Last Post for a While

Over the last several years (since my heart attack), I have grown more and more disenchanted with the political environment.  For me, most Republican politicians are like most Democrat politicians:  they just want to accumulate power for the party and keep their offices.  Some bright lights are out there, but the Republican establishment and the Democrat establishment are pretty much alike.

So much so, that large numbers of voters didn’t even bother in the last election.  Some voters opted for a third party candidate and therefore kept votes away from the supposed conservative choice in the election.  I tried blogging about things I found funny (as in humorous, not strange), but had not much content.

So, I am changing venues and starting a new blog about positive living.  I’m frankly tired of the negativity surrounding the political scene.  So in an effort to be more positive I am blogging about Forward Living with Pops and Pat.

The rest of this article will be all the reasons I love Barack Obama.

Hip Hip Hooray

Wow.  Has it really been over a year since I said I would post more?
I have a new hip now, courtesy of Southern Orthopedics and Dr Roland Hester.  Great job by the surgical team.
I had been in a good deal of pain before the surgery and I had pain after the surgery, but it was dramatically less than before.  I used to take nearly a minute to get out of a chair or sit down.  (Really!)  Now I can pop up and down like a jack-in-the-box.
My mobility is improving daily, thanks to the surgery and some exercises learned at Rehab Select.
Enough about me.  I will pontificate at some later time.  Cheers.

Long Time No Write

This is just a hello to all of you who check to see if there is something new.  There will be soon, but not today.

It's about time

The chart above depicts the lifelines of notable Old Testament personalities, assuming that Adam and Eve were created in year zero. Years run vertically in the chart. Personalities are horizontal in the chart. The bottom of each line marks the birth and the top the death (except for Enoch who simply walked with God). The horizontal line marks the year of the flood.

Three things interest me about the chart. Note that Methuselah died the year of the flood. Note also that Methuselah could have spoken with Adam and gotten a first-hand account of the events immediately following the creation. Noah, in turn, could have spoken directly with Methuselah and received the information second hand, not multiple versions later, but only two. And last, note that the lifespans are dramatically shorter for all those born after the flood, although 175 years is still impressive (Abraham). Names are from the King James version.

Some people think that the long spans prior to the flood are because the people couldn't tell the difference between years and months. That would mean that Adam would have died at 77 instead of 930. While that would make the age at death more in line with what we are accustomed to, it is strange that Cainan would have been just under six when he begat Mahalaleel and Mahalaleel would have been about five and a half when he gave birth to Jared. Which is the more astounding do you think?

Assume for the moment that the Biblical account of Creation is accurate and that everything was created in the adult form. What if you could be there the second week and look around? How old would Adam appear to be? How about a fully grown elephant? A horse? A dog? We would estimate different ages based on our experience of how long it takes for a creature to reach the adult stage. Yet, they would all be one week old (give or take a few days). Each would have the appearance of distinctly different ages, much like the different ages of the earth given by different processes.

As Einstein would say, "It's all relative". Kind of makes you go "Hmmmm". References for the chart available on request.

Dave and Blarney and the Tea Parties

Blarney: Dave, did I see you coming from one of those TEA parties last week?

Dave: Yes, you did, Blarney.

Blarney: What is that all about?

Dave: Well, you know TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. It’s a play on words honoring the Boston Tea Party.

Blarney: Are you guys anti-government terrorists?

Dave: No, Blarney, that is ridiculous. We are for Constitutional government as envisioned by the founding fathers.

Blarney: Isn’t that what we have now?

Dave: Unfortunately, no. According to the Constitution, the federal government power is limited and enumerated. The real power belongs to the states and the people.

Blarney: You mean like anarchy?

Dave: No, Blarney. The founders wanted to strike a balance between statism and anarchy. They founded a representative Republic that was full of checks and balances to prevent power from accumulating at either end of the political spectrum.

Blarney: Like what?

Dave: Well, like the clear division of responsibility of the three branches of government. The legislative branch (Congress) was to create all laws. This branch would be bi-cameral with both a Senate and a House of Representatives. The house would have representation based on population. The Senate would have two Senators for every state, regardless of population. Both houses would have to agree on a bill before it was sent to the President for signature.

Blarney: Like the Health care legislation.

