NPR Topics: Science
Yes, they're perfectly serious.
Here's the cast of characters, including:
NATE: Nate, a young black man from Detroit, Michigan, voted for Barack Obama in 2008 from an upbringing that taught him to mistrust America because of the color of his skin. As a Libertarian with a paradigm shift and a newfound understanding of the nation he loves, he is risking the anger of family and friends by joining the march against a Presidents policies that would victimize the very people he loves the most.
Translation: Nate, the only relatively sane-seeming black person we could find for the film, whose key role is to help blunt the image of tea parties as an almost purely all-white phenomenon featuring angry white nationalists who have no compunction about carrying racist signs and calling the president a racist.
JACK: Jack is a father of two young children, a little league baseball coach and a health insurance agent. He risks losing his job under current healthcare reform. He is a Democrat turned Constitutionalist and the younger brother of a Vietnam veteran who is marching for his children and the future of the America he believes in.
Translation: Even though Jack has a fairly obvious motive for opposing health-care reform, he was included because the filmmakers couldn't find a health-insurance lobbyist who could convincingly portray himself as a moderately sympathetic figure.
JENNY BETH: In 2008, she and her husband lost a multi-million dollar business, were forced into bankruptcy and home foreclosure. Nine months later, she is working as a national leader in the grassroots tea party movement, organizing events and taking her message to the steps of the National Mall with the company of millions behind her.
Translation: Beth helps provide a portrait of America's most benighted victims of the Bush administration: Whole-hog ideological conservatives who made lots of money relying on conservative values (i.e., the cutthroat pursuit of profits at the expense of everything else) and who suddenly lost everything when Bush popped the housing bubble. The resulting cognitive dissonance -- "OMFG we lost our entire fortune because "conservative values" like a mania for deregulation and cutting taxes for the wealthy caused a near-collapse of the entire economic system! And now we have to rely on a liberal black man to fix the problem!!!!" -- drove them completely insane, so that now of course they think the solution is to go back and embrace the very policies that destroyed their wealth in the first place.
WILLIAM: William is a patriot renaissance man, a pastor, colonial re-enactor, painter, poet, Vietnam veteran, former Pentagon and Secret Service employee and a man of the march. He can be outrageous and funny or somber and reflective, full of antics and unpredictability. He marched for the Vietnam Memorial during the Reagan Era and this time, his journey back to Washington, DC leads him to the front lines of the march down Pennsylvania Avenue on September 12.
Translation: Plain ol' nuts.
Anyway, after the movie gets its only scheduled theatrical appearance at the FreedomWorks-sponsored D.C. debut, it's straight to DVD.
Oh, we can hardly wait.
8:09 EST: Dodd, presiding over the Senate, said the motion passed, smattering of applause. Motion is agreed to. Clerk is now reporting the bill and amendment.
And that's it for the night. Debate will begin after Thanksgiving, plus amendments, then moving on to the final cloture motion and a final vote.
8:04 EST: Cloture passes 60-39. Debate will start after Thanksgiving.
7:57 EST: Voting continuing.
7:56 EST: Clerk reading cloture motion.
The question is: Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the motion to proceed shall be brought to a close. Clerk is calling the roll.
Voting now.
7:55 EST: Vote starting 5 minutes early.
7:54 EST: Absence of a quorum noted by Reid, and the roll is being called. Vote coming soon!
7:44 EST: The American people want us to start over. All it would take is just one on the other side of the aisle to not end the debate, but change the debate.
And he's yielded.
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) is up.
My friend, the minority leader, has had since Wednesday to read the bill. Obviously he hasn't done so.
We debate the right to live free of disease and death by giving health care for all. The road has started many times, never been completed. Merged bills have never been done before. We couldn't have got here without the help of many Senators.
As a matter of principle, that I respect, the senior Senator from Arkansas insisted we have time to read the bill. All Senators have now had ample time. That is why we are voting tonight.
I invite Republicans to join the right side of history. Around dining room tables, families are agonizing over what to sacrifice next to afford health care. Employers are wondering whether they can afford to provide health care. Americans need reform.
Debate is constant, but the only place where silence is evened considered is the Senate. Now, finally, we have the opportunity to bring this great deliberation to this body. That and nothing more is what this vote does.
A yes vote says this issue is important and the Senate should at least talk about it.
Some Republicans would like Americans to think voting to debate the bill is voting to pass the bill. Tonight's vote is only the beginning of debate. It's clear Republicans have no problem talking about health care on TV, at town hall meetings, on the radio, yet now that we have the legislation to debate, to amend, to build on, will they refuse to debate?
If we refuse to let the Senate do its job, what are we doing here? What do we fear? And who's voice to you speak for? In who's interest do you vote?
Certainly debating reform can't be more difficult than American deciding to pay their mortgage or medical bills. It can't be more upsetting than having an insurance company take away your coverage when you need it the most.
Kennedy once said let us not be afraid of debate or discussion, let us encourage it.
Don't be afraid of debate. It's our job. We Democrats stand ready to do what needs to be done. We welcome debate. The framers intended for debate here. Imagine if instead of debating historic GI bills, this body has stood silent. Instead of debate social security or medicare, the Senate voices had been still. Instead of debating to abolish slavery or give women the right to vote.
Don't try and silence a great debate over a great crisis. Don't say you ran and hid when given the chance to debate this issue. The right response to disagreement is discussion. Democracy is discussion. Let us debate our differences.
7:32 EST: Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is up.
At a time when Americans are looking for jobs, the Chinese lecturing us about our debt, this bill costs 2.5 trillion the government doesn't have and can't afford.
It imposes punishing taxes on almost everyone. It raises premiums for 85% of Americans who already have insurance. It slashed Medicare by half a trillion dollars.
Anyone who votes "aye" tonight is voting for all of these things. It is a fact, a vote in favor of proceeding is a vote in favor of adding to the tax burden of Americans. A vote in favor is a vote to raise premiums, to deep cuts to Medicare, tells every American family sitting in a waiting room tonight that cost is not our concern. A vote in favor is a vote in favor of a spending binge that's leading to a massive long-term deficit.
If there were one Democrat, just one, who would say no tonight, none of this would happen. And then we could start over.
Under this bill, health care costs will go up, not down. 2000+ pages.
