Clinton Wins New Hampshire

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, defying pre-election polls, defeated Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in Tuesday's Democratic primary in New Hampshire.

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's come-from-behind victory in New Hampshire revives a campaign badly shaken after a third-place finish in Iowa. And Republican John McCain, whose campaign was left for dead a few months ago, wins with a push from independent voters. "

50 Cars Crash in Florida Fog; 3 Die

"LAKELAND, Fla. (AP) — About 50 cars crashed on a highway blanketed by fog and brush fire smoke in central Florida on Wednesday, killing at least three people, authorities said.
Visibility hampered rescue efforts, forcing officials responding to the scene to walk about 14 miles of Interstate 4 that were closed between Tampa and Orlando, checking individual vehicles for injuries, Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Larry Coggins said.

There were numerous accidents, including the 50-car pileup. He declined to confirm that three people were dead, a figure released by Polk County officials.
"No one has been able to see this thing in its entirety yet," Coggins said.
Aerial footage showed next to no visibility for miles, with a soupy mix of fog and smoke giving the skies an eerie golden color.

Firefighters on Tuesday battled a controlled burn that charred 250 acres and reduced visibility on the interstate. Smoke from the fire and fog combined for dangerous conditions during morning commutes Wednesday.

"It's been very difficult to see out there," county spokeswoman Cindy Rodriguez said.
Polk County officials said a tanker overturned on the roadway, but it was unclear if the truck was part of the pileup.

No further information was immediately available."

Walking a Fine Line

With power comes great responsibility. At least that’s what we have all been led to believe in society today. When it comes to taxes many argue that the rich should bear the burden and all tax cuts should be directly given to those who are less fortunate. I mean it is easy to understand why this belief is prominent. Let’s let those who don’t make as much money, keep more of their paycheck. It is an easy concept to understand. Those who can, should pay more to allow for those less fortunate to get back on their feet.

There is a quote from the movie Brave Heart when William Wallace counters the Scottish Nobles. He makes the following statement: “You believe that the people of this country exist to provide you with possessions. I think your possessions exist to provide these people with freedom.” In this brief statement William Wallace acknowledges what our founding fathers did when our great nation was born. He acknowledges that freedom most notably: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are God given unalienable rights that all men and women are entitled to upon their birth. He believes as many will agree with, that it is the responsibility of the rich and or powerful to ensure that freedom is brought to every man woman and child.

We still believe this today and it is evident in our country through the existence of such social programs as welfare as well as state and federal health insurance for children of single mothers. Our constitution allots specific rights to all persons within our borders and ensures their freedom and this freedom is not biased by race, gender, or sexuality. We provide our citizens with many freedoms that other countries laugh at. We do this because we know that it is right and because we are in a position to do so.

This position that I mention brings up the question of responsibility. What responsibilities do we have as the lone World Super Power to rest of the world? Should we take on the role of the World Police as the movie Team America mocks or are we currently over stepping our bounds? President John F Kennedy once said that the success or failure of Democracy in the United States is directly related to our support and promotion of Democracy over seas. In the last century we have brought some form of Democracy to more than half the world.

That success has defined how the world has viewed us as Americans and us as a country. Those views have been both good and bad. Some have seen us as a power of good and a defender of freedom yet some have seen us as bullies. Back in the 1940s we took an isolationist view on world politics as the world allowed a tyrant dictator to take over large parts of the world by force and execute its citizens for their religious beliefs. It wasn’t until we were attacked that we stepped in and stopped Hitler in his tracks. We were liberators of not only countries but full continents.

That victory put America on its diplomatic head. We realized from that moment that we could no longer sit back and let the rest of the world secure itself and most definitely could not allow our security to be decided by countries that would rather be conquered and ruled than fight and resist.

The United States has been forced to defend its freedom or promote Democracy in every decade since WWII. We have been bogged down in campaigns in Vietnam and a war in Korea that has never officially ended. Our soldiers have sacrificed their lives to see that millions of people in the United States and around the world could live in peace and under a government they voted for. We have done all this yet what thanks have we received? Not a one as far as I can tell. The only true allies the United States has right now in the world is the United Kingdom and Israel.

Much of the anti-American sentiment in the world comes from people who believe our country is young bullish and acting its age. They believe that because their country/government has lasted as long as it did we should follow suit and survive. I have learned the old adage of survival of the fittest but I do not believe that just because you are a survivor you right. I truly believe that it is the responsibility of the United States to promote Democracy overseas in any nation that wants to adopt its practices and defend all democratic nations from any form of aggression both economic and military.

We may be a young nation but what I have learned as an American and a student of world history is that it is always better to die on the side of the righteous than to survive and be partnered with evil.

