Open forum, Feb. 27 - March 4



The forums are moderated by Columbian staff and our community guidelines and terms of service still apply. To participate, login with your ID or register for an account at

Columbian staff members create new forum threads. Don't see a forum topic here that fits your comments? Email Web Editor Libby Clark,, or Social Media Coordinator Matt Wastradowski,



Good Morning Columbian. This is a pic of Jay Inslee and he is running for Governor on the Democratic ticket. This is not an endorsement, more of an introduction. Feel free to vote for whoever you like just as long as it isn't the current Attorney General.

hawkeye — February 27, 2012 at 8:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal

nailingit, enough with the religious attacks. You should know better than to equate Rick Santorum's beliefs and ideologies with the thoughts of all Christians around the nation or world. You are certainly welcome to disagree with religious figures and to share those views. But to use those views as a springboard for all of your attacks is disingenuous at best, and hurtful at worst.

At this point, you're not pushing the conversation forward at all. It's not productive, and it's against our community guidelines.

And elisi, when you see attacks, the best way to not be a doormat is NOT to respond. Instead, use the button below the post to flag it, and I'll take the appropriate action.

Matt Wastradowski (Columbian Staff) — February 27, 2012 at 8:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal | Ignore User )

Hey dad...please explain...

You should know better than to equate Rick Santorum's beliefs and ideologies with the thoughts of all Christians around the nation or world.

Where and when did I say that? And Santorum's views represent the conservative right. Why jump in now?

Explain it.

nailingit — February 27, 2012 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal | Ignore User )

Just because a posters is whining on your e-mail, you take this action? Why don't you jump in when posters are vilifying Islam?

nailingit — February 27, 2012 at 8:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal | Ignore User )

I made no personal attacks, yet...

against our community guidelines.

Really? Because I expose an example of conservative hypocrisy...

Censorship takes on a whole new meaning. Setting this up for future ban?

People name call, insult, try to get more than personal, yet when attacks on a personal level are met with pointing out hypocrisy, it's against community wow!!!

nailingit — February 27, 2012 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal | Ignore User )

You should address this Matt. Instead of a "write by", expound.

Criticism of hypocrisy is banned? Of Christianity?

you're not pushing the conversation forward at all. It's not productive, and it's against our community guidelines.

Will you be getting rid of Face Book soon? Soooo...if you feel the conversation is not "productive", and being "pushed forward", you will censor?


nailingit — February 27, 2012 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal | Ignore User )

nailingit — February 27, 2012 at 9:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Matt- Let's review your papers community guidelines...

Stay on point. Keep your comments and questions focused on the topic, article or column at hand. Some might care about your thoughts on health care overhaul, but probably not in an article about the new Vancouver Community Library. Focus your points, arguments and assertions on positions, not personalities.
Don’t attack back. Comment or lurk long enough, and you’ll see a comment that riles you up. If you see a commenter who you think is attacking you or another user, don’t engage or attack back. Flag the offending comment for removal; we’ll take care of the rest.
Keep it clean. Controversial topics occasionally prompt emotional responses, and we love to see energetic debate and vigorous discussion. But before you wade into those conversations, keep a few things in mind. Don’t use profanity (including alternate characters to mask swear words), obscenities, personal attacks, libel, defamation or hate speech. Steer clear of name calling and posting anything that can be interpreted as threatening, harassing, obscene, pornographic, sexist or racist. Derogatory use of sexual orientation, race, age, gender, religion, nationality, disability and so on is not allowed.
Be original. You are welcome to link to relevant content and include limited excerpts from other people’s work -- with attribution, of course. But don’t copy and paste wholesale.
Respect privacy. Don’t post personal contact information. You probably wouldn’t appreciate it if that was plastered on, so don’t do it yourself.
Don’t post rumors. Along those lines, steer clear of posting allegations, unfounded accusations, innuendo and other information known to be false or unsubstantiated.
Keep it commercial-free. Comments that serve as recommendations or reviews of companies and services are allowed and even encouraged (on that note, can you help me find a good pizza spot on the west side of Vancouver?). But posting of ads, spam or other marketing-related material is not allowed, and those posts will be removed.

nailingit — February 27, 2012 at 9:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal

*Derogatory use of sexual orientation, race, age, gender, religion, nationality, disability and so on is not allowed. Be original.*

Could this be it? I don't deride faiths. I embrace them. Occasionally I address the perversion of them, and those who hide behind the apron strings of faux conservatism to infuse their beliefs in our political system.

