A well needed jobs summit, but for who?

In November, shortly before his trip to China, President Obama announced a “jobs summit” to come up with ideas of what the government should do to create jobs to help the economy recover.  Click on the link below to watch his announcement.

Obama Announces 'Jobs Summit'

Approximately 130 leaders will gather in Washington tomorrow (Thursday) and Friday to do just that.  The national unemployment rate, the % of people receiving unemployment, is just over 10% (10.2%).  The DOL releases updated data Friday afternoon.  The “real” unemployment rate, the national rate plus those who’ve exhausted unemployment benefits and those who aren’t even trying to look for jobs, is estimated at 17-19%.  Before anyone questions this number, look it up.  Plus, don’t talk to me about phantom numbers.  Until this year, no one had ever heard of “saved jobs".

All of us know plenty of people who’ve lost their jobs and are struggling to find employment.  You won’t get an argument from me that we need more jobs in our great country and that our President should use his power to help spur that growth.  But, let’s take a look at some of the people who will be attending the summit.  The partial list of attendees was released Monday by the White House.  Included in the list are CEOs of large companies like Boeing, Comcast, Google, FedEx, and Disney.  Great!  These are large companies that employ numerous hundreds of thousands of people.  They will bring a wealth of talent and knowledge to the table. 

Also included in the list are some that would be considered “friendly” to the President; representatives from big labor (American Federation of Teachers, SEIU, AFL-CIO, United Steel Workers, United Food and Commercial Workers), economists like Paul Krugman (NY Times columnist and Nobel Laureate who has called for a second stimulus package because the first $787B was not large enough), “green” experts (Green for All, Coalition for the Green Bank, Earth Institute), and liberal leaning think tanks (Economic Policy Institute, Center on Budget Policy and Priorities) who’ve called for additional government spending above and beyond the stimulus package, the $3.5T 2009 budget, and the (fill in the dollar from $900M to $1.75T) healthcare bill. 

Missing from the list of invitees are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), both have been critical of Obama’s policies.  In case you didn’t know, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is “the world’s largest federation of businesses” (U.S. Chamber website).  96% of its members are small businesses with fewer than 100 employees.  The NFIB is the “leading small business association representing small and independent businesses”.  They have published their recommendation on how to create jobs (http://www.nfib.com/nfib-on-the-move/nfib-on-the-move-item/cmsid/50277/). 

So, if small businesses create 75-80% of all new jobs created (look it up on your own if you don’t believe me), why else would the President not invite the two largest organizations responsible to three-quarters of all new jobs?  Probably because he can’t take criticism and surrounds himself with “yes men”. 

With the number of unions and economists attending the session, when should we expect Stimulus II? 

Let me know.

Something to think about

Some may read this post and tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about.  Granted, I’m not an oncologist.  Hell, I’m not even a doctor.  Come to think about it, I don’t even have a Master’s degree.   However, I do have a background in business and can presume that we haven’t begun to see the true outcome of the new breast cancer screening guidelines released earlier this week. 

Cancer is something that is very close to me (as it probably is close to a lot of the people who will read this).  I’ve lost family members to cancer and have friends that are battling it in one form or the other.  For this reason, I decided to learn more about the recommendations published by the panel, do some research on the panel itself and similar panels around the world, and what the experts; American Cancer Society (ACS), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) think of them.  As I was doing this research, I also found that congress has four bills in the works that discuss breast cancer screening and treatment. 

So, let’s begin.  The guidelines released on the 16th are radically different from all previous guidelines published by the same U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF).  As recently as March 2009, “The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force recommends screening mammography, with or without clinical breast examination (CBE), every 1-2 years for women aged 40 and over.” (http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/pocketgd09/gcp09s2.htm#BreastScreening).

The USPSTF guidelines released Monday:  (http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm)

• The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms.
• The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years.
• The USPSTF recommends against teaching breast self-examination (BSE).