We don't want to end debate, we want to change it. Because once this bill is on the floor, the basic dimensions won't change. It's going to take 60 votes to change this bill. That means the bill that's introduced will fundamentally be the bill we'll be asked to pass sometime in the future. That is a fact.
7:25 EST: Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) is up.
Recognizing Kennedy, who "is with us only in spirit."
Then asks why we're all watching C-SPAN on a Saturday evening.
Health care costs is the single biggest threat to our financial future. Never before has this body confronted directly this issue. Health care is our most basic need. No matter how much you make, your hopes and dreams, who you are, where you live, what your job is. In America, we should be able to get the care we need.
For too many health care has become our most basic fear. Can't see a doctor. Premiums skyrocket. You lie awake at night wondering what if you lose your job, or you get sick and find out your policy doesn't cover care you need, or it's canceled altogether.
I wish I could say those fears are irrational, but they're not. Our system is broken. People are losing their homes and dying because they get sick. This is not acceptable in our America. That's why we're here on a Saturday night.
We need all the ideas we can get to fix this. But if you've watched the debate over the last few days, nobody has stood up and said we should do nothing at all. Tonight's vote is nothing more than a choice between doing something and doing nothing. I urge my colleagues to join us.
Dodd has yielded.
7:17 EST: Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) is up.
"To be mature means to face, and not evade a crisis." Our health care system is in a crisis, and this crisis will not solve itself. We must face the crisis.
For years we've studied the issue. We've held nearly 70 hearings. We combined a bill and we've brought that combined plan to the Senate floor.
We have a bill that will put Americans, patients, and their doctors back into control. It will end harmful insurance industry practices. No more denials of care. No more hyping up rates for sick Americans. No more taking away health care if you're sick. No more lifetime or annual limits. If you pay your bill, insurance companies must provide you benefits. No more discrimination based on gender. Insurance companies must disclose the share of premiums that go to medical benefits. No longer will insurance companies get tax credits if they pay their CEOs too much.
Our bill is paid for, it will lower costs, and it will reduce the deficit.
Many are happy with their current plans. This bill will not change that. But too many others don't have access to quality insurance. Our bill will give people choice and know exactly what they're buying. Tax credits will help insure all Americans can afford health insurance.
Small businesses will also have access to tax credits, and will be able to spread their risk. And no longer will there be a separate congressional health plan.
Our bill will strengthen Medicare.
We hope to have a full debate. But we have the opportunity at last to face the crisis and show mature leadership.
And Baucus has yielded the floor.
7:10 EST: I believe passionately that we should defeat this bill. We need a bipartisan bill.
Before I came to the Senate, I was a small business owner, a shoe store. When someone said they couldn't afford a shoe, I didn't give them a sales pitch, I found a shoe they could afford. The people in America are complaining, we're showing them the shoe they can't afford.
We have a big decision to make tonight, that will have a lasting effect on our country. If we pass the motion to proceed, we'll debate it for a long time. America will be surprised at the time we waste when we could be doing jobs and the economy.
And Enzi has yielded.
7:00 EST: This bill creates mandatory spending in perpetuity. Talks about the debt growing and jobs being lost. Reid said this bill will be deficit neutral. But the real cost is hidden by implementing taxes first and spending later. When you extend it on out, you won't continue to cover those cost. So, disaster.
What would constitute fraud in the accounting world is being voted on. Medicare is going to go broke, and we're going to take billions from Medicare. If Washington accounting had to come under the same laws as private business, the administration would be in jail.
Now talking about the American people. Majority of Americans believe their costs will go up. The American public isn't fooled. David Broder, the dean of Washington's journalists, said a recent survey said less than 1/5th believe that health reform will be deficit neutral, and a majority oppose the legislation. Broder said it was a "budget-buster."
The group of six couldn't come to any conclusions because the topic is so big. It's a thousand billion dollars. A billion is a thousand million.
6:50 EST: Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) is discussing jobs and how health care represents a "massive government intrusion" into health care. Government will determine whether your health care costs too much. What services you should receive. Now he's bringing up the mammogram recommendations.
Saying this bill gets it wrong. Doesn't fix what's broken and leave what works. Senator Reid is trying to jam through a strictly partisan bill. Will increase the deficit and harm our jobs. No serious economist would say this bill creates jobs or helps our economy. Health care spending will increase, will not improve quality, or change the delivery system.
"The voices of August are still echoing, and coming from a vast majority."
Says there is a job-killing tax on business because they will have to provide health insurance. The health reform bill will threaten your jobs. Heritage foundation says this new job-killing tax will put 5 million at risk of losing their jobs.
The bill will threaten our nation's jobs and economic growth, and increase our debt and deficit.
----------
Hello everyone! For those who I'm meeting for the first time, I'm Jason and I write for The Seminal as well as work for Health Care for America Now.
John Amato has been kind enough to invite me over to Crooks & Liars for a little bit of liveblogging the Senate health care debate today leading up to the cloture vote at around 8 pm EST.
I'll be keeping up with the debate in the Senate (on C-SPAN 2), as well as trying to explain the Senate procedure and answer questions folks might have.
And with that, here we go...
Lou Dobbs was interviewed on Mexico's Telemundo yesterday by Maria Celeste (h/t Andrea Nill), and she cut quickly to the point:
Celeste: You mention that this criticism and this perception, misperception of yourself, it's only in the extreme, ah, extreme left, and that might be the case in the Anglo market, but trust me, in the Hispanic world, you are viewed by many, by many people as the No. 1 enemy -- maybe because of the many inflammatory and misleading statements about undocumented immigrants that you've made throughout the years. And let me go with the first one.
The most outrageous one was blaming immigrants for a dramatic rise in leprosy cases in the United States, stating that in three years, the cases of leprosy had suddenly jumped to 7,000, and that this was largely due to the influx of undocumented immigrants. By the way, according to the United States Department of Health [and Human Services], 7,000 cases of leprosy were reported over thirty years, not three, which is a big difference.
But even after that, that was proven wrong, what you had said, you stood behind your reporting, insisting that it was accurate. Why was that?
Dobbs: No no. Let's be very clear. For one, I did not stand behind that reporting. In fact, we corrected that reporting.