Obama beats Clinton in Iowa

Obama’s victory in the Iowa caucuses sets a historic milestone in American history. This is the first time an African American has won a state primary. Barrack’s viability as a contender on the national stage has been validated; if he can win in a state made up of 98 % whites the race issue may not be a handicap especially in certain southern states that consist of large African American populations. If Obama can carry Illinois, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. New York and California are Democratic strong holds. Folk we may have the next President of the United States. On January 30th Checks & Balances will officially declare its endorsement, stay tuned.

Of Campaigns and Big Ideas

Here’s a thought for political campaigns in 2008.

At the end of The Argument [Penguin Press, 2007], Matt Bai summarizes a speech made by Mario Cuomo, the former governor of New York, concerning successful election campaigns. Governor Cuomo reportedly observed that campaign issues are “too myriad and complex for voters to sort through and weigh.” The answer “was not that you build the best voter turnout machine you can afford, or that you bring in a linguist to calibrate your message,” but rather that “You seize the biggest idea that you can, the biggest idea that you can understand,” because “this is what moves elections.” Examples of big campaign ideas given by Governor Cuomo reportedly included “Holiness and Cleanliness in Government” [Carter], “Supply-side Economics” [Reagan], “Cold War Showdown” [Reagan], “The Upheaval in the Economy” [Clinton], and “War on Terror” [Bush II].

Then, says Matt, Governor Cuomo asked what Democrats would offer as the “big idea” for the 2008 election. Governor Cuomo believed that “Iraq” was the “big idea” in 2006, but he didn’t believe it would stick around, and he called issues like minimum wage and prescription drug prices “very timid proposals”. Apparently he came closest to proposing “big ideas” when he lamented that Democrats had not cared to use “healthcare” or “the economy” as their “big idea” in 2004.

I don’t believe that big ideas about “healthcare” or “the economy” would have won the Presidency for John Kerry in 2004, but I think that Governor Cuomo’s observation about the campaign value of a “big idea” is sound. Considering the 2000 Presidential election, I was frankly shocked to hear friends state that they were voting for Bush because Gore was part of the “immoral” Clinton administration. I mean, Gore wasn’t unfaithful to his wife. Gore didn’t get a bj in the Oval Office and lie about it. But what was the “big idea” repeated by the Bush 2000 campaign in stump speeches? That George W. Bush would restore “Honor and Dignity” to the White House.

That leads me to a corollary observation: the Big Idea of a campaign has to respond to The Big Problem currently on the minds of the voters. What will be the Big Problem on the minds of voters in October 2008? It could be “The Economy”, as we slide into a recession. It could be “Healthcare”, as substantially more Americans can’t afford it. But I think what voters see as the Big Problem is “The Incompetence” of the faith-based Bush administration. So here’s my “Big Idea” suggestion for Democratic campaigns in 2008: “Competent, Real-World Management”.

A Progressive “Vision”

One of Matt Bai’s observations in his book, The Argument [Penguin Press, 2007], is the seeming lack of an overall progressive vision that we can hold up as the reason for fellow Americans to support our movement. As I see it, the progressive vision is rooted in the vision of democracy stated in the Declaration of Independence:

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Menare created equal, that they are endowed by theirCreator with certain unalienable Rights, that amongthese are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness --That to secure these Rights, Governments areinstituted among Men, deriving their just Powers fromthe Consent of the Governed, ...."

These represent the core values of democracy:

• Social equality. Where one person is regarded as "inferior" or "superior" to another, these are social constructs. Absent invidious social constructs, people are social equals. One may contrast this with the value on social inequality which is inherent to authoritarianism. Authoritarianism presumes that people are inherently unequal, with one group or person inherently superior to others by virtue of such things as their race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnicity, heredity or wealth.
• People have inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Authoritarian political philosophy recognizes no inherent rights for all persons. Such rights as may exist in an authoritarian system exist at the discretion of the "superior" group or person.
• The role of government is to guarantee the existence of these rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness among the people who are subject to it. That means it is responsible for recognizing our social equality and ensuring our equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Authoritarians believe otherwise. They see the role of government as being limited to ensuring that the "superior" group or person enjoys life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to the fullest. The rest are on their own.

But if the purpose of government is to ensure socially equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, it follows that a democratic government must involve itself actively in matters affecting the national economy, the civil rights of citizens, the environment, health standards, etc. If it didn’t involve itself and intervene to meet these responsibilities, it would not be democratic.This is not to suggest that the government should directly operate every institution and enterprise to meet its responsibilities. Nor is there any suggestion that a democratic government shouldn’t be concerned about matters of budgets and costs. A government that fails to live within its means creates insecurity for all. What I suggest is that democratic governments meet their responsibilities through the application of “pragmatism”.

