Sooner Blue

(Dave is the master of the humorous year-end review... Happy New Year readers, all 2,000 of you!)

"From iPhones to Anna Nicole to O.J., 2007 ends with humor

It was a year that strode boldly into the stall of human events and took a wide stance astride the porcelain bowl of history.

It was year in which roughly 17,000 leading presidential contenders, plus of course Dennis Kucinich, held roughly 63,000 debates, during which they spewed out roughly 153 trillion words; and yet the only truly memorable phrase emitted in any political context was ``Don't tase me, Bro!''

It was a year filled with bizarre, insane, destructive behavior, an alarming amount of which involved astronauts.

In short, 2007 was a year of deep gloom, pierced occasionally by rays of even deeper gloom. Oh, sure, there were a few bright spots:

• Several courageous members of the U.S. Congress -- it could be as many as a dozen -- decided, incredibly, not to run for president.

• O.J. Simpson discovered that, although you might be able to avoid jail time for committing a double homicide, the justice system draws the line at attempted theft of sports memorabilia.

• Toward the end of the year, entire days went by when it was possible to not think about Paris Hilton.

• Apple released the iPhone, which, as we understand it, enables users to fly, cure cancer, read minds and travel through time.

• The plucky, lovable New York Yankees once again found a way, against all odds, to bring joy to the literally billions of people who do not root for them.

• Dick Cheney did not shoot anybody, as far as we know.

But other than that, 2007 was a disaster. American consumers came to fear products manufactured in China, which covers pretty much everything in the typical American home except the dirt. Global warming continued to worsen, despite the efforts of leading climate experts such as Madonna and Leonardo DiCaprio, who emerged briefly from their private jets to give the rest of us helpful tips on reducing our carbon footprints. [...]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/359770.html

PS–don’t stop here, it gets better as he covers month to month.

But, hey, they’re pro life and pro family....

"U.S. Ruling Backs Benefit Cut at 65 in Retiree Plans"

Boy, it's a good thing people over 65 rarely get sick. This policy is gonna work out great...for someone........some Mega-business someone...

So much for loyalty, it isn't like these rules start for the new hires. Nope, they apply to the people who have already paid their dues, need it the most, matter the least and have no way of changing their circumstances.

But will our Democratic leaders grow a spine and stand up for the retirees...buy some air time to wave red flags about this issue?

Will our brave Presidential Candidates of either party use their national TV airtime to stand up for retirees?

Don't hold your breath.

From nytimes.com, December 27: WASHINGTON--The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Wednesday that employers could reduce or eliminate health benefits for retirees when they turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

The policy, set forth in a new regulation, allows employers to establish two classes of retirees, with more comprehensive benefits for those under 65 and more limited benefits — or none at all — for those older.

More than 10 million retirees rely on employer-sponsored health plans as a primary source of coverage or as a supplement to Medicare, and Naomi C. Earp, the commission’s chairwoman, said, "This rule will help employers continue to voluntarily provide and maintain these critically important health benefits."[..]"

http://tinyurl.com/2mv53u

This rule will definitely NOT HELP employers 'continue to provide...critically important health benefits'... this rule will HELP employers DROP more than 10 million elderly former employees from their benefit rolls.

Which brings me to socialized medicine.

Single payer, single payer, single payer, single payer.

I don't understand all the BS about socialized medicine. Obviously we already have it...so let's make it better. Maybe we should just call it "Medicare-For-All."

People don't know what "single-payer" means. They say it sounds like if you get sick you have to pay for everything yourself without help. No no no.

Single-payer means that ONE fund, handled by a non-profit government agency (accountable to the public) would make payment for all medical services. Period. Just like Medicare does.

The 1500 private health insurance companies that now do this work--each raking in oodles of profits for its stockholders, and each having its own expensive bureaucracy--would no longer be involved as the middle men.

Medicare is an example of a single-payer plan...and everyone knows and loves Medicare...elders pay a portion of their Social Security check to Medicare, I know one who pays $96 a month.

Medicare is one of our most successful government-run programs. And that's how government is *supposed* to work...to help our citizens, not for greedy corporations to make a profit off of us.

So--Medicare for all.

It's insurance that is evil.

A view of the US campaign from Pat Condell, a cousin across the pond who isn't afraid to discuss the superstitious beliefs of political candidates who are "pimping for Jesus."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2MkODdVBuU

"Incidentally, I’m not blaming the American people for their government. It’s not as if they have a real choice, any more than we do in Britain. But that’s the price of freedom."--Pat Condell

In another video, he blasts radical Islam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7iBoq_yC4k

Time for a little MoDo...

By MAUREEN DOWD - NYTimes - December 9, 2007

When I was a kid, we used to drive on the Beltway past the big Mormon temple outside Washington. The spires rose up like a white Oz, and some wag had spray-painted the message on a bridge beneath: "Surrender Dorothy!"

It did seem like an alien world, an impression that was enhanced when we took a tour of the temple and saw all the women wearing white outfits and light pink lipstick.

Of course, it was no more scary than scowling nuns with long rulers preaching about the virgin birth, the Holy Ghost and the hideous fates that would befall girls who wore too much makeup or French-kissed.

You’d think Catholics, who watched with trepidation as J.F.K. battled prejudice, would be sympathetic to Mitt Romney.

But even for those of us in religions that were once considered cults by other religions — my mom and another Catholic girlfriend actually had Southern Protestants ask them to lift up their hair so they could see the mark of the devil or the horns — Mormonism is opaque.

Now in addition to asking candidates about boxers or briefs, we have reporters asking Mitt Romney if he wears The Garment, the sacred one-piece, knee-length underwear with Mormon markings and strict disposal rules.

"I’ll just say those sorts of things I’ll keep private," he told The Atlantic.

....."J.F.K.’s speech was to reassure Americans that he wasn’t a religious fanatic," Mr. Krakauer agreed. "Mitt’s was to tell evangelical Christians, ‘I’m a religious fanatic just like you.’"

The backdrop, he said, is "the wickedly fierce competition between Mormons and Southern evangelicals to convert people."

The world is globalizing, nuclear weapons are proliferating, the Middle East is seething, but Republicans are still arguing the Scopes trial. [...]

http://tinyurl.com/297gb8