And secondly, in fairness to me, if you will, I never said a word about leprosy and undocumented immigrants, as you put it. My correspondent on our broadcast ad-libbed it, and as you are very familiar with the process of an edited report, and at the end of that she referred to a source with whom she had been speaking, and she said at the end of that report -- ad-libbed it, that is, without script or preparation, but simply said it -- that there were thousands of people on the registry for leprosy in the United States and those had shot up dramatically over the course of three years.
Dobbs is just baldfacedly lying. He did indeed defend that reporting, he did not correct it at any time, and Romans' didn't simply say "those had shot up dramatically over the course of three years," she clearly indicated that they had skyrocketed from 900 to 7,000 cases -- a grotesquely false claim.
Let's roll the tape, first back to April 14, 2005, when Dobbs first trotted out the phony leprosy story.
First, the report -- by correspondent Christine Romans -- cited a far-right anti-immigrant extremist named Madeleine Cosman, and ran a video of her saying this:
DR. MADELINE COSMAN, MEDICAL LAWYER: We have some enormous problems with horrendous diseases that are being brought into America by illegal aliens. Some of these diseases we had already vanquished, such as tuberculosis. And other diseases we have only rarely had here in America, such as Chagas Disease, leprosy, malaria.
Then the Romans had an exchange with Dobbs:
ROMANS: Lou, anyone coming to this country legally or seeking asylum must undergo medical testing to detect and treat these sorts of diseases. But if we don't know who is coming over, we don't know the magnitude of the diseases they have, how they are being spread and where to.
DOBBS: Extraordinary is the only reaction I can offer. First, the health officials saying it's unrealistic to stop this at the border.
This is a refrain we hear from everyone who wants to -- even health officials concerned about public health. The fact that we're somehow helpless to defend this country, to secure our borders? What in the world is that about?
ROMANS: He says in his experience have you to go at the at-risk groups in their neighborhoods, in the populations here in this country and attack the problem from that way. Not stop it at the borders.
DOBBS: Well, certainly that makes great sense, as well. But to stop future cases it seems clear that one would have to secure our borders. Secondly, these other diseases, tuberculosis, leprosy, malaria?
ROMANS: It's interesting, because the woman in our piece told us that there were about 900 cases of leprosy for 40 years. There have been 7,000 in the past three years. Leprosy in this country.
DOBBS: Incredible. Christine Romans, thank you.
Dobbs was then confronted about it by CBS's Lesley Stahl in a 2007 interview:
STAHL: One of the issues he tackles relentlessly is illegal immigration, and on that, his critics say, his advocacy can get in the way of the facts.
DOBBS: Tuberculosis, leprosy, malaria.
STAHL: Following a report on illegals carrying diseases into the U.S., one of the correspondents on his show, Christine Romans, told Dobbs that there have been 7,000 cases of leprosy in the U.S. in the past three years.
ROMANS: Leprosy, in this country.
DOBBS: Incredible.
STAHL: We checked that and found a report issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, saying 7,000 is the number of leprosy cases over the last 30 years, not the past three, and nobody knows how many of those cases involve illegal immigrants.
[end video clip]
STAHL: Now, we went to try and check that number, 7,000. We can't. Just so you know --
DOBBS: Well, I can tell you this. If we reported it, it's a fact.
STAHL: You can't tell me that. You did report it --
DOBBS: Well, no, I just did.
STAHL: How can you guarantee that to me?
DOBBS: Because I'm the managing editor, and that's the way we do business. We don't make up numbers, Lesley. Do we?
A few days later, Dobbs invited back Romans to discuss the matter:
And there was a question about some of your comments, Christine. Following one of your reports, I told Leslie Stahl, we don't make up numbers, and I will tell everybody here again tonight, I stand 100 percent behind what you said.
ROMANS: That's right, Lou. We don't make up numbers here. This is what we reported.
We reported, "It's interesting, because the woman in our piece told us that there were about 900 cases of leprosy for 40 years. There have been 7,000 in the past three years. Leprosy in this country."
I was quoting Dr. Madeline Cosman, a respected medical lawyer and medical historian writing in the "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons".
She said, "Hansen's disease" -- that's the other modern name, I guess, for leprosy -- "Hansen's disease was so rare in the America that in 40 years only 900 people were afflicted. Suddenly, in the past three years, America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy" -- Lou.
DOBBS: It's remarkable that this -- whatever confusion, or confoundment over 7,000 cases, they actually keep a registry of cases of leprosy. And the fact that it rose was because -- one assumes -- because we don't know for sure -- but two basic influences -- unscreened illegal immigrants coming into this country primarily from South Asia, and secondly, far better reporting.
ROMANS: That's what Dr. Cosman told us -- Lou.
Notice: In all this time, both Dobbs and Romans continue to act as though Madeileine Cosman is a credible source. Nor do they correct the quite clear implication of their reportage that leprosy skyrocketed from 900 to 7,000 in three years.
A word about Cosman: She a certified far-right loon who pulls figures out of the thin air of her imagination:
Though she talked endlessly about disease, Cosman, who died in early 2006, was not a doctor. She was a wealthy lawyer who advised physicians on how to sell their medical practices; a former Renaissance Fair queen; a devote of hard-line libertarian Ayn Rand; and a member of the far-right Jews for the Preservation of Firearms. She was also a contributor to the conspiracy-minded "News With Views" website, where she offered up fare like "Violent Sexual Predators Who Are Illegal Aliens" and "Bird Flu and Illegal Aliens," wherein she theorized that a Muslim terrorist could "create his own weapon of mass destruction" by smuggling an infected person across the border.
Cosman said she'd written more than a dozen books. Her most successful, she said, was Fabulous Feasts: Medieval Cookery and Ceremony, a 1976 volume that she claimed was "nominated" for both a Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award (these claims are repeated on the book's back cover). But Pulitzer officials say that there were no official "nominees" for the prize until 1980; before then, there were only "submissions" from writers or publishers. In the case of the National Book Award, prize publicist Camille McDuffie sent the Report complete lists of all past nominees and winners of the award; neither Cosman's name nor that of her book is anywhere on those lists. Immigrant-bashing, it appears, was not the only field in which Madeleine Cosman was prone to exaggeration.
