Thursday, January 7, 2010


Palin: I'm "Not Gonna Back Off" Death Panel Claim

Share this on FacebookRSS

First Posted: 01- 6-10 11:16 PM   |   Updated: 01- 7-10 12:54 AM
WHAT'S YOUR REACTION?
 
Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin is standing by her claim that Democratic-authored health care legislation includes the infamous "death panels" - even after the assertion was labeled the "lie of the year" by a prize-winning fact checking organization.
The former Alaska governor told Sean Hannity, in a taping of the conservative firebrand's radio program on Wednesday, that she was "not gonna back off" the criticism that the health care bill would pursue cost saving measures by rationing end of life care.
"If the health care bill goes the way Obama wants it, we're gonna have something very much like foreign countries' systems of health care like the British, and it's the American people -- if we have our health care paid for by the bureaucracy, by government -- depending on our health condition, depending on our age -- we're gonna be subject to bureaucrats deciding, panels and commissions deciding -- just like they do overseas -- who will be worthy of receiving the health care that government is going to provide."
"So that is the death panel that I referred to, and I won't back off on criticizing that aspect of the health care bill."

The remarks come roughly two weeks after Palin took to her Facebook page to re-assert the validity of the much-criticized (and thoroughly debunked) death panel. That entry from the former vice presidential candidate, in turn, was in response to PolitiFact.com post that dubbed the argument the "lie of the year."
Palin scoffed at that critique. But there was one hitch to her re-assertion. She changed the definition about what actually constituted the death panel. In her first go-around, the former governor referenced end-of-life counseling in the health care legislation. In the post-Politifact Facebook entry she insisted that the death panel was coming in the form of a Medicare Advisory Board -- a panel that a large number of well-respected economist have deemed important to reign in costs in Medicare (not, say, cut the plug on granny).
(Hat tip: GOP12)

Sunday, January 3, 2010

End of the World Again?!!

Biblical scholar's date for rapture: May 21, 2011
Justin Berton, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, January 1, 2010

Harold Camping lets out a hearty chuckle when he considers the people who believe the world will end in 2012.

"That date has not one stitch of biblical authority," Camping says from the Oakland office where he runs Family Radio, an evangelical station that reaches listeners around the world. "It's like a fairy tale."

The real date for the end of times, he says, is in 2011.

The Mayans and the recent Hollywood movie "2012" have put the apocalypse in the popular mind this year, but Camping has been at this business for a long time. And while Armageddon is pop science or big-screen entertainment to many, Camping has followers from the Bay Area to China.

Camping, 88, has scrutinized the Bible for almost 70 years and says he has developed a mathematical system to interpret prophecies hidden within the Good Book. One night a few years ago, Camping, a civil engineer by trade, crunched the numbers and was stunned at what he'd found: The world will end May 21, 2011.

This is not the first time Camping has made a bold prediction about Judgment Day.

On Sept. 6, 1994, dozens of Camping's believers gathered inside Alameda's Veterans Memorial Building to await the return of Christ, an event Camping had promised for two years. Followers dressed children in their Sunday best and held Bibles open-faced toward heaven.

But the world did not end. Camping allowed that he may have made a mathematical error. He spent the next decade running new calculations, as well as overseeing a media company that has grown significantly in size and reach.

"We are now translated into 48 languages and have been transmitting into China on an AM station without getting jammed once," Camping said. "How can that happen without God's mercy?"

His office is flanked by satellite dishes in the parking lot that transmit his talk show, "Open Forum." In the Bay Area, he's heard on 610 AM, KEAR. Camping says his company owns about 55 stations in the United States alone, and that his message arrives on every continent.

'I'm looking forward to it'

Employees at the Oakland office run printing presses that publish Camping's pamphlets and books, and some wear T-shirts that read, "May 21, 2011." They're happy to talk about the day they believe their souls will be retrieved by Christ.

"I'm looking forward to it," said Ted Solomon, 60, who started listening to Camping in 1997. He's worked at Family Radio since 2004, making sure international translators properly dictate Camping's sermons.

"This world may have had an attraction to me at one time," Solomon said. "But now it's definitely lost its appeal."

Camping is a frail-looking man, and his voice is low and deep, but it can rise to dramatic peaks with a preacher's flair.

As a young man, he owned an East Bay construction business but longed to work as a servant of God. So he hit the books.

