The anti-reason wing of the left is already in full flower. It’s populated by people who insist on making excuses for the current administration even though their ACTIONS are eerily similar to those of the Bush administration, whose supporters you consider to be anti-reason. The WORDS are much more pleasant, but watch the ACTIONS.

The left (I used to define myself that way) got suckered into an awesome marketing campaign designed just for them, and they just can’t admit that they got taken. They bought a new soft drink, not a new government.

Rate this comment: 0  0

My friend Sandy Maxey forwarded this information to me
and I actually read much of it! I have emailed ‘Adopt a Street’ and hope to participate in a more committed way in terms of picking up the garbage left on the streets near my home.

I have been a member of toastmasters for some time and intend to use the skills I have acquired to become a public advocate for preventive health. My topic will be general consciousness raising about how each of us can start taking more personal responsibility for our individual and collective physical health.

Kindest Regards
Kathryn Edwards
828 337 0353

Kindest Regard
Kathy Edwards
828 337 0353

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

I read this with disgust, but mostly at our lawmakers. It reminded me of a recent barstool debate I had with a friend. I commented that I thought a general skepticism of our government was healthy but that the ridiculously low approval ratings for congress might be to the point of corrosive for our democracy. I pointed to the tea baggers on the right and opined that one day the left might have its own anti-reason wing satisfied with nothing but change for change’s sake. My friend articulated the mathematics. A twenty-five percent approval rating for congress meant that fifty percent plus one who voted for the winners of the election is now of two minds: one patient and one impatient. And the same schism is in the party of those who lost the election, though both sides will tend to dislike congress. Thus, a quarter of the electorate would be about baseline for any approval rating of congress.

But I don’t know. People see the back room deals. They see how corporate lobbyists get their way and the citizen gets a kiss off. That is reflected in every piece of legislation that comes out. After all the complaints, we still get 1000 page bills with no time to read them. We still get tons of earmarks, we still get lobbyists writing if not the legislation itself, then at least the congressional record.

I guess it’s mathematically simple: congress should be at twenty-five percent. But with practices like these, I think they are asking, “how low can we go?”

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/11/reps-heath-shuler-d-nc-and-joe-wilson-r-sc-speak-from-the-same-page-on-health-reform.html

Reps. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) speak from the same page on health reform
heath_shuler_horiz.jpgThe New York Times reported last week that during the historic House debate on health care reform, statements made by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten in whole or part by lobbyists working for one of the world’s largest biotechnology firms.

Share/Bookmark

The lobbyists for California-based Genentech — a wholly owned subsidiary of the Swiss firm Roche — drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

But it turns out that Rep. Heath Shuler — a Democrat from North Carolina — actually delivered a statement based on the Republican version of the script, as the blog Firedoglake reported yesterday.

Shuler is part of the conservative Blue Dog caucus in the House. When in Washington, he reportedly lives at the C Street house owned by The Family, a controversial right-wing Christian organization that caters to the political elite.

Based on Firedoglake’s report, we thought it would be interesting to compare what was said by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) — the lawmaker infamous for shouting “You lie!” during President Obama’s national address on health care reform — during the debate to Shuler’s remarks.

We also thought it would be interesting to compare the two lawmakers’ campaign contributions from health industry interests.

As we reported previously, Wilson is a major recipient of contributions from health care professionals, who have invested a total of $244,196 in his campaign to date, according to the Center for Responsive Politics OpenSecrets.org database. He received another $86,150 from pharmaceutical companies, $73,050 from insurance companies and $68,000 from hospitals and nursing homes. He has been in office since 2001.

Shuler has also received generous contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, health professionals and insurance interests: All appear among his top 20 contributors at $78,800, $67,062 and $38,500 respectively, according to OpenSecrets.org. He has been in office since 2007.

And now, the comparison of Wilson’s and Shuler’s lobbyist-inspired comments on health reform:

Wilson: I have criticized many of the provisions of this bill (H.R. 3962) and rightfully so. But in fairness, I do believe the sections relating to the creation of a market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower cost options to consumers without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country.

Shuler: Mr. Speaker, as you know I am opposed to the bill we are considering today for many reasons that I have articulated previously. I am pleased, however, that the bill strikes the appropriate balance on the issue of follow on biologics. This bipartisan compromise language will provide lower cost options to consumers and my constituents without destroying a healthy and functioning bio-tech industry in this country.

* * *

Wilson: Creating a pathway for new products that doesn’t destroy the ability or the incentives for innovator companies to develop breakthrough technologies and at the same time providing a safe and effective way to bring competition to benefit patients is a laudable achievement.

Shuler: I believe it is critical that the creation of a pathway for new products does not destroy the ability or the incentives of innovator companies to develop breakthrough technologies. We have a moral obligation to provide a safe and effective pathway of bringing competition that will benefit patients.

* * *

Wilson: I wish we could remove this provision from this fatally flawed piece of legislation and consider it separately because it would pass with the kind of overwhelming bi-partisan support that Americans across the country wish to see.

Shuler: I wish we could consider this as a stand-alone bill because it would pass with the kind of overwhelming bi-partisan support that Americans across the country wish to see.

* * *

Wilson: One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country.

Shuler: One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country and in my home state of North Carolina.

Rate this comment: 0  0

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is soliciting funds to pay an economist $50,000 to study health care reform legislation and issue (what the lobby presumes) will be a negative review, providing ammunition to shoot down health care reform in the Senate, according to The Washington Post.

The Newspaper obtained an e-mail from James P. Gelfand, the senior manager of health policy at the Chamber of Commerce detailing how the plan would work:

“The economist will then circulate a sign-on letter to hundreds of other economists saying that the bill will kill jobs and hurt the economy. We will then be able to use this open letter to produce advertisements, and as a powerful lobbying and grass-roots document.

Rate this comment: 0  0

“Just think, Wyoming gets one member in the House and Pharma gets 42.”

Rate this comment: 0  0