Here's Cosman describing the sexual proclivities of male Mexican immigrants:
Recognize that most of these bastards molest girls under age 12, some as young as age 5, others age 3, although of course some specialize in boys, some specialize in nuns, some are exceedingly versatile, and rape little girls age 11, and women up to age 79. What is important here is the psychiatric defenses. Why do they do what they do? [Mockingly] They do not need a jail, they need a hospital. They are depraved because they were deprived in their home country. But more important is the cultural defense: they suffer from psychiatric cognitive disjuncture, for what does a poor man do if in his home country of Mexico, in his jurisdiction, if rape is ranked lower than cow-stealing? Of course he will not know how to behave here in strange America. This is thoroughly reprehensible.
Finally, contrary to his claim on Telemundo, Dobbs never ran any correction of this, particularly not the use of Cosman as a credible source, not just on the original broadcast but in his subsequent defenses of it -- even though he has taken to claiming he did so. What he cites when making this claim is a report he ran on May 16 from Bill Tucker. But here's the entirety of that report:
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Dr. Bill Levis is one of the most respected doctors in the world on the treatment of leprosy or Hansen's disease as it's now known and he says the disease is on the rise.
Levis is the attending physician at the Hanson's disease clinic at New York City's Bellevue hospital. It is one of 11 such federally- funded clinics in eight states and Puerto Rico. Leprosy peaked in the United States 1983 when 456 new cases were reported according to the Department of Health and Human Services which attributes the rise to a large increase in immigration from Southeast Asia.
The number of new cases bottomed out in 2000, but the number of leprosy cases has more than doubled in the years since. Respected medical authorities say there are reasons to suspect those numbers understate the number of leprosy cases.
DR. WILLIAM LEVIS, HANSEN'S DISEASE CLINIC: In the last 30, 40 years we've had 7,000 by registry figures that are maintained, but it's likely to be significantly more than that because not all states require, including New York State, are requiring reporting of the disease. So it's underreported. So that's a minimal figure.
TUCKER: Forty years ago there were fewer than 1,000 people on the registry in the United States. Not only does New York State not require that doctors report cases of leprosy, neither do the states of Georgia, Maine, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, North Dakota and West Virginia.
Complicating the underreporting, many doctors don't even recognize the disease when confronted with it. Of the cases Dr. Levis sees in New York ...
LEVIS: Many of those cases have seen 10 or a dozen or more physicians before they're properly diagnosed.
TUCKER: Disturbing but not surprising because leprosy shares many of the same characteristics as T.B. and it's such a rare disease, it is not even taught in most medical schools.
Why the increases have been occurring since 2000 is not yet fully understood, but 75 percent of the reported leprosy cases today are found in people who were born outside of the United States. Of the new cases reported in America in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the Department of Health and Human Services reports that the highest number of leprosy infections were found in people born in Brazil and Mexico.
California, Texas, Louisiana, Massachusetts and New York were the states with the highest reports of leprosy infections in 2005. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service requires that legal residents be screened for leprosy, but that screening is not effective if a person is not symptomatic. Of course, illegal immigrants are not screened at all.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: Now, the good news is leprosy is a disease which is treatable and curable with modern multi-drug therapy, but of course, Lou, that requires that it be identified.
DOBBS: Absolutely. And as Dr. Levis points out. When people see as many as 10 or 12 physicians and go without diagnosis, correct diagnosis, that tells you how difficult the situation really is. Bill, thank you.
Now notice: While this is a reasonably accurate if tendentious report, there is no mention anywhere of Cosman, or the previously reported false information, or any suggestion at all that this was a correction of earlier falsehoods. This wasn't a correction at all.
And note that Dobbs, on this very show, then went on to argue with the SPLC's Mark Potok and Richard Cohen that "In point of fact ... we did not say there were new cases at any time." The segment with the SPLC was devoted, once again, to Dobbs adamantly denying that he had done anything wrong journalistically. He did the same thing a week later with Amy Goodman.
Well, at least Maria Celeste -- who doggedly kept pursuing Dobbs on the matter for another five minutes -- did finally get him to admit that the report was "a mistake":
I suspect that's the best anyone will ever be able to do.
[H/t Heather]
Blanche Lincoln was complaining today about all those outside group ads that were attacking her, but in the end she says she'll vote for cloture today.
Blue America has been running another massive media blitz in Arkansas demanding give us an up or down vote.
Lincoln: For months now groups from outside my state have assigned various motives for my deliberations on health care and tried to define the meaning of my vote. According to the last tally there has been more than 3.2 million dollars worth of media ads that have been purchased from my home state of Arkansas by groups from outside of our state. certainly none by me. And most with my name in the ad. These outside groups seem to think this is all about my re-election. I simply think they don't know me very well. I'm focused on my opportunity to to influence the final version of health care reform legislation in a way that most helps my state. That's why the people of Arkansas sent me here.
--I will not allow my decision on this vote to be dictated by pressure from my political opponent nor the liberal interest groups from outside Arkansas that threaten with their money political opposition. The multitudes of emails and ads that we have received, Unbelievable types of threats about what they're going to do and how they're going to behave.
She's trying to feign shock that her name showed up in ads targeted at her in her own state over this issue. Jaysus. Our problem is that we know her too well. If she were truly representing her state, then she would get behind the public option and stop joining with the Republicans, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Lieberman to kill it. She does have a D in her title and she should start acting like one. Why is Lincoln so against the public option and using right-wing language to define it?
She has an opportunity to be part of a great moment in our history. She's a politician looking to survive. She hates that she's running for re-election at this time. Well Blanche, sometimes you have to do the right thing and not put your own political career before the entire country's health care. Right now she's saying she won't vote for it. If she joins with the Holy Joes, then she votes at her own political peril.
Here's Blue America's new ad that is running now.
Here's our Blue America Act Blue fundraising page on health care.
(h/t Heather for the video)
h/t Heather for video.
It should come as a surprise to no one that some wingnuts think it's cool to use the Bible to promote veiled threats against the President. Disgusting.
But using online personalized item sites to spread the word? Apparently this Maddow segment from Thursday had an impact in ending that. Cafepress is now following Zazzle.com and pulling the "Pray for Obama" merchandise that clearly expressed a wish for his demise. The CafePress website announced yesterday:
This morning we made the decision to remove all Psalms 109:8 designs from CafePress.
General consensus has proven that the design does point to a broader interpretation of the Psalm and thus has been deemed inappropriate for sale at CafePress.