"Because I was an engineer, I was very interested in the numbers," he said. "I'd wonder, 'Why did God put this number in, or that number in?' It was not a question of unbelief, it was a question of, 'There must be a reason for it.' "

Code-breaking phenomenon

Camping is not the only man to see truths in the Bible hidden in the numbers. In the late 1990s, a code-breaking phenomenon took off, led by "The Bible Code," written by former Washington Post journalist Michael Drosnin.

Drosnin developed a technique that revealed prophecies within the Bible's text. A handful of biblical scholars have supported Drosnin's theory, lending it an air of legitimacy, and just as many scholars have decried it as farce.

One of Drosnin's more well-known findings is that a meteor will strike Earth in 2012, the same year some people believe the Mayan calendar marks the end of times, and the same year the "2012" action movie surmised the Earth's crust will destabilize and kill most humans.

Meaning in numbers

By Camping's understanding, the Bible was dictated by God and every word and number carries a spiritual significance. He noticed that particular numbers appeared in the Bible at the same time particular themes are discussed.

The number 5, Camping concluded, equals "atonement." Ten is "completeness." Seventeen means "heaven." Camping patiently explained how he reached his conclusion for May 21, 2011.

"Christ hung on the cross April 1, 33 A.D.," he began. "Now go to April 1 of 2011 A.D., and that's 1,978 years."

Camping then multiplied 1,978 by 365.2422 days - the number of days in each solar year, not to be confused with a calendar year.

Next, Camping noted that April 1 to May 21 encompasses 51 days. Add 51 to the sum of previous multiplication total, and it equals 722,500.

Camping realized that (5 x 10 x 17) x (5 x 10 x 17) = 722,500.

Or put into words: (Atonement x Completeness x Heaven), squared.

"Five times 10 times 17 is telling you a story," Camping said. "It's the story from the time Christ made payment for your sins until you're completely saved.

"I tell ya, I just about fell off my chair when I realized that," Camping said.

James Kreuger, author of "Secrets of the Apocalypse - Revealed," has been studying the end of times for 40 years and is familiar with Camping's work. While Kreuger agrees that the rapture is indeed coming, he disputes Camping's method.

"For all his learning, Camping makes a classic beginner's mistake when he sets a date for Christ's return," Kreuger wrote in an e-mail. "Jesus himself said in Matthew 24:36, 'Of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my father only.' "

'It is going to happen'

Camping's believers will have none of it.

Rick LaCasse, who attended the September 1994 service in Alameda, said that 15 years later, his faith in Camping has only strengthened.

"Evidently, he was wrong," LaCasse allowed, "but this time it is going to happen. There was some doubt last time, but we didn't have any proofs. This time we do."

Would his opinion of Camping change if May 21, 2011, ended without incident?

"I can't even think like that," LaCasse said. "Everything is too positive right now. There's too little time to think like that."

E-mail Justin Berton at jberton@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Friday, January 1, 2010

Poor Rush


Bill ShiremanPresident and CEO of the Future 500
Posted: December 31, 2009 01:13 PM
Get Well, Mr. Limbaugh, But Don't Rush Back
What's Your Reaction:

The talk show host has a deeper addiction than the one that likely caused his chest pains

I admit I had mixed feelings when I awoke to news that Rush Limbaugh was rushed to the hospital in Honolulu for the same malady he's been inflicting on me for years.

My best wishes to Rush for a quick recovery from his chest pains, and a very slow return to his perch as the nation's most influential talk radio host.

By my calculation, it is only a matter of hours until the media, pundits, and TV doctors begin to speculate on whether Limbaugh's hospitalization was caused by his addiction to pain killers - a problem he admitted in 2003 after being caught buying illegal drugs.

Back then, I remember hoping that fellow Republicans would begin to distance themselves from a drug-addicted Limbaugh. That, unfortunately, has not happened.

But here is why it should.

First, a disclaimer. I am a registered Republican - one of those too-rare progressive, pro-environment, pro-gay marriage, pro-technology, pro-freedom/responsibility, fiscally conservative Republicans, in the spirit that tech guru John Perry Barlow expresses below. I have been almost continuously since I turned 18 in 1976. I joined because I was inspired by Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower - early Republicans who skillfully advanced personal freedom and responsibility; guarded against monopolies of power whether corporate, government, or military; ended slavery; began the women's suffrage movement; and set aside lands for national parks and forests.