The USPSTF states:

“The harms resulting from screening for breast cancer include psychological harms, unnecessary imaging tests and biopsies in women without cancer, and inconvenience due to false-positive screening results. Furthermore, one must also consider the harms associated with treatment of cancer that would not become clinically apparent during a woman's lifetime (overdiagnosis), as well as the harms of unnecessary earlier treatment of breast cancer that would have become clinically apparent but would not have shortened a woman's life. Radiation exposure (from radiologic tests), although a minor concern, is also a consideration.”

It just doesn’t sit right with me that one of the reasons to not screen is because of the “inconvenience due to a false-positive”.  I understand that it is truly horrific to be diagnosed with cancer.  Personally, I’d rather be falsely diagnosed initially rather than not being diagnosed at all.  Maybe it’s just me, I don’t know.  I’m just thinking of the woman who is much younger than 50 who may not be diagnosed until either the cancer has metastasized and is too late or 50 years old.

One of the reasons why the U.S. is a world leader in cancer treatment is because of the noble work done is cancer research facilities across our great country.  We’re lucky to have the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in our own back yard.  The American Cancer Society rejects the USPSTF recommendations.  In a 11/17/09 press release: (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1x_American_Cancer_Society_Responds_to_Changes_to_USPSTF_Mammography_Guidelines.asp?sitearea=MED)

  The American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40. Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider. When recommendations are based on judgments about the balance of risks and benefits, reasonable experts can look at the same data and reach different conclusions.

The ACOG has not adopted the guidelines and also alludes to a future potential problem (more on that later): http://www.acog.org/from_home/Misc/uspstfResponse.cfm 

The College continues to recommend that Fellows advise mammography screening for their patients aged 40 and older and that they counsel their patients that BSE has the potential to detect palpable breast cancer and can be performed. Fellows should be aware that the new USPSTF recommendation against routine screening mammography for women aged 40-49 (a grade C recommendation) has implications for insurance coverage, as some insurers will cover only preventive services rated as an "A" or a "B" by the USPSTF. Fellows should counsel their patients that insurance coverage for "routine screening" mammography may become variable and that patients should address this question with their insurers. These recommendations do not apply to high-risk women or patients with clinical findings, and they should be managed accordingly.

Congress has three bills; HR995, HR1691, HR1740, and HR2279 (http://thomas.loc.gov ) that discuss breast cancer in them.  Among other issues addressed, the bills require insurance companies to extend the coverage for annual mammograms to women 40 years and older.  They also have a campaign to make young women aware that they are also at risk.

Here is where I’m going to lose people…The same USPSTF that published these guidelines is the same task force referenced in the House’s healthcare bill.  So, it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that despite the other bills that will probably die in congress, HR3962’s provision will set which services the government will pay for.  It could also be the guideline for what insurance companies will use to set their coverage plans.  If you don’t believe me, here is the whole 1,990 page bill.  Please go to pages 106-107.  http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

The reason why the U.S. is a leader in cancer research is because, until now, we did not have a government panel with the strength the USPSTF will have if/when the Healthcare bill is passed.  I keep hearing that we need to be like the rest of the world in health care.  I keep hearing about England and other countries in Europe that have some form of socialized healthcare.  Then why don’t we travel to London or Paris for treatment instead of people coming to our city (and country) from across the globe?  The U.S. cancer survival rates far surpass those in European countries.  The same countries that rely on the same panels/task forces to create clinical guidelines for screening and treatment.  Patients with breast cancer, for example, have a much lower survival rate after 5-years (79% vs. 90.1%).  Prostate cancer survival rates after 5-years is 77.5% vs. 99.3%.  The reason “probably represents differences in timeliness of diagnosis.”  Again, if you don’t believe me check this website.  I’m not just making this up.  http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

This issue is too important to politicize.  This really isn’t meant to be political.  Honestly!  It’s just something that doesn’t sit right with me.