Dave: Well, sort of. Anyway, even if both houses of Congress agreed on a bill, the President could still veto it. And if he did, the Congress could override the veto with a super majority. The president could not make law – he could only sign the bill into law.

Blarney: What about the Executive Order that President Obama used to get the health care bill through?

Dave: That is not a law. Constitutionally, an executive order would only affect the Executive Branch. There is nothing to prevent the president from issuing an executive order cancelling the last one. He does not have a specified process to go through like the process specified for making a law. That process is a protection for the people against an arbitrary dictatorship ruled by a series of “executive orders”.

Blarney: I never thought of that.

Dave: The founders thought about a lot of things that most people today do not realize.

My friend, the first amendment

Congress shall make no law [This seems pretty straightforward to me.  This amendment is limiting the power of Congress to make a law] respecting an establishment of religion, [So Congress cannot establish a “Church of America” or some such silly thing.] or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [On the other hand, Congress cannot prohibit me from worshipping the moon if I want to.] or abridging the freedom of speech, [I can tell the truth always about anyone or anything at any time – unless I am shouting “fire” in a theater – unless the theater were actually on fire.] or of the press, [Newspapers were the press of the day.  I would guess this extends now to radio  TV and the internet, but apparently that is debatable]  or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, [So no rioting, but peaceful protest is OK.  Or holding a meeting in a public place is OK] and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [So, I can communicate with the Congress, the Judiciary or the President.]

 

Here’s the amazing thing:  People don’t seem to realize that this has nothing to do with state, county, or city governments.  It does not apply to schools or individuals.  Notice also that it does not apply to executive orders (which according to the Constitution – would only apply to the President and his staff including the military).  That would be because Article I section 1 of the Constitution specifically states that NOBODY makes laws except Congress.  Wow, the amazing things one learns by reading the Constitution.  There is even an Article explaining how to make changes to the document.  (And no, it is not by judicial fiat).

Beat the Clock

How old is the earth?

That should be easy to calculate from any number of processes.  And it is.  The problem is that the different processes give different answers.  Here’s basically how to do it. Let’s say there is a process (radioactive decay) that converts one substance (call it A)into another (call it B).  All we need to know is the rate of conversion and the amount of substance B created by the process.  We can observe the current rate of conversion and assume that has been constant over time.  We can assume that all of substance B currently in existence was the product of the conversion.  Divide the quantity by the rate and you get the time.  Simple, no?

What’s that you say?  How do we know that all of B came from the conversion process?   I told you.  We assume it.  Now what?  How do we know there was no change in the conversion rate over the years?  We assume it.  For short periods of time that is not a bad assumption.  What?  You want to know how we can be sure the rate did not change over millions of years?  What kind of radical trouble maker are you anyway?  What part of ASSUME do you not understand?

Besides, the earth must be billions and billions of years old in order for evolution to have created the current array of humans and livestock form the primordial rocks.  No intelligent person doubts the extreme age of the earth.  Anybody who thinks the earth is young must be some kind of nut.

More to come . . .

He is Risen

Perhaps is is fitting that my last post was about Christmas and this is about Easter. After all, the resurrection is the whole point of the miraculous birth. Jesus was not jus the perfect sacrifice; He has risen to execute His own last will and testament.

Don Francisco did a wonderful song from Peter's perspective called He's Alive. If you have never heard it, please listen and place yourself in Peter's situation.

Once you do that,you will feel, as Jairus did, Gotta Tell Somebody.

Have a Happy Easter, with good reason.

I wish for you a very Merry Christmas

December the 25th is not a "Winter Holiday", it is designated as Christmas Day.
It is also very likely NOT the birthday of Jesus the Christ, but it is a designated day to remember that event. (Shepherds would not likely have been "in the field" in winter.) The event was attended by some celestial signs and visitors, but nobody bothered to mention the actual date. Perhaps the date was considered of less significance than the import of the event. God had visited man - no, God had become a man. The second Adam had been born to redeem us all from the taint left by the first Adam. Good News, indeed.
Here is the major distinction of Christianity from other religions: The way of salvation was invested not in following elaborate rules, but in a Person. Messiah Jesus came not to condemn the world, but to save it. In those hours on the cross, He absorbed all the sins of the world - past, present, and future.
And that is why I can wish you a very Merry Christmas.