We try to create an atmosphere of self-expression. Many of the things we encounter are not black and white, but grey. When the dialogue is civil, we want to let the larger community work things out rather than making an uninformed ruling. The dialogue has played out and common sentiment has reached agreement this merchandise is not appropriate.
Thank you all for your input.
Transcript of Rachel Maddow's segment below the cut:
And today, in invoking God to make your own creepy political point news, earlier this week, we reported on how Psalm 109:8 has been merchandised recently by particularly virulent haters of the president.
Psalm 109:8 reads, quote, Let his days be few and let another take his office. The psalm then continues, Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. Let his children continually be vagabonds and beg. Let them seek their bread also from their desolate places. Let the creditor seize all that he has and let strangers plunder his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy to him nor let there be any favor to his fatherless children.
We reported two days ago that the opening verse of that sentiment is being promoted as a prayer for Obama on bumper stickers, mouse pads, teddy bears, aprons, frame tiles, keepsake boxes and t-shirts.
Those items from CafePress.com as of today are no longer available for sale there. But some other mugs and shirts and cards with the same message still are. After initially pulling down some of these items, Cafe Press issued a statement saying they would allow them in the interest of free speech. We posted the full statement about the merchandise from Cafe Press at Rachel.MSNBC.com if youd like to read it.
Another company that, like Cafe Press, allows you to buy and sell personalized clothing and gear reached the opposite conclusion when they looked into the Psalm 109 controversy. Zazzle.com told us today, quote, We have determined that these products may be interpreted in such a way as to suggest physical harm to the president of the United States.
So Zazzle.com pulled this merchandise. Whether or not these things violate individual user agreements is up to the companies, of course, to decide. Whether or not they violate ones basic sense of decency - well, that decision is up to you.
With all of the Democrats, and Lieberman, having already agreed to vote in favor of tonight's vote to allow the healthcare reform legislation come to the floor for debate, the actual voting is pretty much a foregone conclusion, unless Olympia Snowe goes on a wild hare and decides to get all bipartisany on us.
Nonetheless, this is a rather historic event, since we haven't gotten this far on healthcare reform in the Senate, well, ever. Sen. Dodd is in the chair for the vote, in the place where Senator Kennedy would have been.
Watch:
<iframe src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/22886841#22886841" height="339" width="425"></iframe>
Update: Sen. Dodd makes the call. 60 vote yea, 39 nay. The motion is agreed to.
Update 2: Voinovich was the Republican who didn't vote.
Nice little moment between Reid and Dodd just now at their presser on Kennedy--Reid had just spoken with Mrs. Kennedy, who was very pleased and told him that she was sure the Senator was there with them in spirit.
Update 3: E-mailed statement from the White House, here's Gibbs:
"The President is gratified that the Senate has acted to begin consideration of health insurance reform legislation. Tonights historic vote brings us one step closer to ending insurance company abuses, reining in spiraling health care costs, providing stability and security to those with health insurance, and extending quality health coverage to those who lack it. The President looks forward to a thorough and productive debate."
What's coming up on Sunday Kos ....
- Behind the scenes, United States and Russian negotiators have been hard at work hammering out a new START, or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The Treaty expires on December 5, 2009, and it looks like neither of the legislative bodies in either country will ratify it in time. Plutonium Page will explain what the obstacles are, and how the two countries will handle the gap between the missed deadline and actual treaty ratification.
- DarkSyde will introduce a few glitches in the incredible human immune system and exposes some aberrations of our dysfunctional healthcare system in "Resistance is Futile."
- When we think and talk politics and strategy, there are distinctions that too easily get blurred. Laura Clawson will highlight some of the fault lines.
- DemFromCT will review how the breast cancer screening panel misaligned the science, the politics and the commmunication... and why it matters.
- Last month, Germany, France, the United States, Russia, Britain, and China met with Iranian nuclear negotiators to discuss a deal in which Iran would send most of its low-enriched uranium out of the country to be further enriched and fabricated into fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. Since then, a lot has happened, including Iran's official rejection of the deal as well as a new, troubling report from the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's nuclear facilities. Plutonium Page will discuss all of this in detail, and what it means for the future.
What would a health care debate be without some good ol' fashioned race-baiting from the G.O.P.?
Transcript:
Dumping of 15 million low-income Americans into a medical ghetto called Medicaid that none of us or any of our families would ever want to be a part of for our health care...
..Moving 15 million Americans into this medical ghetto...
...Moving 15 million low-income Americans into a program called Medicaid which is a medical ghetto is not health care reform.
Way to stay classy, GOP.
Government takeover! Destroying America! The end of the world as we know it!
Yes, we've heard it all before. But did you know how many times, and for how long?
The fact is that the Republican Party told teabaggers' grandmas (of "death panel" fame) that Social Security was going to be the end of America. And today you can't swing a euthanized cat without hitting a Republican at a microphone insisting he's Social Security's greatest champion.
Republicans likewise told teabaggers' dads that Medicare would be the end of America. And today you can't swing a... oh yeah, you've heard that one.
Today, of course, Republicans will spend the entire day telling teabaggers themselves that the health insurance reform bill will be the end of America.
Gosh, poor America! That's a lotta ends!
Not sure you remember just how sure Republicans were about all those ends? Remind yourself with this trip down Fevered Nightmare Lane.
The Department of Defense told the watchdog Project on Government Oversight Thursday that it won't let the public see a congressionally mandated revolving-door database of Pentagon employees.
POGO wonders what the harm is in seeing a list of former government officials who are now working for defense contractors. We have campaign finance and lobbying disclosure why not expose those circulating between the public and private sectors who might be a driving force behind government decisions and policies?
"Public access to the revolving door database represents the kind of open government that the public wants and deserves. If this Administration is serious about open government, it needs to provide public access to the database about the well-oiled DoD revolving door," said POGO's General Counsel, Scott Amey.
Indeed. But exposing bits of the interlocking directorate of the military-industrial complex can be, at the very least, embarrassing to the uniformed powers-that-be.
In a Wednesday story that Thomas Ricks says should get a Pulitzer, Tom Vanden Brook, Ken Dilanian and Ray Locker of USA Today reported:
Six months after Marine Lt. Gen. Gary McKissock retired in 2002, he did what many other ex-military leaders do: He joined the board of directors of a defense contractor, a company doing business with his former service.