In closing, again I am not a doctor and would welcome comments from the medical professionals that may read this. 

If you would like to donate to organizations dedicated to finding treatments and cures for cancer, please follow the links below. Thanks.

http://www.nationalbreastcancer.org/How-To-Help/Donate-Online.aspx

http://www.dana-farber.org/how/gifts/

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/don/don_0.asp?from=hpbox

In Belichick We (No Longer) Trust

First, I apologize for any “NSFW” (Not Suitable for Work) content in this post.  Since I can’t sleep tonight, here’s a post.  Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Anarchist, we all are the same tonight!

Let me give you a preview of a headline from later this season. “Colts; 2nd team in 3 years to go 16-0”.  This once thought to be impossible task is now meaningless because of a bonehead decision made on 11/15 by an arrogant Belichick who went for it on 4th and 2 FROM HIS OWN 28…AGAINST PEYTON ‘EFFING MANNING!

What was he thinking? Seriously!  I’m listening to all of the Belichick apologists on the radio…Smerlas and Andy Grech I’m talking about you and all of the other idiot callers!  Yes, he goes for it on 4th Down more than any other coach.  That is an accurate statement.  However, who goes for it on your own 28 against one of the best QBs of all time.  Everyone is saying that “all he did was put the game in the hands of his best player”.  Again, another accurate statement.  AGAIN, HOWEVER does every player make the play 100% of the time?  The answer is no, obviousfuc$ingly!  It is the coach’s job to put the TEAM in the best position to win, regardless if you have a hall-of-fame QB!  They didn’t make the 1st down, so what is the better position to be in…Give the ball to Manning on your 30 down by 6 with 2 minutes to go OR give the ball to Manning (the same Manning who had thrown 2 interceptions) on HIS 30-35 with less than 2 minutes needing to drive 65-70 yards to take the lead.  If that happens, FINE!  It would suck, but Belichick would not have handed the game to him.

Also, did you hear this guy in the post-game press conference?  It was 4th and 2 and he kept saying ‘I thought we could get that yard…We should have been able to get one yard…I don’t understand how we didn’t get a yard with that catch’…A$$HOLE, you did get ONE yard!  You needed to get TWO yards!  We’ve become accustomed to his short, curt answer when they lose.  We say “That’s OK.  It’s just Bill being Bill.”  Really?  The how come “Manny being Manny” was bad but “Bill being Bill” is good?  This decision is inexcusable!  This ranks up there with Grady Little. 

You don’t think so?  Pedro comes out of the game.  Everything, including the in-bred redneck shakes his hand and pats him on the back congratulating him.  His night was done and let’s turn it over to the bullpen…4th and 2 and they call their last timeout.  Why?  Fuhhgetaboutit!  OK, they’re gonna come out and punt the ball and turn it over to his defense or, AT WORST, try to draw them offside to get a 1st down.  What message does it give his defense that he didn’t trust them to stop Manning from going 65-70 yards in a 2-minute playset that he needed to go for it ON HIS OWN 28!!!!  This is the same defense that executed the defensive scheme Belichick put in for most of the game.    

His arrogance influenced his game management skills tonight.  We all know that he would have loved to say that HE (not the TEAM) ended the Colts’ undefeated season by going for it on 4th and 2 ON HIS OWN 28!  The Patriots played well enough to win the game but his decision single-handedly loss the game.  END OF FUC&IN’ STORY!

I don’t want to hear the rationale of “Let’s not focus on the 4th and 2” play.  Let’s focus on the game as a whole”.  Fuck that!  The 4th and 2 WAS THE GAME!

This SUCKS!!!!  I’m not going to be able to sleep and I think I’m going to puke.  I’m serious!

Feel free to post comments, even you apologists out there.  I’m going to take a double shot of NyQuil and then take a melatonin to try to sleep.  Have I mentioned that this sucks!

