|
Post by Sue on Sept 29, 2008 14:30:23 GMT -5
Whoa. The bailout bill failed. And the market is NOT happy. Also, with the effect this is having globabally, now other countries can hate us for ruining their economies on top of whatever else it is they hate us for. sigh. I'll send all my loose pennies to DC if you will. (Isn't that the ploy in "Annie?")
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 29, 2008 18:58:02 GMT -5
I found that ABC news had an interesting way at looking at the defeat of the bail-out bill:
By rejecting the spending of 700 billion dollars, American investors then lost $1.1 TRILLION dollars as the stock market dropped 777 points.
[Dear goodness, thank heavens it didn't just happen to be 666 points. We would never have heard the end of it.]
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Sept 29, 2008 19:23:19 GMT -5
I found that ABC news had an interesting way at looking at the defeat of the bail-out bill: By rejecting the spending of 700 billion dollars, American investors then lost $1.1 TRILLION dollars as the stock market dropped 777 points. [Dear goodness, thank heavens it didn't just happen to be 666 points. We would never have heard the end of it.] My dad's always said, "you only lose if you sell." That 700 bil would have come out of the actual government budget, affecting every tax payer; the stock market is more... psychological money. Not that it's not important, but it's not the same kind of money. We all have a stake in the government. Not all of us have a stake in the stock market.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Sept 29, 2008 19:32:23 GMT -5
I heard it first in a Citizen Alert from Working Assets, actually, but snopes.com as well as this CNN story backs it up. And, as you say...IMO, nothing differentiates this particular brand of Christian from fundamentalist Moslims. Seems to me that fundamentalism in monotheistic religions is always expressed in much the same way. It's one area where I actually believe in the slippery slope. Let them take away your birth control, the next thing they're doing is telling you they can't hire you because women are more likely to get pregnant and leave their jobs, so they have to hire men. Then they're telling you why woman shouldn't work anyway. A few years down the road, they're making you wear a burkha. Ask the women of Afghanistan or Iraq just how far-fetched this sounds to them. Especially ask the ones who are college-educated and used to be doctors, lawyers, etc., but now aren't allowed to go outside. They first announced this policy a couple of months ago. Mary posted about it, providing a bunch of links on the subject. Concurrently, the HHS released proposed a new regulation health professionals could refuse to provide health services if they conflicted with personal moral or religious beliefs, as in refuse to perform abortions or prescribe birth control (also discussed in the links that Mary posted). The whole thing is pretty sneaky, no doubt. The proposal to redefine abortion goes counter to the positions of all scientific and medical experts on the issue, which seems to be yet another incident of the Bush Administration ignoring expert advice if they don't like what the experts have to say. As far as the other, well, I've pondered a long time about what I thought about that. Doctor's medical decisions as guided by their training, as well as a number of legal regulations, and their own ethical and moral beliefs. I'm not sure exactly what the current policies are, but I believe that doctors' duty is to serve the patients they treat, and when their beliefs conflict with their patient's, the patient's should take precedence, provided they lie within medical rules and regulations. Of course, doctors aren't merely automatons, passively fulfilling patient requests, particularly when the request can have huge consequences. Doctors wouldn't (or shouldn't) simply prescribe any medication that a patient requests, or agree to perform cosmetic surgery without a thorough consultation. Ultimately, what doctors must do is help the patient realize exactly what it is that they want, and that's when it gets tricky, because there's a very fine line between guiding a patient in the course of their treatment and persuading them to do what you want them to do and that line can get very, very blurry. A doctor's morality and ethics and even specific religious beliefs cannot be completely discarded, because they are invaluable in informing judgment, but they cannot become so overpowering that the patient's own desires are lost. And then there are situations where a particular medical decision goes completely against the doctor's personal beliefs. This is what this policy is supposedly addressing. This policy focuses on abortions and birth control, but there are any number of moral and ethical conundrums that doctors could face, and I doubt that the HHS has really considered the potential can of worms that this policy opens. Personally, I'm all for contraception, and while I don't think abortions should be done, I also don't think it should be illegal, so I'm not part of this group of health professionals this policy is supposed to help (how many health professionals or future health professionals would this policy affect anyway? That's something I'd like to know), but I can potentially think of a number of topics, where my personal beliefs conflict with the rules and regulations that I