McKissock also had a second job. The Marines brought him back as an adviser, at double the rate of pay he made on active duty. Since 2005, the Marines have awarded McKissock contracts worth $1.2 million, in addition to his military pension of about $119,000 a year.
McKissock is one of at least 158 retired admirals and generals the Pentagon has hired to offer advice under an unusual arrangement. Most of the retired officers, one to four stars in rank, have been paid hundreds of dollars an hour by the military even as they worked for companies seeking Defense Department contracts, a USA TODAY investigation found. That's in addition to pensions of $100,000 to $200,000 a year for officers with 30 or more years of service. ...
Of the 158 retired generals and admirals identified as having worked for the military as senior mentors, 80% had financial ties to defense contractors, including 29 who were full-time executives of defense companies. Those with industry ties have earned salaries, fees or stock options as consultants, board members or full-time employees of defense firms.
Nothing illegal in any of that. And good arguments can be made for its beneficial effects.
Those benefits are outweighed by the steep downside, however. Bad enough when retired officers now working for defense contractors show up to lobby among their previous subordinates - men and women who took orders from them not so long ago. It's no easy matter to break the entrenched habit of saying "yessir." This revolving-door practice has been going on since before Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address nearly half a century ago.
But when the Pentagon and a contractor are both paying these former officers, the line becomes even more blurred.
In some cases, mentors also work for weapons-makers who have an interest in the military planning the mentors are assisting. A Marines exercise last year, which explored how to launch operations from ships, employed mentors who also had financial relationships with companies that sell products designed to aid those operations.
"This setup invites abuse," says Janine Wedel, a George Mason University public policy professor and author of a forthcoming book on government contracting. "Everyone in this story is fat and happy. Everyone, of course, except the public, which has virtually no way of knowing what's going on, much less holding these guys to account."
If retired generals advising the Pentagon also are "being paid by somebody who wants to make money off the government, I think it's important the public know that," says Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who chairs the subcommittee on contracting oversight. "The reason ... is so the people have confidence that the decisions are being made based on merit, and not based on inside baseball."
That ought to qualify for the understatement of the year. At its least damaging outcome, seeking to please former commanders who now hold jobs with defense companies is bound to be on the minds of those officers who someday hope to retire and bring in the big bucks from those companies themselves.
Far worse is the effect such "mentoring" may have not merely on weapons and software acquisitions but also on the shaping of war planning itself. Combine that with retired generals and admirals being specially briefed by the Pentagon for their appearances on Foxaganda and other media masquerading as "independent experts" and you've got a noxious brew.
Despite the shrieks of alarm that will emanate from the armchair patriots over any call for monitoring, much less ending, these relationships, a reform injecting a smidgen of accountability and transparency would amount to barely a baby-step toward curtailing the military-industrial complex. But at least it might demonstrate to the still unaware just how deeply rooted the MIC has become.
What if the answers are as simple as this?
What if the answers are as simple as this?
I received this email from a friend a couple of days ago and i think it raises some good points. I love the simple solutions in life... that's where wisdom truly resides.
Here is an exert from it, it's UK oriented and offers a solution to the economic and employment crisis facing the UK:-
"Dear Mr Darling,
Please find below my suggestion for fixing Britain's economy.
Instead of giving billions of pounds to banks that will squander the
money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan :
There are about 20 million people over 50 in the work force.
Pay them £1 million a piece severance for early retirement with the
following stipulations:
1) They MUST retire. Twenty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.
2) They MUST buy a new British CAR. Twenty million cars ordered -
Auto Industry fixed.
3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing
Crisis fixed.
4) They must send their kids to school / college /university - Crime rate fixed
..."
Well, what do you think? It certainly has merit in it's simplicity in addressing these issues and would create an immediate change in the employment and economic climate, no doubt.
But it brings me back to these questions... where does the money go?, what is a depression?, where does it come from and who benefits from it?
Yes, we are all fed a whole bunch of rhetoric and explanations from the "experts" and politicians as to the reasons why and quickly scapegoats have to be found to eliminate further investigation but to be quite frank i think it's a load of "cod's wallop"!
Lets look, now with the benefit of hindsight, as to what really happened with the latest market crash and economic depression.
One day some news media journalists announced that the housing development in the US was contracting. OK... big deal, so what?... the cycles of the markets and businesses do this all the time. Up one year down the next and up again... it's the nature of the universe... things never stay the same, winter follows summer... why should it be possible for economies and businesses to continually expand upward, especially at the levels desired by the greed demands of the investors in the stock exchanges.
Why shouldn't a business remain strong and healthy by intentionally staying at a comfortable level of size, just expanding enough to balance inflation and not go seeking to expand beyond it's means and so get trapped into borrowing and then into the investor return expectations and over extend itself in the process, all too often collapsing under the pressure.
OK, what happened next... within a day or less, the whole world's media bombards us with copious reports every day that things are getting worse within the property development market... escalating the intensity of the reports and surmising the worst is yet to come and so putting the fear of God into the average person in the street.
These fears are calculated to draw a reaction and a reaction they will obviously get with so much hyping and coverage that takes place.
The next minute, the property development crisis spawns a general property slump... of course it will... if everyone is told that the property market is heavily over subscribed then prices will naturally fall... and so the spiral starts.
Yes, greed and over extension can be laid at the door of the collapse but the SPEED of this collapse and the widespread knowledge of this situation has to be laid at the door of the media. As if with planned synchronicity, all the media jumped onto the fear instilling platform, so much so that even the poor peasant in foothills of outer Mongolia was concerned if he would be able to sell his mud hut to the next herdsman.
I can hear voices that say... "Yes, but technology is to blame for the speed and the widespread nature of communications in the world today"... agreed... but humans are the ones that create the content and are responsible or NOT for the message that is conveyed using it!
Very shortly, the news storm pelts us with reports that the Banks are in crisis, they are heavily over exposed to the mortgage loans that are now no longer assets but have turned into liabilities in over valued properties in a down turned property market.
The everyday person now is fearful of their savings in the banking system and specifically the banks that have been 'spotlighted' by the media as the worst hit. Runs on banks ensue but most often the news is so immediate that it is not possible to remove one's savings before the particular bank refuses withdrawals because they do not have the liquidity to cough up the dough.