"Pragmatism" asserts among other things that questions of social, economic and political policy should be approached in the same way that we approach questions of physics, i.e., by use of the scientific method, not blind reference to dogma, ideology or doctrine.What I’m proposing, therefore, is a “progressive vision” founded on the combination of democratic political philosophy and pragmatism. Specifically, the vision of a government responsible for ensuring socially equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by means of social, economic and political policies which have stood the test of experience, reflect the current insights of scientific inquiry, and take current realities into account.

[based on essays posted at my personal blog, jeffersonsparlor.blogspot.com - Alex Budarin]

FEATURE: Health Insurance, What is Reasonable?

A true story regarding America’s healthcare system. There is a range I see: the poor with no health coverage, working class with employee based insurance, and the wealthy possessing access to necessary in addition to elective, cosmetic procedures. Conservatives state that families should use their own resources in health care. I do not agree but let us entertain this view for this true circumstance. Paying monthly premiums for health insurance is an expression of such a resource. I ask then what role then do insurance companies have to deny coverage for a life extending procedure. What is reasonable? Should the government play a role in assuring insurance holders and patient rights? If and precisely in this true case a family (or individual) has health insurance but are denied claim to a procedure improving the quality of or the extension of life, there is fact supporting drastic changes in America’s profit driven health car system. -A.T. Brooks

“Every presidential candidate whose health plan rewards the health insurance companies by giving them more business via mandates needs to rethink that approach.

The lawyer for California teen Nataline Sarkisyan charged today that the only reason Cigna Health Care officials changed their minds and approved a liver transplant for the desperate girl was they knew it was too late and they wouldn't have to pay for it.

Sarkisyan, 17, died Thursday just hours after Cigna reversed its decision and approved the procedure it had previously described as "too experimental…and unproven." Now the Sarkisyan family hopes manslaughter or murder charges will be pressed.
Their lawyer, Mark Geragos, says he will refer the case to prosecutors for possible criminal charges against the insurer, Cigna HealthCare.

"All of the doctors there unanimously agreed that she needed and should have that liver transplant. And the only entity, if you will, who said no to that in the middle of that medical decision, was some piece of garbage who decided that making a couple of dollars, or saving them a couple of dollars, was worth more than the 65% chance over six months that she would survive," said Geragos.

I've been locked with my own battle with Blue Shield over what is really a minor (still unresolved) health issue, those who need far more expensive care as they fight for their lives are in far worse shape, and people are dying as a result.
A system that replaces the judgement of doctors for that of accountants is inherently broken and must be scrapped.

These Cigna execs should be charged with manslaughter or the murder of Nataline, while a more comprehensive solution to the nation's health care crisis must ensure that a for-profit health care system be scrapped for one that puts the health of the people first.
Every presidential candidate whose health plan rewards the health insurance companies by giving them more business via mandates needs to rethink that approach.

The lawyer for California teen Nataline Sarkisyan charged today that the only reason Cigna Health Care officials changed their minds and approved a liver transplant for the desperate girl was they knew it was too late and they wouldn't have to pay for it.

Sarkisyan, 17, died Thursday just hours after Cigna reversed its decision and approved the procedure it had previously described as "too experimental…and unproven." Now the Sarkisyan family hopes manslaughter or murder charges will be pressed.
Their lawyer, Mark Geragos, says he will refer the case to prosecutors for possible criminal charges against the insurer, Cigna HealthCare.

"All of the doctors there unanimously agreed that she needed and should have that liver transplant. And the only entity, if you will, who said no to that in the middle of that medical decision, was some piece of garbage who decided that making a couple of dollars, or saving them a couple of dollars, was worth more than the 65% chance over six months that she would survive," said Geragos.

I've been locked with my own battle with Blue Shield over what is really a minor (still unresolved) health issue, those who need far more expensive care as they fight for their lives are in far worse shape, and people are dying as a result.
A system that replaces the judgement of doctors for that of accountants is inherently broken and must be scrapped.

These Cigna execs should be charged with manslaughter or the murder of Nataline, while a more comprehensive solution to the nation's health care crisis must ensure that a for-profit health care system be scrapped for one that puts the health of the people first. (daily kos)”

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

Did Musharraf allow this to happen? Will Bhutto’s assassination be the last fallen domino which shatters efforts to spread democracy in Islamic nations?