This weekend sucked!  Belichick blows the game, the Celts lose two games, the Bruins blew YET ANOTHER GAME, USC got blown out at HOME, and the Nichols football team went 4-6.

Bruins SUCK!

OK, I've been on a political tear for a while now. Now, let's talk about something we all can agree with. The Boston Bruins SUCK! The Big BAD Bs are back! Some of you have heard me say this before...The Bruins will not win a Stanley Cup as long as Jeremy Jacobs is the owner. Granted, the introduction of the salary cap after the lockout a few years ago has begun to even the playing field as before the cap, Jacobs' edict to the GM (Harry Sinden for many years) was to make money. He didn't and still doesn't care about winning.

It hurts for me to say that the Bruins suck because I love hockey and the Bruins. I spent hundreds of dollars last year to go to a playoff game. I watch college and high school hockey as well. It doesn't hurt that my alma mater, B.C. High, is a perennial hockey powerhouse that is always in the mix to win the State Championship. Nichols College, on the other hand, doesn't have the rich hockey background. Although, Coach Izzi is doing his best as the Bison have gone 20-7-1 in 2007-2009 and 25-4-0 in 2008-2009. They won the ECAC Notheast title last year and qualified for the NCAA Div. III Hockey tournament. GO BISON!!!

Back to the Bs. The Bruins are having a really tough time scoring this year. Why? They don't have a bona fide goal scorer. They traded away 21 year-old Phil Kessel. The same Phil Kessel who led the team with 36 goals last year which also tied him for 2nd in the NHL for goals by players under 23. He scored more goals than Evegeni Malkin (35) of the Stanley Cup winning Pittsburgh Penguins. Why did the Pens win? Malkin was on a team with a superstar. You may have heard of him. He goes by "Sid the Kid". Sidney Crosby (33 Gs, 70 As) is a superstar.

Who's left now on the Bs? A bunch of pretty good role players. Marc Savard, their best player, is out with a broken foot. Savard has led the Bs in scoring the past three seasons, mainly because of his ability to setup goal scorers with assist totals of 63, 63, and 74 in '08-'09, '07-'08, and '06-'07.

Through 14 games the Bruins are 6-7-1 (12th in the conference), 24th in goals (31), last in power-play % (11.5%), and 22nd in penalty kills (78%). The Winter Classic at Fenway isn't looking more an more like an entertainment spectacle instead of a sporting event! On the bright side, I'm sure they lead the league in concession sales.

So, what do you think? Are the Bs better than how they've been playing? Will they ever get (and keep) a superstar? Let me know.

Verizon DSL Sucks!

Well...since the blog that I had been writing this evening has disappeared and I don't want to re-write everything (Mayor's Race, NY 23rd race, NJ Governor, DeMarcus Ware) because Verizon DSL sucks! Mayor Menino needs to stop playing politics by charging utilities like Verizon property taxes on freakin' telephone poles so they'll want to spend their own capital and deliver FIOS to the city.

So, I decided to share a few excerpts of an 1860 speech given by Frederick Douglass titled "A Plea for Free Speech". Granted, he was talking about slavery but free speech is free speech. I wonder if Anita Dunn (Communications Director), Robert Gibbs (Press Secretary), Rahm Emmanuel (Chief of Staff), David Axelrod (Senior Advisor), and the President have ever read this.

Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts
and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of
tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They
know its power...There can be no right of speech where any man, however lifted
up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and
compelled to suppress his honest sentiments.

Dunn has publically stated that Mao-Tse Tung is one of her favorite political philosophers. Mao Tse-Tung! Mao-Tse-Tung, whose own "war" was to kill 50-70 MILLION people. Don't believe me? Watch the video! Is it me or is her "chewing" and facial expressions annoying as all hell? For those who will say, "You took this clip from Glen Beck's program? It's clipped to slant (pardon the pun) to my argument." Sorry to disappoint you, but this is from YouTube and the clip is over 3 minutes long.

This is the United States, right?