Superheroes to the rescue... many governments start to step in (with almost deliberate lethargy and pontification to create the best terms of negotiation) to bail out the banks... the media making a big noise throughout and the politicians trying to earn "Brownie" points by pretending to be the peoples 'Knight in Shining Armour'.
Behind the scenes, what really was the result of all this?... the governments succeeded in owning most of the banks they lent money too... this was the most effective nationalisation of the banks that has ever been undertaken. Those banks that didn't tow the line were allowed to languish (irrespective of the people's interests!) and some countries that didn't tow the line had their economies crippled.
I found the minister's remark about a bank in the UK that rather than take the offered bail out package from the government, proceeded to successfully raise it's needed capital from a Middle Eastern source, which comment to the effect of "they were very unpatriotic", was to ram home the deliberate strategy of the (lets say) government to own the banks in this game of kill the goose and anything else that gets in the way.
Why should anyone be at all negatively concerned if a bank effectively rescued itself and in the process did not have to give away any equity for doing so in the process... why should they be seen as unpatriotic by anybody!... other than an enraged player who was defeated in this game of chess by a more savvy opponent who realised what the game play was all about!
So getting back to the suggestions above to help solve the crisis that started this post... I fear they would never be implemented, no matter how simple and effective they could be, because in the solution outlined there is no real benefit or gain to be had by (lets say) the governments, in that they don't gain anything in the process other than fix things for the betterment of the people... which we would hope was really their only agenda but sadly this is not true i fear.
So, it doesn't take any degreed degree of grey matter to work out why all of this media hysteria has finally led us into a depression.
If you tell enough people "watch out we are in a depression", often enough then we will be in a depression, because every Tom, Joe, Sue and Sally will hold onto and stop spending their money because they will fear for their future and their jobs and by the mere act of not spending in an economy that bases it's foundation on spending, we will have what the orchestrators planned... a deep depression... simple truth!!
I will leave you with the thought on "Where does the money go?"... if the banks didn't have enough and the stock exchanges and investment houses didn't have it... where did it all go to?... is it hidden under a huge lot of mattress? Lets discuss this another time.
My final parting words... stop listening to the garbage the news media pelts you with... ignore the politicians lies and dribble... we are adults right?
Its easy, just turn off this invasive brainwashing instrument called the 'News Media' and focus on getting on with your lives as normal and you know what?... we wouldn't be in this depression if we had all done that a year ago!
What if there was no money to me made from vaccines?
What if there was no money to me made from vaccines?
Lets say that all vaccines had to be provided free by all pharmaceutical companies in the world by decree from the United Nations to control the world's pandemics... well, why not have the hugely rich corporations give something back to the people that make them obscenely rich in the first place? The same people that die or end up as vegetables in order to further the research or add to the coffers (interesting close proximity to the spelling of 'coffins') of the drug companies while they experiment with their next 'gold mine' under the comfort and protection of the law against legal responsibility for their products and deeds.
If this happened, I wonder if we would still see the regular invasion of a new strain of flu virus every year, if there was no profit to be had in selling drugs to combat it?... I have a strange suspicion that suddenly the media would go quiet on the subject and seasonal morphing flu viruses would be a thing of the past.
The birds and the pigs could relax and get back to their old habits of singing and grunting their way through life... nature would be happy to concentrate on addressing the weather patterns and not be so concerned about how it could invent another new strain of the flu virus, on time, that would successfully mutate, sufficiently well enough, to be able to infect and be transmitted throughout the human population... thus making the pharmaceutical companies richer and richer and giving the media, waiting in the wings, another great arsenal of fear inducing stories to assist their bosses quest for more obscene wealth and control.
Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that anyone should willingly accept vaccines... far from it!!... I think if you google the history of and side effects of vaccines, you would never allow anyone, least a member of your family, to take a vaccine, least of all a flu vaccine which in effect was prepared to address the flu strain of the previous year!
I won't go into the depths of those discussions here but if you are interested enough to save your lives and those of your family's, there are enough reports by 'qualified' scientific mind now (as opposed to just conspiracy pundits) on the net to add enough doubt to the purity and bona fides of this health solution... there is no smoke without fire and there is an awful amount of smoke around!
Lets exercise a modicum of intelligence here.. If something is as good as a vaccine purports to be... why would a government have to threaten (under the Patriot act) to enforce that every citizen that would refuse to have a vaccine, if told to do so by the government, would be treated as a terrorist and would be imprisoned? Surely if the vaccine was a good thing we would willingly take it?
Interesting that when the same government's leader was asked in an interview... "have you had the vaccine Mr President?" he replied "NO, I don't need one"... LOL... please, please... lets wake up here!
Anyway, back to the start of the post... I think the easiest test case as to the truth of whether the yearly mutations of the flu virus are created in a laboratory or they are the efficient intent of nature to target the human species would be finally and easily answered by taking the profit out of the equation...
My naive view is... NO profit in colds and flu remedies... then NO more morphing of the flu virus on a seasonal regularity!
What if the LAW was the LAW?
What if the LAW was the LAW?
and not some individuals opinion of what it is!I am often exhausted trying to keep up with the legal issues of copyright, plaigarism, fair use, service agreements, terms and conditions... and all the various expert interpretations of the law... because they are all just that... interpretations!
Have you noticed how lawyers never seem to give you a de facto answer in most advices... is it to protect their revenue source, their on going billing engine?... i think it could be just that... because, if there were definitive answers to the law then one could just simply have a database, matching subject to answer and... 'Bob's not your Uncle'... problem solved... he is your Aunt!
Simple... and in the enlightened age of the Internet, one could just go to a website, enter the question needing clarity on the law and out pops a definitive answer... just for a few cents or better still a free public service.
Yes, there are some so called free services you can use, but they generally limit you to a simple question and answer... promoting that you will need to engage an attorney (of theirs generally) and pay a lot more money to get a more comprehensive (read expensive) answer. And if you do just that and ask the attorney for a definitive answer, he/she will invariably say "well, that is my opinion".
Unfortunately, if you act on his advice and end up in a court of law, your justice will depend not on his opinion but on the 'opinion' of someone completely different!!! .... what a joke!... unfortunately in most cases it is not a funny joke!