Like Barlow, today I am comfortable neither as a Republican or a Democrat. Both parties are controlled by interests of the past. Both have marginalized those of us who advocate integrative politics that bring together the strengths of the left and right. Both can be blamed for the utter failure of Congress to handle any issue of importance - when each party essentially forbids its members to collaborate with the other, the degree of sell-out necessary for legislative success in breathtaking.

Rush Limbaugh is a powerful driver of this democracy-destroying tactic, in his ruthless drive to elect ideological Republicans who tow to his line only.

Probably out of fear, right wing commentators have essentially ignored Limbaugh's addiction. Oddly, left wing pundits have too. But drug addiction is serious - all the more so if the addict is in a sensitive powerful position.

To an addict, nothing is more important than accessing the drug. In Rush's case, pain killers are just one of two addictions that drive his behavior - and the least damaging to the rest of us.

Like most substance abusers, Limbaugh's addiction reflects deeper underlying problems. Extremely self-conscious and insecure in his personal relationships, Rush's only real source for human validation is his celebrity. He injects self esteem directly into his blood stream every time he takes the controls at his radio program or speaks to his adoring and unquestioning fans at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

This deeper addiction makes Limbaugh deaf and blind to the damage he is doing to America by pandering to our worst fears and prejudices. Rush will say anything that drives love and hate his way - and he is smart enough to know how far he can go while remaining on the air.

But we too should be smart enough to see what he's doing. It is extremely dangerous for people to trust the rantings of an insecure, attention-starved drug addict. No matter how certain he comes across on the radio - for those who hunger for clear ideology - his words cannot be trusted, least of all by him.

That he experienced chest pains while on "vacation" just illustrates the point. I can't imagine any experience more disconcerting to a socially fearful celebrity than an unstructured Hawaiian vacation. People who feel they are fundamentally inauthentic or undeserving are bound to unhinge a bit when left alone with their self-awareness.

It took courage for a few Republicans to take down Limbaugh's disturbed predecessor, Senator Joseph McCarthy, when his megalomania began to fundamentally threaten our freedoms.

Now it is time to open our eyes to who Rush Limbaugh is. He is precisely the kind of person he rails against most: an insecure dependent that relies on what he perceives to be unearned money and undeserved notoriety to exercise unacceptable power in order to assuage his unquenchable insecurities.

Take all the time you need to recover, Rush. Work on both your addictions. It won't be quick, but we could all use the break.


"I was always raised to think that Republicans were about limited government, about individual liberty, about fiscal responsibility, about balanced budgets, about a wariness of military adventures abroad, about responsible encouragement to business. There's a whole list of things I thought the Republican Party was all about, and [the former Bush administration] are categorically against every single one of those things. So if they're Republicans, I'm not. But I'm really not a very comfortable Democrat. I mean the Democrats in the last elections proved themselves to be a bunch of dithering pussies... and it was pathetic. So I'm just waiting until one party or the other actually gets a moral compass and a backbone."John Perry Barlow, in "John Perry Barlow: Wyoming's Estimated Prophet" - interview with Aaron Davis in Planet JH Weekly, 28 July 2005


Follow Bill Shireman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Future500

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Liar of the Year

Palin: I'm Not the Biggest Liar of the Year
POSTED: 12/24/09

There's an old story that occasionally makes the rounds in Washington. In the 1970s, a magazine (now long defunct) named New Times reported that Sen. William Scott, a Virginia Republican, had been ranked the "dumbest" senator in a survey conducted by a public interest group. Subsequently, Scott held a press conference to deny the charge -- thereby proving he was pretty darn dumb. After all, he only called more attention to the accusation.

Sarah Palin has taken a Scott-like position.

Earlier this month, PolitiFact.com, a project of the St. Petersburg Times, awarded Palin the not-so-coveted "lie of the year" award for claiming last summer that President Obama's health care reform initiative would set up "death panels" run by bureaucrats who would decide if seniors and disabled citizens "based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society' " would be "worthy of health care." PolitiFact.com explains:

Get the new
PD toolbar!


On Aug. 10, PolitiFact rated Palin's statement Pants on Fire [its highest -- or lowest -- rating]. In the weeks that followed, health care policy experts on both the right and the left said the euthanasia comparisons were inaccurate. Gail Wilensky, a health adviser to President George H.W. Bush, said the charge was untrue and upsetting.