Stimulus Effects for Retirees

The Federal Government has issued the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) adjustment figures for Social Security and military retirees. Here you go:
Social Security.
Cost of Living increase = 0%.
Cost of Medicare Part B goes from $96.50 to $110.50.
Net Benefit to seniors = -$14.00.

Military Retirees.
Cost of Living increase = 0%.
Tax increase due to stimulus = $10.
Net benefit to military retirees = -$10.

How's that hope and change working out so far?

Why Governments Never Shrink

Our wonderful Republic (not a Democracy, regardless of what dictionary.com says. ) was founded by some really smart guys.  They were not, of course, saints.  They did, however, recognize the fallibility of humans.  We are a flawed people.  Because they rightly discerned the nature of man, they invented a system of government with checks and balances and wrote the Constitution to limit the power of the Federal government.  For my purposes, I will refer to the King’s power as statism and the people’s power as anarchy (Democracy has been defined as two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner).  They strove to seek a balance between the two.  They envisioned the rule of law rather than the rule of a person.  The ideal was that certain “truths” were “self-evident” as put forth in the Declaration of independence.  This new experiment would balance the needs of the minority as well as the majority, because the law was supreme.

 

The constitution outlines three branches of government, taking the king’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers and spreading them around.  Each branch of government was to be suspicious of the other branches.  The Congress was to have two houses, one in which all states were equal (Senate), and one in which the states with larger populations had a larger vote (House of Representatives).  Originally Senators were to be chosen by the state legislatures (Article I Section 3), later that was changed (17^th Amendment) to require direct elections by the people.  Because slavery was a contentious issue and because the less populous states feared that states with large slave holdings might have undue influence in the House, they settled on an enumeration that include three-fifths of a person for each slave held.  There is a general misunderstanding today about that three-fifths clause, which I will probably have Dave and Blarney discuss in the future.

 

But the point of this article is that each branch then was free to hire people to assist them.  The President has a staff, Congress has staff people and the supreme court has numerous law clerks.  The executive branch is the one most likely to grow, but Congress can commission studies and offices for itself.  Let’s say that we decide to eliminate poverty, or maybe reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  We could have a “War on Poverty” or create a “Department of Energy”.  Yeah, that’s the ticket.  The people in those areas would be hired to solve those problems.  We could throw money at the problem and create large executive departments filled with people who are charged with solving the problem.

 

Oh, wait.  We already did.  And how is that working out?  Not surprisingly, neither problem (poverty or dependence on foreign oil) has been solved in spite of armies of people and billions of dollars attacking the problems.  Not surprisingly, you say?  Indeed.  It is Basic Economics.  Once a federal agency is created, it takes on a life of its own..  If they ever solve the problem, they will be out of a job.  It takes a strong character to cut out one’s own job.  Not gonna happen.

 

And that is why governments never shrink.

 

Dave and Blarney and photosynthesis

Blarney: Dave, you still haven’t told me why you think Lisa P. Jackson was stupid to call carbon dioxide a pollutant. After all, the UN has stated that it definitely causes global warm… Climate Change. Humans are to blame.

Dave: Blarney, have you ever heard of photosynthesis?

Blarney: Is that something like using Photo Shop to make up phony pictures?

Dave: Good parsing of the word, but no. Photosynthesis is the process in which plants convert carbon dioxide and water to make glucose. In the process, the plants release oxygen into the air.

Blarney: Really? You mean carbon dioxide is food for plants?

Dave: Yes. I forgot you attended liberal arts schools. The lack of plants to generate oxygen is one of the concerns about deforestation.

Blarney: I thought you were a conservative. Why are you worried about the planet? Aren’t you one of the Global Warm… - I mean Climate Change – deniers?

Dave: Wow. No sane person denies climate change, Blarney. We only deny that man is causing it.

Blarney: Oh.

Dave: See, that is one of the problems in talking with you. You drop out significant words, like “man-made” or “anthropogenic” when calling us “deniers”.

Blarney: Well…

Dave: And when you were confronted with the fact that the earth is actually cooling, you switched from “global warming” to “climate change”.

