a president will be the only thing that will wake up a sleeping country to the implied violence of guns at public meetings.

2009 Anal-Ocity

HA HA HA HA….sorry sometimes people in Congress say the damnedest things….and this time I cannot blame the GOP for a complete anal statement….this time it is Dem that has his head shoved up his ass….

Democrat Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia told a town hall meeting:

“I have a problem with this government option plan,” Boucher said. “I’m troubled that the government option plan could become very popular and if it became sufficiently popular it could begin to crowd out the other” private insurance companies.

I am sorry but that is another really anal statement. Sorry, but funny is funny….and that is funny.  Can you see the humor?  This dipstick supports co-ops and these will not be a powerful deterrent to powerful insurance.  So how much cash does this dipstick get from the health industry?


Is Beck On Vacation?

It looks like Glenn Beck of FOX News will be absent from the airwaves for a week….the story is he will be on vacation….or did he get time off for bad behavior?

In a report by the AP:

Glenn Beck returns to Fox News Channel on Monday after a vacation with fewer companies willing to advertise on his show than when he left, part of the fallout from calling President Barack Obama a racist.A total of 33 Fox advertisers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., CVS Caremark, Clorox and Sprint, directed that their commercials not air on Beck’s show, according to the companies and ColorofChange.org, a group that promotes political action among blacks and launched a campaign to get advertisers to abandon him. That’s more than a dozen more than were identified a week ago.

Will this put an end to unwarranted and vile attacks?  Nope, just more fuel for the fire.

On the website examiner.com there is a different tale being passed around.

The recent and, until now, successful advertiser boycott initiated against Glenn Beck by the radical group Color of Change, appears to be backfiring on the left wing group and its supporters.  Grass roots support coming from diehard fans defending the patriotic radio/TV personality and constitutional watchdog seems to be growing in an exponential fashion.An extemporaneous, nationwide movement is rapidly taking shape to support Beck.  Facebook groups, Web sites, home-grown e-mail blasts, viral marketing and individual telephone call list campaigns have appeared in record numbers supporting Beck.

With a voice that reaches nearly as many as Rush Limbaugh, Beck has increasingly become a target for progressive, liberal, socialist and green groups who disagree with the talk-show host’s opinions and the information he presents – information that most other talk-show hosts are afraid to touch.

Beck’s dissemination of critical information has cut deep into wrong doing, lies and inconsistencies in the Bush White House and continues today with his “pulling aside of the veil” that hides falsehoods and corruption in the Obama administration.  In a world of Change, where union workers and community organization group members are used as rent-a-mobs to stop dissent and discourse, it’s no surprise that the White House has a vested interest in silencing Mr. Beck – enter Van Jones.

Hopefully, Beck’s employers will stick it out with him instead of cowering to the progressive boycott, only time will tell.  But for now, we get to see one in a long line of examples of how actions produced by left-think quite often create a result contradictory to its intent.

Once again we go back to what will you believe?

Will The Constitution Be Violated?

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:   US Constitution

I asked this question some months ago and at that time I was asking if Obama would violate it.  Then I was pointing to the nomination of Clinton as a possible violation….that problem was averted but there has been many accusations of the violation of the Constitution in the past couple of months.

Just yesterday, North Carolina Rep. Foxx said this about health care:

The Constitution doesn’t grant a right to health care, and most of us are living as much by the Constitution as we can. It also doesn’t give the federal government the authority to deal with health care.

There is always the part about the “general welfare”?

This woman has made several appearance in Info Ink” Anal-Ocity posts, but I digress……

Rep. Bachmann has accused Obama of violating the Constitution by his pushing of the health care reform…hers however is lame and impotent argument.  And then there is the whole Constitutional BS of Obama’s citizenship…and I know everyone has heard that accusation.  And if you believe the BS you would be mistaken…the Prez is a citizen and there is NO violation.

All the accusations have been wrong?  So far most of them are total BS.  But before we go any further there is a few things I should cover, like the 1st amendment which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

And then there is the state’s rights thing:

all the rights and powers which the Constitution neither grants to the federal government nor denies to the state governments.

And now I would bet that you are wondering where I am going with this, right?

Alrighty then…..the state of Texas, go figure, has recently made it mandatory that the Bible be taught in its public school system.  Now is that a violation of the US Constitution?  Please look at it from a constitutional law perspective and not from personal emotional thing.

The state has past a law that violates the whole separation of church and state thingy…….if the Constitution has said that it is unlawful to put one religion over another…..then how can a state enforce a state law that violates the US Constitution?  Civil rights is the first thing that comes to mind.  Should this mandate be challenged in a court of law?  How should the Constitution be interpreted?  Figuratively?  Literally?  Just how should it be viewed?

These questions have been asked for decades and probably for the entire life of the country…..but how do you see this playing out?

2009 Anal-ocity

I know some of my readers think I have a hard on for Repubs….well that is not so….an anal statement is just that no matter who says it….granted there have been a wealth of Repubs in 2009 that have made some of the lamest statements I have heard….but they are not alone….thios toime the anal statement came from a Dem, one Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA).

He Frank was asked by a woman at a townhall of why he continues to support the Nazi policies of Obama, he replied:

“a tribute to the First Amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated.’’

And for good measure, he added, “Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.’’

That is not the way to handle a person asking a lame question…he should have shown more respect and replied to her with intelligence…but instead he wanted to be glib and condescending ….for this reason his was an anal statement that was unwarranted.

The Horror Of Rationing….Or Is It?