Your comments need explanation. If you're not able to address them, than perhaps get someone up the food chain.

nailingit — February 27, 2012 at 9:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I misread your comments about equating Santorum with Christianity at large. You didn't do that, and I made a mistake in making those points. For that, I apologize.

But statements like this ...

"Justifying ungodly actions are paramount in today's Christian world. It gives them license to not only "sin", but to tear apart those they disagree with, without mercy. Religion can stunt many from dealing with life issues such as abuse and poor upbringing. Causing them to lead a life entrenched with bigotry, racism and hate. Put a Jesus stamp on it and it becomes the way of the church!"

... aren't cool, simple as that. You're making a sweeping remark that has no place in our forums.

You see yourself as exposing some kind of hypocrisy -- and I'm not even saying that some hypocrisy doesn't exist at some level! -- but what I see is religious attacks that violate our community guidelines. Comments like what I quoted above don't move the conversation forward, nor are they productive. Have you changed one mind or had one genuine conversation about religion with comments like that?

Matt Wastradowski — February 27, 2012 at 9:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal

*"Justifying ungodly actions are paramount in today's Christian world. It gives them license to not only "sin", but to tear apart those they disagree with, without mercy. Religion can stunt many from dealing with life issues such as abuse and poor upbringing. Causing them to lead a life entrenched with bigotry, racism and hate. Put a Jesus stamp on it and it becomes the way of the church!"*

Matt- And I apologize for my broad sweeping analysis of today's Christian movement. I don't assess my personal view of Christianity from a few statements made in anger from a few folks who take themselves quite seriously and seem to lack a sense of humor (to include politicians). Even when this "controversial statement" was addressed as total humor to roger, you add to the confusion as to the why you place your focus on my comments. Sometimes I get drawn down in others despair and react with a snarky type of comment that can be construed as an insult.. I'll try to keep that aspect in check with those who whose only argument is to hurl insults and ask for censorship. O00ps! There I go again! :)))))

I have modified my statement. I hope it passes the community standards smell test!

"Justifying ungodly actions **sometimes rear their devilish head** in today's Christian world. It gives some but not all, license to not only "sin", but tear apart those they disagree with, without mercy. Differing faiths and those who follow them can be overwhelmed with many of life's issues, and not all of them good. Although I disagree with systemic bigotry, my words should display righteous disagreement, rather than a response that can be interpreted as vitriolic. Followers sometimes bring these unattended to life experiences into their faith, and they are sometimes embraced by those that claim said unnamed faith, furthering some of the problems our society is faced with today. :)

*Have you changed one mind or had one genuine conversation about religion with comments like that?*

Comments like what? (just kidding!!!)

nailingit — February 27, 2012 at 10:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal

And in review, we've had many solid conversations in the basement about this subject. But lately...old friends unattended issues are ramping up once again. Just sayin'.

nailingit — February 27, 2012 at 10:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Not to harp, but there are one or two things I don't understand with many of today's conservatives. I hate to be judgmental but...Matt, give some insight to this article if you want. I don't have any!

In today's yes, Huffington Post!

**Darrell Gilyard Controversy: Church Hires Convicted Sex Offender, No Kids Allowed At Sermons (VIDEO)**

Though children are not allowed, attendance at the Christ Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church has spiked since Gilyard began preaching in January, less than two months after he was released from prison, according to the Times Union.

nailingit — February 27, 2012 at 11:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Nailingit, if you were aiming **THAT STATEMENT** at that "church" in Oregon City, I'm sure it would fit and I don't think even Matt would argue with that. If you are making a general statement, not so much.

A convicted sex offender as a preacher? What's next, Margareta Night?

hawkeye — February 27, 2012 at 1:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Some days its harder to find encouraging news. Its been about 67 years since atomic bombs was used on a civilian population. And about the same amount of time since all the other atrocities of WWII. That's longer than anyone from that generation would have thought possible.

normseubert — February 27, 2012 at 1:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Obama is proposing a corporate tax rate cut. Corps are currently taxed at 12.1% of profits on the average down from 25% in 2008. He claims this is to be "revenue neutral" due to the fact various loopholes will close. Good luck with that as corporate lobbyists are too well entreched to allow that. If he thinks this will possibly get the R's too work with him on closing loopholes, I afraid he's dreaming. As the R's have stated closing a loophole is like raising taxes, and we all know how compromising everyone is these days. Again, he's dreaming if this will get some R's or even some D's on his side for raising taxes on the wealthy. Same reasons as above.