Blarney: That’s because you might get by with denying global warming, but you would be an idiot to deny climate change.

Dave: Indeed. And. As I said, nobody does deny climate change. We simply point out that it will happen with or without man’s activities.

Blarney: Don’t you care about the environment?

Dave: There you go again. We can be all for clean air and water without getting hysterical about some mythological man-made climate catastrophe.

Blarney: Well, you don’t have to resort to name-calling.

Dave: What?!? Never mind. Plants take the carbon dioxide from the air and use it along with light and water to make glucose. In the process they release oxygen back into the air.

Blarney: OK. So plants clean up the pollution.

Dave: No, Blarney, that isn’t my point. Humans breathe in the oxygen and use it in a reverse process to extract the sugar from foods and release carbon dioxide back into the air.

Blarney: So I’m polluting the atmosphere just by breathing?

Dave: One more time. Carbon dioxide is NECESSARY for the plants. In fact, the richer the atmosphere is in carbon dioxide, the better the plants do.

Blarney: How can a pollutant be good for plants?

Dave: I think you are almost getting it. That’s my point.

Dave and Blarney, UN and Pollution

Blarney:  Dave, why so serious?

Dave:  I just can’t believe the stupidity of some people.

Blarney:  To whom do you refer?

Dave:  EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, for one.  She called Greenhouse gases a threat to our health.

Blarney:  What is stupid about that?

Dave:  Do you know what the largest greenhouse gas is?

Blarney:  Sure.  Everybody knows that it is Carbon Dioxide.  That’s what is causing Global Warming – I mean – Climate Change.

Dave:  Actually, Blarney, the largest greenhouse gas is water vapor.  It makes up about 4% of the atmosphere.  Carbon dioxide makes up about four hundredths of one percent.

Blarney:  But, I heard that the concentration of carbon dioxide went up dramatically over the last thirty years.

Dave:  Well, it has increased over 35% in the last 300 years.  That means it went from 275 parts per million (ppm) to 375 ppm.

Blarney:  You’re saying that it increased only 100 ppm in 300 years?  The concentration went from 0.000275 to 0.000375?  And that caused all this warming?

Dave:  Actually, the globe has been cooling since about 1998, even though the atmospheric carbon dioxide continued to increase.

Blarney:  Why would that be?

Dave:  Well, it wouldn’t IF carbon dioxide caused warming.  That’s one of my points.

Blarney:  ONE of your points?

Dave:  Yes.  You do know that there was a big Ice Age, right?

Blarney:  Yes, that first one was the best of the three.

Dave:  Not the movie, Blarney.

Blarney:  Oh.  OK.  Yes there was an ice Age.

Dave:  And you know that there was a little ice age?

Blarney:  Yes, around 1550 to 1850.  But there were warming periods in there.

Dave:  You get a gold star, Blarney.  Now tell me what caused those warming periods or for that matter, what ended the big Ice Age?

Blarney:  Well… I don’t know.  I never thought about it.

Dave:  And you know that there were concerns about a new ice age in the 1970s?

Blarney:  Yes, but it warmed up instead.  That was caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming.  The science is settled.

Dave:  Why do I bother?

 

Dave and Blarney and AGW

Dave: Well, Blarney, how’s that Global Warming working out now? Houston has the earliest snowfall ever.

Blarney: Dave, you should know you can’t take one data point and make a theory go away.

Dave: Speaking of data, how about those emails in Great Britain?

Blarney: I don’t know what you are talking about.

Dave: There has been some data washing going on at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU).

Blarney: That is the first I have heard of it. There is nothing on my major news stations (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC).

Dave: That isn’t particularly surprising. But it has been reported in the New York Times and on Fox News.

Blarney: Fox is not a real news source. My favorite bloggers call it Faux News. Get it? Faux, Fox?

Dave: That’s really clever Blarney. You do realize that “faux” rhymes with “no” instead of “knocks”. Right?

Blarney: Of course I knew that, but you should see the right wing nuts react to it as if “Faux” is just another way to spell “Fox”. It’s rich.

Dave: But then aren’t they too stupid to know the meaning of faux? And if so, they don’t get the insult. Maybe they just think you are an atrocious speller.

Blarney: Huh?

Dave: But back to my topic. How does the recent cooling trend affect global warming?