So what is the problem? Well most friendly lawyers... there are some... will tell you that it is because the law is so badly written... and because the process 'we' (who?) have adopted is to allow the changes to fix the badly written law of the first instance, forming a chain of modifications that take a team of agile and intelligent minds to unscramble and try and make some sense of... and then present that opinion to a wise old person to give their opinion about their interpretation... convoluted?... you bet!
This is, of course, further complicated by another team of agile and intelligent minds trying to find an opposite opinion that is also believable... in order to present same to the same wise old person, to get agreement on their interpretation!
And all of this process has to be paid for by the poor innocents who are caught up in this grandiose game of 'Find the flaw in the Law'.
Well to hell with paying for the mistakes of someone else who was already paid (taxes) by us to define the law correctly in the first instance.
My naive mind tells me, lets scrap all those laws that can't be clearly understood by reading a couple of clearly understandable sentences and have them rewritten by someone who does understand what they are doing and can clearly communicate what should or should not be done in reference to that law.
Do away with precedence and the need to search for precedent and the debate this lengthy and costly (to you again) procedure of other formed opinions by other wise old souls!
Laws from the dark ages should automatically be scrapped and rewritten... as our society and norms and language has changed considerably since the time they were first written.
Why won't this happen unless there is a miracle?... because the industry that thrives on this almost deliberate travesty of justice is the justice industry itself... it is much too profitable to even think of simplifying the law and lose it's carefully crafted and protected revenue streams... just like the power industry won't allow anyone to easily take their market away in order to have a healthier planet to live in!
So, if i end up in court or just disappear after this article... please, someone pass on this message ... on and on and on... and on and on... after all this is one of the benefits of the net, isn't it... free speech!... hmmm... until someone with a lot to lose doesn't like what you say and asks a lawyer to give an opinion and...
"oh no... not again"... that person who penned the defense of 'but don't spill a single drop of blood' now has a lot of blood on their hands!
What if political lobbying was a crime?
What if political lobbying was a crime?
Well, don't you think it should be?Think about it... big business with money, wines and dines political decision makers, offers them fund contributions... for what?... so that their investment interests are protected by the law makers!... at whose expense?... ours... yours and mine and the children of the future!
Read this article for an example of blatant bribery:
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today....."
Doesn't this get your blood boiling?... Especially as the reality of it all, is that this goes on ALL the time and more so than this example portrays... much more i'm sure!
And we all sit back and say... "Well, that's political lobbying"... SO WHAT!... that is bribery and corruption!... it is a crime in any other jurisdiction ... so why not in political circles?!
Am i being naive here?... shouldn't we the people whose lives are jeopardised by this corruption say "ENOUGH NOW... punish these people for their crimes... outlaw this legalised corruption we so politely call Lobbying!"
What do you think?
What if fear rules?
What if fear rules?
Well, we all have one fear or another about something. I remember the fear i had about the first post i did in a forum of intellectuals... what if they though i was an idiot and proceeded to tell me, how would i take that, how would my ego react? I pondered whether i should submit the post that i had spent much too long forming, editing and re-editing it to perfection... in the end i held my breath and hit the submit button and prayed they would be kind.So what happened in the end?... nothing much, i was treated like anybody else and my confidence grew with every post and i really enjoyed the process.
Then one day i branched out on my first personal blog and the same fear crept in again, but i challenged it the same way and now i embark upon this new adventure and the same fear raises its ugly head again but it gets less and less with every repetition.
So why do i do this?... therapy probably or perhaps, I'll get lucky and be rewarded in attracting greater, wiser minds/souls to help me on my way or just help me to look at things differently... that will be reward enough. But who knows, maybe I'll even manage to help someone else... now, isn't that the best reward anyone could ask for?... along with a bit of Adsense revenue too;)
So onward I go, for doesn't therein lie the value of "Action" .. take that first step down that new road and we will be well on our way to a new adventure... No, we don't know where it will lead us to, that is the whole point isn't it?... there is no adventure or a whole lot of learning walking the same path, doing the same stuff over and over again after you have mastered whatever it is you are trying to master.
Where is the value in seeking to look wonderful just because we have perfected some disciplines, talents, skills etc... does a painter spend the rest of their life painting the same picture, a musician perfecting the one song, a blogger perfecting one post?... No they don't and nor should we, methinks.
Where is the value spending the rest of our lives just repeating the same things over and over in order to show ourselves off to rapturous applause, to bask in fleeting admiration or just to be perceived to be 'so confident'... 'so cool'.
Where is the value in collecting assets, if we have to spend the rest of our lives doing mundane repetitive tasks in order to just maintain our collection and have time for nothing else.
Where do these assets go when we die? What do we take with us in our never ending adventure?... i think we take our experiences and their vibrational influences on us... we take our wisdom... wisdom comes from our experiences, not from reading a book, getting a degree or watching TV... For sure, knowledge accelerates our learning but putting the knowledge into "Action" gives us the experiences which then stay with us forever.
What do we do in the sunset of our lives?... we remember the important, happy events of our lives, we continuously play back these movies... so my advice is make sure your movies are full length feature movies and not just promotional trailers!
No there is nothing wrong with being comfortable, clever, rich or having our toys to play with, but we mustn't become a slave to them and we shouldn't waste our life building an image of ourself which is tethered to our material gains, academic status or other peoples evaluation.
Yes, some things do require regular repetition to keep us healthy and strong, like brushing our teeth, breathing, exercising, maintaining positive thoughts and images in our mind .. and yes we have got to make a living, so some degree of repetition is required to survive but leave time for new adventures, for learning and for new experiences .. don't stand still in the comfort of doing the same old thing, for don't old things invite decay?.. and don't let fear of the new keep you frozen still because you will just end up a very well preserved empty vessel!
So if i let fear rule i would never have had this adventure and many more in my life and i would have been so poor for it.
What if I didn't start this blogzine?
What if I didn't start this blogzine?
Who knows and who cares? .. nobody right!... well that's not quite true because I'm sure the trees care and so does the kind soul that cleans my office and tries to tidy my desk which is often cluttered with pieces of paper recording random thoughts and ideas .. and I care! .. hell, that's important enough for me! .. and so I embark upon a new adventure not knowing where it will lead, not wanting to structure it too much so that it can just flow the course it finds, as does a conversation or discussion, not wanting to inhibit creative expression by being too concerned about grammar and form.
So onward we go .. if you care to comment please be my guest :)
RSS