"RAWALPINDI, Pakistan December 27, 2007, 10:00 a.m. ET · Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide attack that also killed at least 20 others at a campaign rally, aides said.
The death of the 54-year-old charismatic former prime minister threw the campaign for the Jan. 8 parliamentary elections into chaos and created fears of mass protests and violence across the nuclear-armed nation, an important U.S. ally in the war on terrorism.
The attacker struck just minutes after Bhutto addressed thousands of supporters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, 8 miles south of Islamabad. She was shot in the neck and chest by the attacker, who then blew himself up, said Rehman Malik, Bhutto's security adviser.
At least 20 others were killed in the attack.
Bhutto was rushed to the hospital and taken into emergency surgery.
"At 6:16 p.m., she expired," said Wasif Ali Khan, a member of Bhutto's party who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital.
"The surgeons confirmed that she has been martyred," Bhutto's lawyer Babar Awan said.
Bhutto's supporters at the hospital exploded in anger, smashing the glass door at the main entrance of the emergency unit. Others burst into tears. One man with a flag of Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party tied around his head was beating his chest.
No one claimed responsibility for the attack. But some of Bhutto's supporters at the hospital began chanting, "Killer, Killer, Musharraf," referring to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Bhutto's main political opponent. A few began stoning cars outside.
"We repeatedly informed the government to provide her proper security and appropriate equipment including jammers, but they paid no heed to our requests," Malik said.
Nawaz Sharif, another former premier and opposition leader, arrived at the hospital and sat silently next to Bhutto's body.
Hours earlier, four people were killed at a rally for Sharif when his supporters clashed with backers of Musharraf near Rawalpindi.
Bhutto's death will leave a void at the top of her party, the largest political group in the country, as it heads into the parliamentary elections. It also fueled fears that the crucial vote could descend into violence.
Pakistan is considered a vital U.S. ally in the fight against al-Qaida and other Islamic extremists including the Taliban. Osama bin Laden and his inner circle are believed to be hiding in lawless northwest Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan.
In Washington, the State Department condemned the attack.
"It demonstrates that there are still those in Pakistan who want to subvert reconciliation and efforts to advance democracy," deputy spokesman Tom Casey said.
The United States has for months been encouraging Musharraf to reach an accommodation with the opposition, particularly Bhutto, who was seen as having a wide base of support in Pakistan. Her party had been widely expected to do well in next month's elections.
Educated at Harvard and Oxford universities, Bhutto served twice as Pakistan's prime minister between 1988 and 1996. Her father, who also served as prime minister, was executed in 1979 two years after his ouster in a military coup.
Bhutto had returned to Pakistan from an eight-year exile on Oct. 18. On the same day, she narrowly escaped injury when her homecoming parade in Karachi was targeted in a suicide attack that killed more than 140 people.
At the scene of Thursday's bombing, an Associated Press reporter saw body parts and flesh scattered at the back gate of the Liaqat Bagh park, where Bhutto had spoken. He counted about 20 bodies, including police, and could see many other wounded people.
Party supporter Chaudry Mohammed Nazir said two gunshots rang out when Bhutto's vehicle pulled into the main street. Then there was a big blast next to her car.
Police cordoned off the street with white and red tape, and rescuers rushed to put victims in ambulances as people wailed nearby.
The clothing of some victims was shredded and people put party flags over their bodies. Police caps and shoes littered the asphalt.
Hundreds of riot police had manned security checkpoints around the venue. It was Bhutto's first public meeting in Rawalpindi since she came back to the country.
In November, Bhutto had also planned a rally in the city, but Musharraf forced her to cancel it, citing security fears.
In recent weeks, suicide bombers have repeatedly targeted security forces in Rawalpindi, where Musharraf stays and the Pakistan army has its headquarters."

What They Said in 2000

Politicians say lots of things in their campaign speeches. You expect them to give a list of reasons why they would be better than their opponent. So, when George W. Bush became the Republican nominee for President in 2000, it was not surprising that he would declare in his acceptance speech all the ways that he would be a better President than Al Gore. No, the surprising part is how ironically things turned out.

Look at some of the things W said when he got the GOP nomination in 2000:

• We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence. Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, "Not ready for duty, sir." This administration had its moment, they had their chance, they have not led. We will.

• Our generation has a chance to reclaim some essential values, to show we have grown up before we grow old. But when the moment for leadership came, this administration did not teach our children, it disillusioned them. They had their chance. They have not led. We will.

• A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam: When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming.

• I believe in tolerance, not in spite of my faith, but because of it. I believe in a God who calls us not to judge our neighbors but to love them.

• That background may lack the polish of Washington. Then again, I don't have a lot of things that come with Washington. I don't have enemies to fight. I have no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years. I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect.

• After all of the shouting and all of the scandal, after all the bitterness and broken faith, we can begin again.

• So when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God.

And there was also this ironic observation by Dick Cheney when he accepted the Republican nomination for Vice-President in 2000:

• In Washington today, politics has become war by other means, an endless onslaught of accusation.

Considering these words after 7 years of their mis-administration, I have to give them their due. Heckuva job, Dick and W! Mission Accomplished!

http://jeffersonsparlor.blogspot.com

Where is Santa?

Track Santa Here: http://www.noradsanta.org/en/home.htm