OK, I've been gone for a while. Oh well! Some people have asked me why I haven't posted anything about Healthcare, Obama's Teleprompters, the DOZENS of "Presidential Czars"...DOZENS including former (YEA!!!!) Green Jobs Czar Van Jones who signed a letter by the 9/11 Truth Organization. A letter that demanded answers for 9/11 and an "immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur." This trusted advisor to our President believed that one of the darkest days in our nation's history was actually allowed to go ahead by our own government.

Enough about Jones or Kevin Jennings, the Assisant Deputy Secretary at the Department of Education for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. While working as a teacher at Concord Academy in this state of ours, Jennings advised a sophomore who informed him of a relationship with an older man to use a condom instead of advising him to end the relationship. Despite initially saying the boy was 15 at the time, Jennings now says the boy was 16. The age of consent is 16. Either way. What was this guy thinking? Wait...I know. One of people whom Jennings says inspired him was Harry Hay. Harry Hay was a long-time supporter of NAMBLA. Yes, that NAMBLA! The North American Man-Boy Love Association. Don't believe me? You think that I'm just a follower taking the lead from the likes of Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck? Or you think that I have my blinders on and obey the ficticious "daily right-wing email blast"? I'm sorry to disappoint you. Read the effin' link for yourself, STRAIGHT FROM NAMBLA'S WEBSITE!!!! http://www.nambla.org/hay2002.htm

The real reason that got me to write again was the story in the title. Here is the link again. http://www.katu.com/news/local/64059697.html Residents in these United States being banned from displaying the flag of these United States!!! Are you fuckin' kidding me? What the fuck has this nation come to? Management's reason was "someone might get offended." Well, if someone does get offended, then tell them to get the fuck out of this country! I'm serious! We have hundreds of thousands of troops currently fighting under this flag to give these morons the freedoms of free speech, freedom of assembly (to peacefully protest whatever the fuck they want to), and don't forget the little thing called DEMOCRACY.

The apartment complex has since lifted the ban. http://www.katu.com/news/local/64262707.html In this story, the ACLU said that management didn't violate any laws when they banned the flag. Hmm...I'm not an attorney and I don't pretend to be one, but it only took me 15 seconds to discover that Congress passed the "Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005". In summary:

Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 - States that a condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent an association member from displaying the U.S. flag on residential property within the association with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use.
States that nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with: (1) federal law or any rule or custom pertaining to the proper display or use of the flag; or (2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium, cooperative, or residential real estate management
association.

I'm not suprised that the ACLU totally disregards this law. Well, this ends the latest thought I had. Hey, does anyone know when the Sox play? Speaking of suckin', they sucked and it totally sucks that we won't see them play for real until April. At least we have the Bs...Wait, they suck as well! We'll always have the Pats. The better win this week!

"Hi! Yes. Mr/Mrs Taxpayer, can I have your bank account number?"

First, the purpose of this entry is to convey my opinion and pass along information that I have come across in my research. If, after reading this entry, you agree with the information and opinion, great! If not, I respect your opinion (I do!) and your right to disagree with me. Please post your comment and let's start a discussion with the group. We all need to remember this is what the populous voted for, if they realized it or not.

So, President Obama and the House Democrats have presented their plan on how to stimulate the economy. Remember, this is an economic package from a country built on the idea of capitalism. The $800B+ package titled “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act”, as passed by the House, would be the single largest transfer of money in history. I hope everyone has paid off their Christmas/Hanukkah bills, because every one of us are about to cough over thousands of dollars to the government. Let's take a look at some of the ways the House Democrats want to stimulate the economy; $75M in smoking cessation programs, $335M in STD prevention, $150M to the Smithsonian Institute, $650M in digital TV converter coupons, $50M to the National Endowment for the Arts, $200M on improvements to the National Mall (since removed from the bill), $1B in nutrition programs, $600M to pay for a new fleet of federal vehicles, $142B in education spending, refundable tax credits for people who don't pay taxes. Understanding that these are small percentages of the total bill, will the rest of the money help get us out of the recession? Even the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says that only 52% of the $800B can be spent before the end of 2010. Praying that we will be recovering from the recession later this year or in 2010 as most economists predict, shouldn't the bill be for $425B ($819B * 52%)?