will have to work under. If the HHS is going to make allowances on objections to contraception and abortion, then by all rights, they should also make allowances whenever I object to an established regulation. I think the best way to resolve these moral and ethical conflicts, if they are very dire, would be to allow doctors to refuse treatment, if and only if they can find another doctor who would be willing to provide said treatment. And not just a "go see so and so" referral, but actually making every effort to put said patient in contact with said colleague doctor. One of the issues that was raised in the discussion on lj-land is the imposition placed on patients with limited access to healthcare, which is of great concern to me since I plan on practicing in a rural underserved area. if the only accessible doctor is one who refuses to perform an abortion, then that puts the patient in dire straits and that is completely wrong. In my mind, said doctor should make every effort to help the patient reach a doctor that will help them, whether it's assisting with the transportation or having another visit their practice on a temporary basis to see patients. Again, I don't know exactly what the current regulations are on these matter, these are just my own ponderings on the issue. If this proposed policy included caveats like this, I would be more ok with it, but as it doesn't, it's deeply troubling to me and it's hard to deny that it's part of the Christian Right agenda to impose their own beliefs over the entire population. Sorry if this is tl;dr, thus preventing anyone from commenting on any specific part of it, but as a future doctor, this matters a lot to me and I obviously have a lot to say about it. An Op-Ed by Hilary Clinton and Cecile Richards (President of Planned Parenthood) about this issue. Blocking Care For WomenIt's from the 18th, so not current. And it says that the deadline for feedback was the 25th, so there should be some sort of update by now. There's a forum thread on Student Doctor Net discussing the op-ed and the issue. Unfortunately there's no serious discussion there yet, but I'm linking cause I'm hoping there might be soon.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Sept 29, 2008 21:17:34 GMT -5
They first announced this policy a couple of months ago. Mary posted about it, providing a bunch of links on the subject. Concurrently, the HHS released proposed a new regulation health professionals could refuse to provide health services if they conflicted with personal moral or religious beliefs, as in refuse to perform abortions or prescribe birth control (also discussed in the links that Mary posted). The whole thing is pretty sneaky, no doubt. The proposal to redefine abortion goes counter to the positions of all scientific and medical experts on the issue, which seems to be yet another incident of the Bush Administration ignoring expert advice if they don't like what the experts have to say. As far as the other, well, I've pondered a long time about what I thought about that. Doctor's medical decisions as guided by their training, as well as a number of legal regulations, and their own ethical and moral beliefs. I'm not sure exactly what the current policies are, but I believe that doctors' duty is to serve the patients they treat, and when their beliefs conflict with their patient's, the patient's should take precedence, provided they lie within medical rules and regulations. Of course, doctors aren't merely automatons, passively fulfilling patient requests, particularly when the request can have huge consequences. Doctors wouldn't (or shouldn't) simply prescribe any medication that a patient requests, or agree to perform cosmetic surgery without a thorough consultation. Ultimately, what doctors must do is help the patient realize exactly what it is that they want, and that's when it gets tricky, because there's a very fine line between guiding a patient in the course of their treatment and persuading them to do what you want them to do and that line can get very, very blurry. A doctor's morality and ethics and even specific religious beliefs cannot be completely discarded, because they are invaluable in informing judgment, but they cannot become so overpowering that the patient's own desires are lost. And then there are situations where a particular medical decision goes completely against the doctor's personal beliefs. This is what this policy is supposedly addressing. This policy focuses on abortions and birth control, but there are any number of moral and ethical conundrums that doctors could face, and I doubt that the HHS has really considered the potential can of worms that this policy opens. Personally, I'm all for contraception, and while I don't think abortions should be done, I also don't think it should be illegal, so I'm not part of this group of health professionals this policy is supposed to help (how many health professionals or future health professionals would this policy affect anyway? That's something I'd like to know), but I can potentially think of a number of topics, where my personal beliefs conflict with the rules and regulations that I will have to work under. If the HHS is going to make allowances on objections to contraception and abortion, then by all rights, they should also make allowances whenever I object to an established regulation. I think the best way to resolve these moral and ethical conflicts, if they