With the government wallowing in debt, the rich having it better than ever, corporations sitting on $2 trillion they don't even know what do do with, and the big banks sitting on even more, why should we expect these folks to "share the sacrifice"? Enough is enough.

I'm beginning to feel the R's don't really want to win the White House this November. Maybe their best candidate is already there.

mrd — February 27, 2012 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal

hawk-*A convicted sex offender as a preacher? What's next, Margareta Night?*

Another Acts 29 church (also non-SBC) -- the Seattle-area Damascus Road Church -- sponsors a men’s poker night for which gamblers are encouraged to bring beer. The website also states: 'There is just something about having food on your plate and a drink in your hand that makes fellowship that much easier. Whether the food is healthy or fattening, or the drink is coffee or beer, we desire to follow Christ's example.'

The alcohol issue goes straight to the top at Acts 29, whose president, Mark Driscoll -- who is pastor of the Seattle-area Mars Hill Church -- wrote in his book, 'Radical Reformission,' that abstinence from alcohol is a sin. In a chapter titled 'The Sin of Light Beer,' Driscoll explains that he came to this conclusion while preparing a sermon on the Lord’s miracle at Cana where Jesus turned water into wine. *

The examples are many, and I'm not begrudging church goers from downing a few brews at poker night. At all. Hell it might help them cope. It's all good!

What I find a 'little' troubling is the blatant hypocrisy displayed by many leaders and parishioners in today's conservative movement. It's no big deal as people are people and the "do as I say but don't do as I do" has been here since the beginning of time. But what really bothers me and should most, are political lawmakers infusing their religious beliefs into states laws, and enacting some sort of moral inquisition.

Laws against abortion, birth control, gay rights, drugs and so on. While promoting the escalation of war, and in the same breath enact laws that will cripple the already weak, take away from the poor, and screw the health costs for tomorrow's senior citizens, All based in a "moral majority" agenda.

Nice to see you normseubert. That is some good news.

Until till you get into the law of averages! :)

nailingit — February 27, 2012 at 1:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal

So, like, I was getting ready to pull together a post on my blog, referencing the C's editorial from the 20th (cannabis garden moratoriums), and I saw there had been additional comments since my last look. Wow.

See, like, I get it when people have some sort of agenda associated with their prohibitionary attitude. I mean, the CEO of an outfit who performs UA's most likely isn't going to be pro-repeal. I get that.

What trips me is the average Joe's ignorance. Now, don't misunderstand, I'm not calling anyone "stupid." We are all ignorant of this and that. Myself, I choose not to speak on subjects I'm ignorant of. If I've interest, I do research and then speak/write.

Alberto Lugo wrote:
"this is a industry/product that has never existed in a legal sense. meaning no mass production, distribution,regulation ect..."

Alberto, do some reasearch, man. Cannabis extracts were an ingredient in many "patent medicines" up until the Harrison Act of 1914. Bayer, Merck et al had products containing cannabis derivatives. Cannabis was pulled from the 12th edition of the U.S. pharmacopoeia in 1942. After 91 years of being presented there.

Know your subject, Alberto, before...
well, you get it?

Drift — February 27, 2012 at 2:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Politicans are sales representatives. Do you think they are going to ever mention the negative aspects of their product, in other words, be honest? If they did, they would lose have of their constituency. Because even though we all champion truth, justice, and the American Way, deep down in side, we all want to WIN. And to WIN, you have to fight dirty, just like the other guy. Its just who is the most clever about it that has the fewest points deducted. I can deal with petty hypocracy of politicians and the brainwashed droves that follow them. As long as we can go another 67 years without nuclear war or something similar. Drift-Have not checked out your blog yet, but I will.

normseubert — February 27, 2012 at 3:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal

*As long as we can go another 67 years without nuclear war or something similar.*

Agreed. Unless it turns into a total theocracy, plutocracy and corporatocracy.

Some of these people want their own version of 'Metropolis,' like they already have in Asia.