How does giving people coupons to buy a digital TV converter jump start the economy Besides, we've been told for years that TV was switching to digital signals and the government set aside hundreds of millions in coupons to promote the switch. If people didn't request a coupon before they ran out, tough! Watching TV is not a right where the government needs to pay for everyone's converter boxes...How will the $142B in educational funding stimulate the economy? Before you educators jump down my throat, I agree with some of the spending. The education system is broken and we need to fix it. $14B of the $142B is for new school construction and modernization. This will help reduce student to teacher ratios and give students and teachers proper environments to learn and teach. Also, there is $2.6B to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) funding to train new teachers and support research & development to improve math and science instruction. This is desperately needed as our children are light years behind other developed countries. This is an economic stimulus package not an education bill...$335M in STD prevention? Enough said...$600M for a fleet of cars purchased from the auto industry. These are the same companies the government recently “purchased” all of the built but unsold cars and agreed to let the companies “re-sell” the cars and pay the government back. I ask you this, if we already paid for the cars, why do we need to “re-buy” them? Why can't we just take the cars we already purchased?

Democrats also initially included a provision to match state spending on contraceptive services offered by Medicaid with $9 in federal funds for every $1 spent by the state. House Minority Leader John Boehner objected, “How you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?” Here is the response given by Speaker Nancy Pelosi on ABC's “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”, “Family planning services reduce cost...One of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.” Let me get this straight, fewer children equals a better economy. Doesn't anyone else find this scary?

During President Obama's campaign, he promised to end the “politics of division” and unite Washington. After winning the presidency with one of the largest margins in our nation's history, Barack Obama had built enough political capital to gather support from the Republicans for this historic package. But, the President did not use any of this capital and delegated that responsibility to Speaker Pelosi. Taking her lead, House Democrats ignored all GOP suggestions while adding the billions of dollars of spending to countless special interest groups. As a result, every Republican and 11 Democrats voted against the bill. The President needed to do more than host a cocktail party for Republicans and invite them to the White House Super Bowl party. BUT, is this what he wanted? By passing the buck to Pelosi, he will be able to blame the House Democrats when the bill does not work and sell another crock of “overcoming political partisanship” to the public. I have to give it to him, he is a good salesman!

But Sean/Choppy, the Republicans are simply voting against the bill and not providing alternative solutions! You're wrong. On 1/23 House Republicans, led by Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor, presented an Econonic Recovery Plan to President Obama and Democratic Leaders. This is the same meeting when President Obama exclaimed, “I won!” to the Republicans arguing against the Democrats' bill. The plan has concrete ideas on how to get us out of this mess.

Instead of a refundable tax credit based on payroll taxes, the Republicans plan calls for the reduction of the bottom two individual tax rates from 15% and 10% to 10% and 5%. According to The Office of the Republican Whip, this would represent and average benefit to every taxpaying American of $500 in tax relief in the drop from 10% to 5% and $1,200 from 15% to 10%. A married couple filing jointly could save up to $3,200 a year in taxes.

The Republican plan also proposes to allow small businesses (< 500 employees) to take a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income. “Here we go again, Sean. Tax cuts...Nothing new!” Well, let's look at a real-life scenario. According to the Heritage Foundation, there are 498,606 small businesses with 500 or fewer employees in Minnesota. The Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy reports they represent 98% of the states' employers and accounts for 78% of the states' net new jobs in 2004 and 2005. It is the same story across our great country. We need to lower the tax burden on our nations' small businesses.

