This ad to be run against Chuck Grassley.

Follow this link if you would like to support this ad.

For what its worth, and that’s not much, this video is John McCain’s latest take on our use of torture.

We committed torture that was approved at the highest levels of government despite the fact that we have signed treaties and passed laws against it. Somehow, McCain thinks that without imposing any penalties on the guilty we can assure the world that this will never happen again. I wish he had been asked how he thought that those assurances would be believed by anybody, much less our adversaries.

By watching this video, I discovered that death panels are REAL, along with everything else.

I thought that the Cheney torture propaganda was batted down pretty thoroughly back in May, but he seems to be back again.

When people look at the Inspector General report they seem to have less information now than they did back then.

Follow this link to take another look at my blog post, Former Interrogator Rebukes Cheney for Torture Speech.

As I have said many times before, if propaganda has to be repeated often to make it successful, then the truth has to be repeated as many or more times to overcome propaganda.

Follow this link to a McClatchy News Commentary.

There is some mention in the commentary of the gun wielding political dissenters.  Maybe this is what triggered me to post a comment about the latest brouhaha over CIA interrogation tactics.

The President has enough crazies running around that put him in some danger of physical harm.  Imagine the bravery needed by such a vulnerable person to take on the CIA as well.

Joel Pett / Lexington Herald-Leader (August 23, 2009)

Follow this link to the above titled New York Times editorial.  I would be willing to bet that the Worcester T & G, a child publication of the NYT, will come up with a diametrically opposed editorial.

Where the NYT says:

We are all familiar with the right to bear arms and the noisome extremes indulged by its zealots. But is there no sense of simple respect due the nation’s elected leader when he ventures forth among the citizenry?

The Worcester T & G will probably point out that often no such respect was granted George W. Bush.

Putting on my rational hat that overcomes my emotions, I will own up to the fact that I countered the items in the Worcester T & G that made the case for respect for George W. Bush.  Therefore, it seems that I have to agree that just because Barack Obama is President, citizens do not owe any respect to Barack Obama that they do not feel.

Similarly, I guess that if I say claims that pushing first amendment rights too far are unjustified, how can I claim that those pushing second amendment rights to the extreme are going too far? At least in this case,  I want to feel justified in saying that pushing second amendment rights is more dangerous.

It is enough to make a person’s head spontaneously explode.

Can someone come to my rescue to prevent the explosion?

As the book, “How We Decide” readily admits some emotions should be overcome by the rational side of our brain and some emotions should be trusted no matter what the rational side of our brain thinks.  How on earth do we decide which is which?

I credit  Arthur Bushkin’s facebook posting for giving me the link to the New York Times editorial and for prompting me to write this post.

Follow this link to the article on Huffington Post that has all the videos of Jon Stewart interviewing Betsy McCaughey on The Daily Show.

It is the analysis done by Betsy McCaughey that led to the coining of the phrase “death panel” to erroneously describe some aspects of the Health Care Insurance Reform efforts.

Admittedly, Jon’s constant interruptions make it a bit annoying to listen to the interview.  However, he does seem to show that he knows more about what is in the bill than any other professional TV personality and possibly more than the interviewee, despite her alleged qualifications.

Also I have no doubt that whatever you believe about the reform effort, you will still believe  after you hear this interview.

In my previous blog entry America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, I provided a link to the bill.

Follow this link to see the House of Representatives version of the bill. The link points to a pdf file.  You must have a pdf reader such as one from Adobe to read it.

I’ll be looking up pages 425-430 and page 432 of the bill while you look at the interview.

However, I will leave it up to you to interpret what I think is the part troubling Betsy McCaughey the most.

11 ‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara-

12 graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat-

13 ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified

14 interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may in-

15 clude indications respecting, among other items—

16 ‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the

17 patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac

18 or pulmonary problems;

19 ‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer

20 to a hospital or remaining at the current care set-

21 ting;

22 ‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and

23 ‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutri-

24 tion and hydration.’’.

I notice the careful use of the word “may” in the above section.  Nowhere does it use the word “shall”.  This may not be the section where she claims to be horrified by seeing the word “shall”.

Here is the trailer to Michael Moore’s upcoming new movie.

If you really believe that I trust Michael Moore to tell me how economics works, then you really don’t know me well at all. As a liberal capitalist, I can take a joke. Can you?

as seen on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Apparently Faux Noise is accusing Barney Frank of putting people down. I will revert to my ethnic heritage and respond, “No sh*t, Sherlock” And what a put down it was.