are very dire, would be to allow doctors to refuse treatment, if and only if they can find another doctor who would be willing to provide said treatment. And not just a "go see so and so" referral, but actually making every effort to put said patient in contact with said colleague doctor. One of the issues that was raised in the discussion on lj-land is the imposition placed on patients with limited access to healthcare, which is of great concern to me since I plan on practicing in a rural underserved area. if the only accessible doctor is one who refuses to perform an abortion, then that puts the patient in dire straits and that is completely wrong. In my mind, said doctor should make every effort to help the patient reach a doctor that will help them, whether it's assisting with the transportation or having another visit their practice on a temporary basis to see patients. Again, I don't know exactly what the current regulations are on these matter, these are just my own ponderings on the issue. If this proposed policy included caveats like this, I would be more ok with it, but as it doesn't, it's deeply troubling to me and it's hard to deny that it's part of the Christian Right agenda to impose their own beliefs over the entire population. Sorry if this is tl;dr, thus preventing anyone from commenting on any specific part of it, but as a future doctor, this matters a lot to me and I obviously have a lot to say about it. An Op-Ed by Hilary Clinton and Cecile Richards (President of Planned Parenthood) about this issue. Blocking Care For WomenIt's from the 18th, so not current. And it says that the deadline for feedback was the 25th, so there should be some sort of update by now. There's a forum thread on Student Doctor Net discussing the op-ed and the issue. Unfortunately there's no serious discussion there yet, but I'm linking cause I'm hoping there might be soon. Liz, that's a friends locked post, which Mary has been very forceful about indicating she wants taken seriously. Julia, it would also be a violation of Live Journal TOS to copy the post, although you could copy the links.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Sept 29, 2008 21:28:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 29, 2008 22:28:30 GMT -5
Comic relief?
except that it's so darned serious.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 29, 2008 22:29:27 GMT -5
Comic relief?
except that it's so darned serious.
Clip is actually from CNN.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Sept 30, 2008 11:43:58 GMT -5
So, highlights from Rebecca Traister's piece on Salon.com about why she doesn't feel sorry for Sarah Palin:
When you stage a train wreck of this magnitude -- trying to pass one underqualified chick off as another highly qualified chick with the lame hope that no one will notice -- well, then, I don't feel bad for you.
When you treat women as your toys, as gullible and insensate pawns in your Big Fat Presidential Bid -- or in Palin's case, in your Big Fat Chance to Be the First Woman Vice President Thanks to All the Cracks Hillary Put in the Ceiling -- I don't feel bad for you.
When you don't take your own career and reputation seriously enough to pause before striding onto a national stage and lying about your record of opposing a Bridge to Nowhere or using your special-needs child to garner the support of Americans in need of healthcare reform you don't support, I don't feel bad for you.
When you don't have enough regard for your country or its politics to cram effectively for the test -- a test that helps determine whether or not you get to run that country and participate in its politics -- I don't feel bad for you.
When your project is reliant on gaining the support of women whose reproductive rights you would limit, whose access to birth control and sex education you would curtail, whose healthcare options you would decrease, whose civil liberties you would take away and whose children and husbands and brothers (and sisters and daughters and friends) you would send to war in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and wherever else you saw fit without actually understanding international relations, I don't feel bad for you.
There's more...it's pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Sept 30, 2008 19:36:33 GMT -5
So, highlights from Rebecca Traister's piece on Salon.com about why she doesn't feel sorry for Sarah Palin: When you stage a train wreck of this magnitude -- trying to pass one underqualified chick off as another highly qualified chick with the lame hope that no one will notice -- well, then, I don't feel bad for you.
When you treat women as your toys, as gullible and insensate pawns in your Big Fat Presidential Bid -- or in Palin's case, in your Big Fat Chance to Be the First Woman Vice President Thanks to All the Cracks Hillary Put in the Ceiling -- I don't feel bad for you.
When you don't take your own career and reputation seriously enough to pause before striding onto a national stage and lying about your record of opposing a Bridge to Nowhere or using your special-needs child to garner the support of Americans in need of healthcare reform you don't support, I don't feel bad for you.
When you don't have enough regard for your country or its politics to cram effectively for the test -- a test that helps determine whether or not you get to run that country and participate in its politics -- I don't feel bad for you.
When your project is reliant on gaining the support of women whose reproductive rights you would limit, whose access to birth control and sex education you would curtail, whose healthcare options you would decrease, whose civil liberties you would take away and whose children and husbands and brothers (and sisters and daughters and friends) you would send to war in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and wherever else you saw fit without actually understanding international relations, I don't feel bad for you.There's more...it's pretty good. The article makes many, many excellent points. Particularly that there are several qualified women out there McCain could have chosen if he had wanted to, and that Palin has her own agency and thus bears responsibility for the situation she finds herself in. I still feel a little bit sorry for Palin. In a pitying way, though, not a sympathizing way. I think you can feel sorry for some one while being critical of them. I feel a little bit sorry for Bush for that matter, despite the laundry list of violent disagreements I have with his positions and what his administration has done. Of course, part of the problem with understanding Palin is that she's been on the national stage for so short a time. I'm still not entirely sure if I've got a bead on who she really is underneath all the politicking.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 1, 2008 9:15:42 GMT -5
I do so love to hear that man speechify: Video of his speech Intro by Jed Lewison on Huffington Post: "Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday in Reno, Nevada reminded me just how nice it would be to finally have a president who is able to convey his ideas.
If you have a few minutes, it's worth watching. Barack was at his best, and it'll fire you up for these last 34 days. You might even find yourself daydreaming about what it's going to be like when he's president -- if we manage to elect him.
We gotta' win this thing. We're gonna' win this." (It's 30 minutes long, but just watch the first 3 minutes. (most of the rest is stuff you've probably heard before) It's about as "passionate" as I've seen Obama. Also: If these had been the comments made by either George Bush, or possibly even Nancy Pelosi (yeah, maybe her comments didn't actually cause them to lose votes, but, jeez----not classy leadership under the circumstances lady) the bill would have been in the can.) www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/the-great-communicator_n_130760.html============================ 2 other interesting videos on Huffington this morning. One has CNN debunking the myth of being able to see Russia from Alaska. (They send a reporter to the tiny island where it's actually possible to see Russia.) And one has 3 appearances of McCain's, strung together, where he suggests that George Bush simply go to the Treasury and spend upwards of a trillion dollars buying up mortages without Congressional approval.Talk about your Imperial Presidency!
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Oct 1, 2008 11:06:53 GMT -5
I do so love to hear that man speechify: Video of his speech Intro by Jed Lewison on Huffington Post: "Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday in Reno, Nevada reminded me just how nice it would be to finally have a president who is able to convey his ideas.
If you have a few minutes, it's worth watching. Barack was at his best, and it'll fire you up for these last 34 days. You might even find yourself daydreaming about what it's going to be like when he's president -- if we manage to elect him.
We gotta' win this thing. We're gonna' win this." (It's 30 minutes long, but just watch the first 3 minutes. (most of the rest is stuff you've probably heard before) It's about as "passionate" as I've seen Obama. Also: If these had been the comments made by either George Bush, or possibly even Nancy Pelosi (yeah, maybe her comments didn't actually cause them to lose votes, but, jeez----not classy leadership under the circumstances lady) the bill would have been in the can.)www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/the-great-communicator_n_130760.html============================ 2 other interesting videos on Huffington this morning. One has CNN debunking the myth of being able to see Russia from Alaska. (They send a reporter to the tiny island where it's actually possible to see Russia.) And one has 3 appearances of McCain's, strung together, where he suggests that George Bush simply go to the Treasury and spend upwards of a trillion dollars buying up mortages without Congressional approval.Talk about your Imperial Presidency! Totally eetah.I loved that clip where they showed that Palin has never actually seen Russia. Ha!
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 1, 2008 12:25:13 GMT -5
I do so love to hear that man speechify: Video of his speech Intro by Jed Lewison on Huffington Post: "Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday in Reno, Nevada reminded me just how nice it would be to finally have a president who is able to convey his ideas.
If you have a few minutes, it's worth watching. Barack was at his best, and it'll fire you up for these last 34 days. You might even find yourself daydreaming about what it's going to be like when he's president -- if we manage to elect him.
We gotta' win this thing. We're gonna' win this." (It's 30 minutes long, but just watch the first 3 minutes. (most of the rest is stuff you've probably heard before) It's about as "passionate" as I've seen Obama. Also: If these had been the comments made by either George Bush, or possibly even Nancy Pelosi (yeah, maybe her comments didn't actually cause them to lose votes, but, jeez----not classy leadership under the circumstances lady) the bill would have been in the can.) www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/the-great-communicator_n_130760.html============================ 2 other interesting videos on Huffington this morning. One has CNN debunking the myth of being able to see Russia from Alaska. (They send a reporter to the tiny island where it's actually possible to see Russia.) And one has 3 appearances of McCain's, strung together, where he suggests that George Bush simply go to the Treasury and spend upwards of a trillion dollars buying up mortages without Congressional approval.Talk about your Imperial Presidency! Agreed that Nancy Pelosi should have been more diplomatic...however, that said, if the House Republicans didn't vote for the bill because Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings, then that's more an example of Republican partisanship than anything else. No responsible politician would vote against a (hypothetically) economy-saving bill because the Speaker of the House made a speech they didn't like. Her speech didn't change the friggin' bill, after all. Her speech had nothing to do with it. The Republicans promised votes they didn't deliver. Pelosi actually delivered one more Democrat than she promised she would. I think it'd be wonderful for Obama to call, say, 15 Democrats up and get their votes, causing the bill to pass without any more Republicans coming over to "our" side.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Oct 1, 2008 12:31:46 GMT -5
I do so love to hear that man speechify: Video of his speech Intro by Jed Lewison on Huffington Post: "Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday in Reno, Nevada reminded me just how nice it would be to finally have a president who is able to convey his ideas.
If you have a few minutes, it's worth watching. Barack was at his best, and it'll fire you up for these last 34 days. You might even find yourself daydreaming about what it's going to be like when he's president -- if we manage to elect him.
We gotta' win this thing. We're gonna' win this." (It's 30 minutes long, but just watch the first 3 minutes. (most of the rest is stuff you've probably heard before) It's about as "passionate" as I've seen Obama. Also: If these had been the comments made by either George Bush, or possibly even Nancy Pelosi (yeah, maybe her comments didn't actually cause them to lose votes, but, jeez----not classy leadership under the circumstances lady) the bill would have been in the can.) www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/the-great-communicator_n_130760.html============================ 2 other interesting videos on Huffington this morning. One has CNN debunking the myth of being able to see Russia from Alaska. (They send a reporter to the tiny island where it's actually possible to see Russia.) And one has 3 appearances of McCain's, strung together, where he suggests that George Bush simply go to the Treasury and spend upwards of a trillion dollars buying up mortages without Congressional approval.Talk about your Imperial Presidency! Agreed that Nancy Pelosi should have been more diplomatic...however, that said, if the House Republicans didn't vote for the bill because Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings, then that's more an example of Republican partisanship than anything else. No responsible politician would vote against a (hypothetically) economy-saving bill because the Speaker of the House made a speech they didn't like. Her speech didn't change the friggin' bill, after all. Her speech had nothing to do with it. The Republicans promised votes they didn't deliver. Pelosi actually delivered one more Democrat than she promised she would. I think it'd be wonderful for Obama to call, say, 15 Democrats up and get their votes, causing the bill to pass without any more Republicans coming over to "our" side. I loved Barney Frank saying he would go and be "uncharacteristically nice" to the offended Republicans to persuade them to change their votes. Julia, Paulson did so very much damage to things by releasing the three-page emergency plan first; the more nuanced bill was shot down by reactions to the earlier kludge.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 1, 2008 14:07:57 GMT -5
He's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.
Try to find some text (or even better: video) of Bill Clinton campaigning in Florida today.
CNN did most of his first speech at the U of Central FL this morning. He's in the middle of another one now.
Classic, quintessential Bill. First, totally lays out succintly why bailout bill matters to the average Joe. Then goes on ask "what is the job of The President of the United States?" As he answers that question he points out why Obama is THE MAN FOR THAT ASPECT OF THE JOB and then goes on to the next and the next and the next. I heard exactly one reference to McCain when Clinton said something about "and there is no way his opponent ...."
It was a sight to behold.
Apparently he's finally decided that if the Obama doesn't get elected there is no possible way that anybody will be able to blame him.
|
|