The legislation also includes a home-buyers credit of $7,500 for buyers who can put at least 5% down. This is intended to be an incentive to get potential buyers off the sideline and help turn around the real estate market.

Finally, the bill would make unemployment benefits tax free. I didn't know the Federal Government imposes income taxes on unemployment. That's ridiculous!

Let's review the plan of the Party the liberal media says is in “Big Businesses'” back pocket. INDIVIDUAL tax rate decrease. SMALL BUSINESS tax relief. Home buyers' credit. TAX FREE benefits for the unemployed...And imagine, all along I was led to believe that Democrats were the Party for the American individual.

“See, the Republicans are racist! They are whipping minorities!”, Anonymous Uninformed Citizen Who Voted for Obama.

“Well, it's about time!”

OK, so it's been a while. A lot has happened since my last post, but I'm not going to open wounds that have started to heal.

A few months ago, after the Sirius/XM satellite radio merger was approved, I bought a Sirius radio. As cable changed TV, I believe satellite radio will do the same. There are a ton of commercial free music channels plus a lot of specially programmed talk stations. As you can imagine, two of the stations I listen to the most are Sirius Patriot (Conservative talk) and Sirius Left (Liberal talk). Obviously, I agree with a lot what is being said on Patriot and disagree with Sirius Left. This should not be a surprise to anyone who has read this blog. In this country the First Amendment affords us the right to freedom of expression and religion. We can pretty much say what we want without the threat of prosecution.
What should be shocking to everyone is the vile and degrading comments that come out of Sirius Left. Here are SOME of the comments I've heard from some of the hosts; “Bush is a mass murderer.”, “Bushie is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.”, “Palin's daughter is a white-trash whore!”, “Palin is a vagina without a brain. To be nominated for VP, her vagina must be pretty good!”. Why are they still talking about Palin? Bush's administration is also referred to as “The Bush Crime Family”. You don't hear this on Patriot. What do you think would happen if one of Patriot's hosts called Barack Obama the Chief “N” or Michelle Obama a “nappy headed...”? Somehow, I have a feeling that MSNBC, CNN, and the three networks would constantly replay the tape and that the NAACP, Jesse Jackson (don't get me started on him), and Al Sharpton (him either) would all organize protests/looting in the streets of New York.

The Democrats are continuing to push forward the notion of reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine”. Check out these with Senators Chuck Schumer (NY) on Fox News Channel and Jeff Bingaman (NM) on KKOB...Oh, the “higher level and more intelligent” discussion being referred to is the time when conservative talk was not around. Tell me, where else do you hear conservative views? Network press? Haha! Print media? You're kidding! Now that conservatives have a voice, they want to limit the message. I'd be for the “Fairness Doctrine” if half of the New York Times OpEd columns would need to be conservative!





Celtics – Are they back? It looks like it. They've won 8 in a row. They demolished the Mavs 124-100. Rajon Rondo seems to be getting better by the game. It was just last year when NBA experts were questioning his ability to run an NBA offense. Why? It's not like he came out of high school or played for a small college program. If you don't know, he played for two years in a college program steeped in tradition. He was the point guard for the Kentucky Wildcats. Yes, the same University of Kentucky where Adolph Rupp coached for 41 years, winning 876 games, and was forced into mandatory retirement by the university at 70. The same Kentucky Wildcat team lucky to have the lovely Ashley Judd (UK, '90) as one of their most passionate fans.
Rondo is quickly becoming one of the premier point guards in the league. He is tied for 2nd in the East with 7.9 assists per game, is 4th in the NBA in steals per game, and is the point guard responsible for running the offense of the NBA defending champs who are 37-9 this season. However, because he does not get the love he deserves from the national press, he wasn't in the top eleven in this year's fan balloting. Come on! I'm calling out the Stephen A. Smith's of the NBA press to get off Steve Nash's and AI's jock and write/talk about Rajon Rondo.

Next Post: The $800B-$1.2T Economic Stimulus Bill...Oy!