Blarney: See, Dave, you just don’t get it. We quit calling it “Global Warming” years ago.

Dave: So what do you call it now?

Blarney: It’s now “Climate Change.”

Dave: So now the claim is not that man is causing global warming, but he is causing global climate change?

Blarney: Exactly!

Dave: But the climate is always changing – it is either cooling or warming all the time.

Blarney: That’s the beauty of it! No one can deny climate change.

Dave: {sigh}

Senate Amendments to the (amendment) Health care bill

   SA 2788. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2786 proposed by Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Harkin) to the bill H.R. 3590, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

    At the appropriate place, insert the following:

   SEC. __X. INCREASED TRANSPARENCY.

    (a) Scoring and Summary.--It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to vote on final passage on a bill, resolution, or conference report unless a final Congressional Budget Office score and Congressional Research Service summary report on policy changes in the bill, resolution, or conference report has been posted online on the public website of the body 72 hours before such final vote.

    (b) Additional Requirements.--The information required to be posted by subsection (a) shall also include--

    (1) an affidavit that the policy summary of the Congressional Research Service adequately reflects the measure signed by the Majority and Minority Leaders; and

    (2) signed affidavits from every member of the body attesting that they have read the measure.

    (c) Waiver and Appeal.--

    (1) WAIVER.--This section may be waived or suspended in the Senate or House of Representatives only by an affirmative vote of 3/5 of the members, duly chosen and sworn.

    (2) APPEAL.--An affirmative vote of 3/5 of the members of the Senate or House of Representatives, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this subsection.

    (d) Public Availability of Amendments.--Each amendment offered in the Senate or House of Representatives shall to be posted online on the public website of the body as soon as practicable after the amendment is offered.

   

   SA 2789. Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Burr, and Mr. Hatch) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2786 proposed by Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Harkin) to the bill H.R. 3590, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

    On page 156, line 4, strike all through page 157, line 7, and insert the following:

    (D) REQUIREMENT OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO ENROLL IN THE PUBLIC OPTION.--

    (i) REQUIREMENT.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all Members of Congress shall be enrolled in the community health insurance option when established by the Secretary.

    (ii) INELIGIBLE FOR FEHBP.--Effective on the date on which the community health insurance option is established by the Secretary, no Member of Congress shall be eligible to participate in a health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.

    (iii) EXCEPTION.--Notwithstanding clauses (i) and (ii), if a Member of Congress resides in a State which opts out of providing a community health insurance option, that Member may be enrolled in a health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, during any period which that State has opted out.

    (iv) EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION.--

    (I) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of the Senate or the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives shall pay the amount determined under subclause (II) to the appropriate community health insurance option.

    (II) AMOUNT OF EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION.--The Director of the Office Of Personnel Management shall determine the amount of the employer contribution for each Member of Congress enrolled in a community health insurance option. The amount shall be equal to the employer contribution for the health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, with the greatest number of enrollees, except that the contribution shall be actuarially adjusted for age.

    (v) DEFINITIONS.--In this subparagraph:

    (I) COMMUNITY HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.--The term ``community health insurance option'' means the health insurance established by the Secretary under section 1323.

[Page: S11974]  GPO's PDF

    (II) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.--The term ``Member of Congress'' means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

 

Some Healthcare Thoughts

I read an interesting article today. Two thoughts struck me about this:

1. 11 Let’s not be hasty to dismiss patients as “vegetative” without more extensive testing.

Belgian doctors who treated him early on said that Rom had gone from a coma into a vegetative condition.

Coma is a state of unconsciousness in which the eyes are closed and the patient can't be roused, as if simply asleep. A vegetative state is a condition in which the eyes are open and can move, and the patient has periods of sleep and periods of wakefulness, but remains unconscious and unaware of him or herself or others. The patient can't think, reason, respond, do anything on purpose, chew or swallow.

. . .

The case came to light after Laureys published a study in the journal BMC Neurology this year showing that about four out of ten patients with consciousness disorders are wrongly diagnosed as being a vegetative state. Houben, although not specifically mentioned, was part of the study.

2. 2. Advanced technology saved the day here.

More searching finally got her in touch with Laureys, who put Houben through a PET scan that indicated he was conscious. The family and doctors then began trying to establish communication.