"I think it is really unfortunate that this has been raised and received so much attention because there are serious issues to debate in health care reform," she said at a forum on Sept. 3.
Responding to the initial Pants-on-Fire designation, Palin tried to have it both ways, claiming her phrase was metaphoric and accurate. In a Nov. 17 interview with National Review, she said she didn't regret the remark:

"To me, while reading that section of the bill, it became so evident that there would be a panel of bureaucrats who would decide on levels of health care, decide on those who are worthy or not worthy of receiving some government-controlled coverage," she said. "Since health care would have to be rationed if it were promised to everyone, it would therefore lead to harm for many individuals not able to receive the government care. That leads, of course, to death."

"The term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be taken literally," said Palin. The phrase is "a lot like when President Reagan used to refer to the Soviet Union as the 'evil empire.' He got his point across. He got people thinking and researching what he was talking about. It was quite effective. Same thing with the 'death panels.' I would characterize them like that again, in a heartbeat."

Not literal, but accurate -- as in, well, you know what I mean.

Now Palin is again taking issue with being called a liar. In a new Facebook posting, she scoffs at "Nancy Pelosi and friends who have tried to call 'death panels' the 'lie of the year.' " She doesn't mention it was the neutral PolitiFact.com that branded her statement the whopper of 2009. And she claims she has proof she was correct in the first place. The pending Senate health care bill, she says, calls for an Independent Medicare Advisory Board to find ways to cut costs. This, she writes, "is also known as rationing." If that's the case, then every insurance company and health care firm in America is a death panel, for that's what they do each day: seek ways to trim costs to bolster profits.

But there's more. Palin cites a letter Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week, referring to the bill's call for reducing Medicare spending by 2 percent. "It is unclear," Elmendorf noted, "whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care."

Aha, Palin proclaims: This reduced " 'access to care' and 'diminish[ed] quality of care' - is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor." (She's back to calling it a metaphor.)

Not really. As Greg Sargent has pointed out, Palin is changing her definitions. When she first referred to "death panels," she was portraying them as medical tribunes that would decide the fate of specific individuals. ("You're IQ is too low, so no dialysis for you!") Now, she's essentially claiming that any cost-cutting that might influence access to care constitutes establishing a "death panel." Not only is she being shifty; Palin is poisoning one policy debate that the nation needs to have about health care. Does this ardent foe of socialism really believe that the U.S. government ought to pay for any medical procedure that a Medicare recipient might want? What if a treatment costs several million dollars and at best can extend the life of a dying patient by a week? If you question such a practice, then, in Palin's book, you're for rationing and can be a charter member of a "death panel."

Tough policy matters aside, Palin is playing loose with the facts about her own pronouncements -- and calling even more attention to her dubious distinction of promoting the lie of year. The big question is, in this category, can she top herself in 2010?

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.


Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Saturday, December 12, 2009

RUSSELL SIMMONS: The New Old Face of Racism


RUSSELL SIMMONS: The New Old Face of Racism
Russell Simmons , December 10, 2009 | 11:33:11 AM (EST)
One of the great challenges of our nation has been and will be to reconcile the racial tension of our past. The historical ramifications of slavery are still felt in the streets of West Baltimore, the country roads of the Mississippi Delta and corridors of the United States Congress. When our nation gathered up enough strength and courage to elect the first African-American president, in the words of our great GlobalGrind blogger, Erica Williams, "our nation did not become post-racial, but we're making every effort to be post-racist."

During the president's first year of his term, often has our nation endured various situations that dealt with race, including Skip Gates' arrest, the "birthers" movement, the "Witch Doctor" poster, amongst many others. Although we have made tremendous progress in our discussions revolving around race, one consistent reminder that we have not reached a state of high consciousness is the ability of the few to co-opt the opinions of the masses. As the Republican Party has tried hard to give itself a new face, with Michael Steele becoming the first African-American chairman in its history, it is sadly still the race-baiting commentators that dictate the agenda.

This week, Rush Limbaugh made a sickening comment in his attempt to interpret the words of Rev. Jackson, when he said that the "black frame of mind" is "terrible" and that "Tiger Woods choice of women sure didn't help it." When three Republican U.S. Senators and half a dozen evangelical preachers do it, why isn't he saying it depresses the white race? Limbaugh's bringing in Tiger's infidelity as if it's related to black culture goes back to an old and deeply evil racist connection of black men and sexual promiscuity. To use the image of the black man as the sexual predator is the oldest form of race baiting, dating back to Emmit Till and before that, the slaves on the plantation. Moreover, Rush is using Tiger as an Obama surrogate, using Tiger as a way to say that these men cannot be trusted. Rush knows exactly what he is doing by being the first to link the plight of the black man to the sorrows of Tiger Woods.