That is it a horror…..if we listen top and believe those on the far right we will be having rationing of our health care if the Dems get their way.  We have been bombarded with this prediction for a couple of months now and I want to know…what do they mean by “rationing”?  There are several types of rationing:  about.com has some of the answers.

Self-Rationing

Sometimes we limit ourselves. Suppose you develop a rash. You have two choices. You can go to the doctor, pay a co-pay, or pay cash from your pocket. Then you’ll still need to pay for whatever prescription your doctor writes for you, too.

Or, you may choose an over-the-counter rash treatment instead — much less expensive, not to mention the time you saved by not making an appointment, even waiting for heaven-knows-how-long to see the doctor. If you choose the no-doctor-visit route, then you have self-rationed your care, and saved money for something you believe is more important.

Health Insurer Rationing

Health insurers ration care, but they don’t call it rationing, and they don’t even want you to realize that it is rationing. Dr. Rich Fogoros, the About.com Guide to Heart Disease gave this its own term. He calls it “covert rationing.”

Health insurers ration care through co-pays, deductibles and caps. In fact, what they are really doing is encouraging you to self-ration. Knowing that a certain amount of your care will have to be paid from your pocket, you may choose not to get the care or drug you need.

Health insurers deny services or reimbursements for services. Denial of care is perhaps the most understood form of rationing, because it causes outrage and frustration. What most patients don’t understand is that this is also the aspect of rationing that is most affected by laws and regulations, too.

Government Healthcare Rationing

Even the government rations healthcare. The difference between the government’s rationing and the rationing conducted by health insurers is that there is no profit motive. The government, through Medicare or state Medicaid or other programs, keeps costs lower as much as possible in order to keeps taxes lower, or to expand care to others, both considered to be the greater good.

People need to understand and understand completely what is meant by rationing…no matter what one believes, one should have ALL the facts and not just some 20 second buzz from a well groomed millionaire.

There are several reasons why understanding healthcare rationing will help you.

First, should you run into a denial of care, you’ll know why it’s been denied, and will better understand how to go about combating it, should you want to do so.

Second, in the coming years you will hear more and more about and why it will, or won’t, affect how you receive care. The biggest arguments center on how payment should be handled; whether it should be handled as it is now with both government and private payers, or whether the United States should move to an all-government, single payer system.

Some experts in healthcare rationing will tell you that private health insurer rationing means that the insurers are the ones determining who is getting what care. They cite the fact that which treatment you receive has more to do with whether or not your insurer gives permission than what you and your doctor think would be best. Private insurers argue that if the government takes over all cost coverage of all healthcare, then the government will make healthcare decisions for patients.

The far right of the GOP is making noise about the Dems will have rationing to all people…especially to the elderly whgich will let them die by withholding treatment….Sorry, I have read the bill and that is just not so.  Besides we already have rationing, look at a transplant list….if the money is not there then the top person can be skipped over…..there is rationing now…only thing it is done by the insurance companies and not the government.

As usual the talk over the proposed health bill is just using fear to make a point and to incite verbal revolt.  Rationing is not a coming fear…it is a reality of today.

Those Darn Pesky “Death Panels”

Holy crap!  It is now official…Death Panels have been eliminated from the Senate’s bill.  In a statement about the “panels”:

We never had “death panels” in the plan. Those, such as Sarah Palin, who say we did are liars trying to derail our compassionate plan to get health insurance for all Americans. This is all part of a right wing conspiracy to deny health insurance to the poor. It’s all a lie! There are no death panels! But we just took a vote to eliminate them from the plan.

Okay I am looking at the quote……I believe I would have pick a better way of stating whatever it is he is stating.  To me how can you eliminate something that you say was not there?  Or are they making sure that no such language is ever in the bill?  That quote can be used both ways and will be taken out of context…I can almost bet on that.

The wording will give credence to the idea that there were “death panels” in the original bill…If you would like to check it out….it is HR 3200 pages 425-430, that way one does not have to read the whole 1100+ page bill….just trying to help…..

It is amazing what will be said to lather up the base……lies have always worked better than the truth…..why?…..few people believe the truth.



Get Your Sweat On!

It has been a week of people yelling at elected officials, crap being made up for TV, old people being pissed and car chases, plane crashes and so on…..I am just trying to lighten the weekend up a bit…it is Sexy Sunday.

One of the most intimate forms of loving, it’s far from unsexy. When it comes to excreting buckets of moisture from your skin, wetter can be better. While many would wrinkle their noses at the notion of an antiperspirant meltdown, the action it can inspire captures sexy in its most animalistic form.

Sweaty sex:

— Means more calories and fat are being burned during a vigorous sex session;

— Allows for more slithery sex as your bodies slide all over one another;

— Makes for a body suctioning effect that enhances feelings of “we’re one” during sex;

— Offers new sensations that appease our need for variety, like salty kisses;

— Puts a twist in your routine as it taps into your inner instinct of raw, uninhibited sex;

— Can have the two of you resembling the wet sleekness of “Sports Illustrated” swimsuit models, with slicked back hair or shiny skin;

— Releases more of our natural scents, particularly those around the groin, which can be an aphrodisiac, even if on a subconscious level.

Embracing sweaty sex and its many benefits work in every couple’s favor to help them realize more action year-round. While most easily attained during the scorching summer months, sweaty sex can be had post-workout. With exercise often sparking sexual arousal, couples can satiate immediate gratification in not letting any feelings of “I need to bathe first” embarrassment get in the way.

See……… sweat is great!  A whole new definition of sweating to the 60’s, huh?