A breakthrough came when he was able to indicate yes or no by slightly moving his foot to push a computer device placed there by Laureys' team.

Then came the spelling of words using his finger and a touch-screen attached to his wheelchair.

Houben has started writing a book on his experiences.

Sleight of Hand in Health Care

This is the cautionary tale of two bills:

1. H.R. 3590 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes. Entered IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES on September 17, 2009 by Charlie Rangel.

2. H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act. Entered IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES on October 29, 2009 by John Dingell.

H.R. 3950, when in the House, had the short title of Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. The bill was six pages long and primarily affected the tax treatment and first time home buyer credit for US Military. It passed on Oct 8, 2009 with 416 Yes votes and 16 not voting. After all, it was a good thing to help our heroes fighting in the War on Terror. Good going House guys in passing it virtually unanimously.

As you probably know, H.R. 3962 was voted on a late Saturday night (Nov 7) and squeaked by 220 – 215 with one Republican voting yes. It was placed on the Senate calendar on Nov 16, 2009. Some pundits said it was dead on arrival in the Senate and would never pass in its current form (2,016 pages).

Now here’s the tricky thing: H.R. 3590 was amended in the Senate (by replacement) by Harry Reid. The original six page bill suddenly became 2,076 pages and acquired the new title of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This bill, remember, started as a Revenue bill. Now it is the health care bill, but it can be reconciled by simple majority vote in both chambers. This sleight of hand was accomplished with these words:

AMENDMENT NO. 2786

Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—111th Cong., 1st Sess.

H. R. 3590

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify

the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members

of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees,

and for other purposes.

November 19, 2009

Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed

Amendment in the nature of a substitute intended to be

proposed by Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr.

DODD, and Mr. HARKIN)

Viz:

1 Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

Now, some on the left will think this was clever of the Democratic leadership. Some on the right will think it is chicanery. What do you think?

I think I’m going to vomit.

Blue Dogs in Name Only

The following so-called Blue Dog Democrats failed to join the other 39 to defeat the Health Care bill:

Mike Arcuri (N.Y.)
Joe Baca (Calif.)
Marion Berry (Ark.)
Sanford Bishop (Ga.)
Leonard Boswell (Iowa)
Dennis Cardoza (Calif.)
Christopher Carney (Penn.)
Jim Cooper (Tenn.)
Jim Costa (Calif.)
Henry Cuellar (Texas)
Kathy Dahlkemper (Penn.)
Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
Brad Ellsworth (Ind.)
Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.)
Jane Harman (Calif)
Baron Hill (Ind.)
Mike Michaud (Maine)
Harry Mitchell (Ariz.)
Dennis Moore (Kan.)
Patrick Murphy (Penn.)
Earl Pomeroy (N.D.)
John Salazar (Colo.)
Loretta Sanchez (Calif.)
Adam Schiff (Calif.)
David Scott (Ga.)
Zack Space (Ohio)
Mike Thompson (Calif.)
Charles Wilson (Ohio)

 

Should they be called BDINO’s?  or maybe BINO’s?  Or how about “outta there!”.

In case you missed it

It seems that NY-23 was prematurely conceded by Hoffman. Had he not conceded, Pelosi would have been one vote shorter from passing the Health Care Monstrosity. Then maybe the Republican would not have voted for it either. Ah, well.

Addendum to Nobel Peace Prize

It might seem strange that a man who voted present in the Illinois Senate, spent most of his US Senate time campaigning to be President, and has been in office a scant nine months to win the Peace Prize.  It is stranger still that someone who had been in office 11 DAYS would be nominated.  In case you are unfamiliar with the process, let me help you out. 

 

The Deadline for nominations is 1 February of each year.  This is from the official web site of the committee:

February – Deadline for submission. The Committee bases its assessment on nominations that must be postmarked no later than 1 February each year. Nominations postmarked and received after this date are included in the following year's discussions. In recent years, the Committee has received close to 200 different nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The number of nominating letters is much higher, as many are for the same candidates.

 

You will recall that US Presidents are inaugurated on 20 Jan of each year. 

Am I in the Twilight Zone?  Are we in the first movie of the Left Behind series?  Are we all being punked?