It was only a matter of time, before the new face of the Republican Party resorted back to their old tricks. And if you keep these type of games going, we will get another four years to pass our progressive agenda, because the majority of Americans, including Republicans, are tired of it. If you think, for one minute, that the real "new" face of the Republican party, the new emerging young conservative voice, want Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh as their leader, you are foolishly mistaken. Young people are tired of blue and red America...they want purple America. Young people are tired of the divisive name calling, they want to work together to solve the nation's problems. Young people are tired of fighting two wars, they want peace. So, Mr. Limbaugh and your cronies, you can continue to spew your hate all you want, because this type of racism and pain will only work for so long.

We will build a new America, together. We will build a post-racial America, together. We will build a nation that will no longer tolerate racism, new or old, together.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Saturday, November 28, 2009

ALEC BALDWIN: The Republican Way: Keeping Everything The Way It Is


ALEC BALDWIN: The Republican Way: Keeping Everything The Way It Is
Alec Baldwin , November 24, 2009 | 7:46:24 PM (EST)

Didn't you know, all along, that the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq was about accessing oil?

Not oil as in those production levels at the onset of the Bush era incursion in March, 2003. But newer, stronger, American-style production levels. American oil companies had been forbidden from exploring and developing new oil fields since the nationalization of Iraq's reserves in 1972 and those American oil companies have long contended that Iraqi estimates of their potential reserves are grossly underestimated, by perhaps as much as a couple of hundred billion barrels.

Likewise, didn't you know all along that Republican opposition to current health care reform is about maintaining the unconscionable monopoly that insurance companies have in the American economy. Why? For the same reason Bush went to war in Iraq, spent money we didn't have, pushed the country into financial ruin and did more to threaten our long term national security than any modern president. The GOP needs contributions. I would never contend that the GOP is alone in this practice. When an administration awards contracts to some supporter, they anticipate more support. But no group, in the history of this country, has ever done this to such an extent. Remember, I am always careful to separate the leadership of any party from its rank and file. So when I level such a charge against "Republicans", I am referring to their leadership on Capitol Hill. But, I think it's safe to say now that the war in Iraq was started to provide U.S. oil companies with the opportunity to develop new oil fields there in return for the massive campaign contributions those oil companies will make to the Republicans in 2010 and, especially, 2012 in their effort to unseat President Obama.

The same is true for the health care industry, and insurance companies in particular. They don't want reform. The current system works quite well for them. If an excess of Americans die due to insufficient health care, so what. Republican leaders argue that health care reform will lead to a big, fat, incompetent bureaucracy that will gobble up billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars and provide little accountability. But wait. Isn't the Pentagon a big, fat, incompetent bureaucracy that gobbles up...? Well, you get it.

The Pentagon wastes more money on more crap that you and I don't need and gets it wrong, on a policy level, more often than not since 1960 (I'll give them a pass on Korea, due to all the Cold War anxiety at the time). Republicans never flinch. Spending on the military, and subsequent sales of those weapons systems around the world, help the U.S. economy, in their mind. Those companies, in turn, contribute to the campaigns of men like George W. Bush. This is especially so now that the Pentagon, in the ultimate sign of their stupidity, abdication of their responsibilities and tacit compliance with GOP fundraising goals, have privatized the U.S. military to the tune of one million dollars per soldier in Afghanistan.

Think about that. Recruitment is down. This Pentagon has a shortage of willing and competent soldiers who can run our military machinery. So what do they do? Do they improve recruitment, training and pay for soldiers? No. They privatize as much of these duties as they can (with no bid contracts for staggering sums of money) and create new businesses that, in turn, will contribute to those that helped them

The health care industry wastes untold billions, then passes those costs on to insurance companies who then exploit your fear and pass them on to you. Fear of Al Qaeda. Fear of getting sick without insurance and, therefore, access to effective medical care. Keep everything the way it is, out of fear. Fear that it could get worse. That's the Republican way. These guys have this country coming and going.

Health care reform means less money for insurance companies. Thus less money for the GOP. We should pass this bill for that reason alone.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone