Wichita CBS Reports C Street Cult

post from Everyday Citizen on 27 July 2009 11:31:42 AM. © Everyday Citizen

After several blogs here and crossposted to DailyKos that have gained a lot of traction, local[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/07/wichita_cbs_reports_c_street_c.html

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Reality Check on Shona Holmes: Holmes' "Brain
Tumour" was Actually a Rathke's Cleft Cyst on Her Pituitary Gland

post from Crooks and Liars on 27 July 2009 11:30:53 AM. © Crooks and Liars

DOWNLOADS: (952)
PLAYS: (2657)

Well what do you know. It looks like there may be some problems with Sen. Mitch McConnell's favorite Canadian health care horror story. h/t The Political Carnival

33.7 million Canadians are not Shona Holmes:

To my American friends: I sincerely hope you?re not taken in by the GOP propaganda featuring Canadian Shona Holmes trashing our system of universal healthcare. The problem is both that Ms. Holmes and her Republican masters misrepresented her condition and that the tactic itself is reprehensible. The GOP can?t produce any logical argument against a system that is entrenched in every Western society except yours, so they resort to fear-mongering and lies, claiming that one Canadian?s skewed view trumps the experiences and beliefs of the rest of us.
Continue reading.....

From The Ottawa Citizen:

Holmes has become the darling of conservatives and the stop-public-health-care movement in the United States. She's testified before Congress, been on Fox TV as well as CNN, and her story is retold on hundreds of right wing blogs. She's now doing a nasty TV ad for Patients United Now, a Republican-led group opposed to Obama's reforms. You can see the ad at www.patientsunitednow.com. The group is spending almost $2 million on it to target politicians in Washington.
For a person living with cancer, the idea that someone's care could be unreasonably delayed is truly scary. It also doesn't reflect the experience I've had or the experiences that have been shared with me by so many other patients. Even CNN interviewed Doug Wright, a more typical patient in Toronto who is receiving very speedy treatment for his cancer.
Still, I found Holmes tale both compelling and troubling. So I decided to check a little further. On the Mayo Clinic's website, Shona Holmes is a success story. But it's somewhat different story than all the headlines might have implied. Holmes' "brain tumour" was actually a Rathke's Cleft Cyst on her pituitary gland. To quote an American source, the John Wayne Cancer Center, "Rathke's Cleft Cysts are not true tumors or neoplasms; instead they are benign cysts."
There's no doubt Holmes had a problem that needed treatment, and she was given appointments with the appropriate specialists in Ontario. She chose not to wait the few months to see them. But it's a far cry from the life-or-death picture portrayed by Holmes on the TV ads or by McConnell in his attacks.

Read The Full Article:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/reality-check-shona-holmes-holmes-bra
in-tu

Digg this

Back For More

post from Talking Points Memo on 27 July 2009 11:17:00 AM. © Talking Points Memo

I thought the beer invites had put an end to this. But apparently not. The Cambridge PD has a press conference scheduled for 12 noon. Late Update: And now the lawyer for the woman who made the 911 call is on TV defending her client ... against what? [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/czYohJUrwfI/back_for_more.p
hp

Digg this

Sunday Loon Watch

post from Daily Kos on 27 July 2009 11:16:03 AM. © Daily Kos

Kent Conrad's appearance on This Week made him an easy pick for this week's Sunday Loon Watch:

Transcript:

CONRAD: You know there are six of us on the finance committee, three Democrats and three Republicans who have been given the responsibility to come up with a proposal for our colleagues...

CONRAD: Look, there are not the votes for Democrats to do this just on our side of the aisle. This is going to require...

STEPHANOPOULOS: So it's just not possible to have a Democrat-only bill?

CONRAD: No, it is not possible, and perhaps not desirable either. We're probably going to get a better product if we go through the tough business of debate, consideration, analysis of what we're proposing...

STEPHANOPOULUS: Are you going to finish your negotiations by August 7?

CONRAD: You know, we're going to finish when we're finished, and we're doing everything we can to get it right. We're moving with dispatch, we meet hours every day, we've got the best analysts in the country helping us. We'll be ready when we're ready.

How stupid does Kent Conrad think we are? Even if Harry Reid subjects the bill to a filibuster, it will only require 60 votes to bring the bill to a vote -- and there are 60 Democrats. Reid could also get creative and use the reconciliation process, which would only require 50 votes (and a lot of work with the parliamentiarian).

Whichever path Reid choose, in point of fact, it actually is possible to pass legislation without Republican support, and Kent Conrad knows it.

The real problem is that Kent Conrad doesn't want it to pass without Republican support, and by unilaterally declaring that without GOP support he (and perhaps a few other Democrats) won't support health care reform, he is effectively giving the them veto power over the legislation.

If Conrad sticks to his guns, Republicans can just say "no" to health care reform, knowing that with his insistence on a bipartisan bill, Democrats won't have the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster.

Alternatively, if Republicans want to pass an inadequate reform measure, they can effectively force Conrad to agree to anything, potentially creating a situation where Democrats are forced to vote against health care reform.

Kent Conrad has created a very big mess for Harry Reid to clean up. Whether Reid figures out a way to use reconciliation or comes up with some other way to apply pressure to Conrad, he's the one who needs to step up to plate and take back the reigns of leadership from Conrad.

Whether or not he is successful will define his legacy as a public official.

Join the discussion in icebergslim's recommended diary, "Republican votes are NOT NEEDED to pass health care reform."

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/VUvGQr0ZGZY/-Sunday-Loon-Watch

Digg this

Slavemaster Mentality Or Work Ethic

post from Open Left - Front Page on 27 July 2009 11:15:00 AM. © Open Left - Front Page

A blogging experiment.---In America people won't work. They are lazy. You have to make[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OpenLeft-FrontPage/~3/RtiFxOT5ruU/slavemaster-ment
ality-or-work-ethic

Digg this

Rep. McCotter to introduce resolution demanding
Obama ‘apologize’ to Cambridge police.

post from Think Progress on 27 July 2009 11:15:00 AM. © Think Progress

Despite his state’s unemployment rate topping 15 percent, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter’s (R-MI) highest priority right now isn’t the economy. On Friday, the Michigan Republican announced he will introduce a bill calling on President Obama to formally apologize to Sgt. James Crowley, the Cambridge Police officer who arrested Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates. McCotter said he would introduce the resolution unless Obama issues a public apology — a transparent attempt “to keep the Gates controversy alive?:

“He has said he will introduce the legislation if the President does not retract and apologize for his comments,” said Jameson Cunningham, press secretary for McCotter, when asked if Obama had already addressed his concerns. “As of now, no apology has been issued.”

On Friday, Obama called the arresting officer an “outstanding police officer” and said he should have “calibrated” his words differently. A statement by the Cambridge police said, “It is clear to us…that the president respects police officers and the often difficult and dangerous situations we face on a daily basis.”

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/27/mccotter-resolution/

Digg this

The Fellowship Cult Owns Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS)

post from Everyday Citizen on 27 July 2009 11:09:33 AM. © Everyday Citizen

Yesterday evening I had the chance to interview Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family about Kansas[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/07/the_fellowship_cult_owns_rep_t.html

Digg this

Dear Rahm: You Break It, You Buy It

From the WSJ this morning: The Blue Dogs' clout arises from simple math -- they account for 52 seats in the House, enough to topple any law in cooperation with Republicans -- and some irony. Hungry to retake Congress, Democrats actively recruited[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/07/27/dear-rahm-you-break-it-you-buy-it/

Digg this

Prescription Drug Ad Scam

0727-biz-DRUG-web_pop

One of the "wonderful legacies" of the Reagan Administration was the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987. You can thank Ronnie and his deregulatory economists for the flood of erectile-disfunction ads on TV. In 1988 there was a total of $7 million spent on Direct to Consumer (DTC) prescription drug ads. Things have changed since then.

In 2008, pharmaceutical manufacturers spent about $4.8 billion on direct-to-consumer television, radio, magazine and newspaper advertising, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Now some lawmakers including Jerrold Nadler of New York are suggesting that the drug industry no longer get to deduct their DTC ad expenses from their taxes. Personally, I think they should not be allowed to advertise at all, because it's a doctor's choice what medications he prescribes. Somehow, even though they had no right before 1987 to DTC, Big Pharma has turned this into a First Amendment Issue.

"On First Amendment grounds, I am not going to say we will ban" drug advertising, said Mr. Nadler, who represents parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn. "But they should not be able to get taxpayers to subsidize it."

I have one simple question that might clarify this. Who do you think pays for the $4.6 billion of advertising?

You and me.