Please don't misunderstand me. What you say is so true. But if the voting populace doesn't pay attention to what has already happened in many states, and listen to some of the rhetoric, Santorum just said JFK's idea of separation of church and state made him want throw up, then we are selling ourselves out to our selves, our kids and our Country.

There is some crazy stuff happenin' right now!

nailingit — February 27, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal

...meant selling short, not out...either case...all respect to everyone intended!

nailingit — February 27, 2012 at 3:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal

hawkeye at 8:41 am: I appreciate your plug for Jay Inslee! I hope he gets some attention.

Rob McKenna: if he runs the state the way he is managing some of his Assistant AGs (ignoring and maybe encouraging some blatant misconduct), we would be in trouble with him at the helm. He pandered to the very far right in joining the states who challenged the Healthcare Reform Act. I am not amused or impressed.

Personally, I try to avoid voting for anyone who spends their career putting people behind bars: it changes brain chemistry and world view into something dark, broken and mean.

roger: Big moneyed Democrats are angry that the bills that would require new teacher evaluation formats, as well as layoff first for the poorest performing teachers (not seniority-based) are stalling in the legislature. I agree with their frustration, but would never jump to McKenna as a choice in protest.

Go Jay Inslee.......

manthou — February 27, 2012 at 4:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal

On the education front, the move to allow states to waiver the federal requirements of "No Child Left Behind" as "unreachable" seems to be an indictment of our educational system. We can't, won't, or can't afford to bring students up to a mandated level of proficiency, so therefore we must lower the standards. I know there are others that frequent the basement that are much better equipped to comment on education than me, so maybe they'll clue me in. Why the white flag? Can't make it happen and can't deal with the result of not making it happen, so let's lower the standards? As education is now the big ticket for innovation, seems this policy is self-defeating.

mrd — February 27, 2012 at 5:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal

crazytrain: Thanks for the important facts on Rob McKenna.
He is very accomplished, to be sure.

However, my opinion is my opinion and I would not want him leading our state. He could have partnered with Mother Theresa at one time and I would still be skeptical of his political motives, ability to lead his sometimes-errant subordinates, and to steer this state in a positive direction.

You should chime in more often. I do like facts. They always temper emotion. Even mine. :)

manthou — February 27, 2012 at 5:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal

manthou — February 27, 2012 at 4:19 p.m.,

I've got no opinion on either candidate at this time. I know of McKenna's shenanigans with the health care bill. Inslee takes a beating on the Seattle political blogs for being something of a political nonentity - votes how the party says and can't answer basic questions. Whatever. Guess I'll have to study up!!

I'm failing to put 2 and 2 together with Rep Moeller's response to The Columbian's editorial the other day. The C says to not hold off and push $450 million to the next budget cycle, and Moeller is "screaming" that one day won't matter with education but it will mean everything to health care. From your response, I'm getting the impression the education deferral, while linked to the budget, is also to avoid conflict with the union until after the upcoming election. Is this perhaps an accurate assessment? I'm also interested in the insistence health care needs funded now. I noted yesterday the bill for that jumped $10 million this cycle - was somewhat curious why. Alexis Del Cid commented on the early morning news about Washington requiring insurance companies doing business in state to offer abortion services coverage. Hmmm... This sounds like something Rep Moeller would consider high priority. Perhaps there's a tie-in here with all of this fighting?

I'm glad you made your recent call for more local discussion - this stuff is so much more entertaining!

roger — February 27, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal

mrd: About NCLB: one issue educators have with it is that it ignores the reality of normal distribution, the bell-shaped curve. Not everyone is going to be able to move into the mid and right side of the curve, no matter how many resources are provided them.

That is like saying, all kids, if we provide them with enough top-level basketball coaching and skill-building, will earn a spot on an NBA team by the time they are 22.

Some of the goals are not attainable because they are not realistic.

This is an over-simplistic view of this mandate, but one that makes a lot of sense to many people.

manthou — February 27, 2012 at 5:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal

roger: if Inslee is taking a beating in progressive King County, he is in trouble. I will have to look at those blogs. I went to a house party fund raiser for him here in Vancouver a few months ago. He answered my questions well with the caveat that he is, in fact, a politician. He just does not enjoy the name recognition of McKenna and that is a true disadvantage.

I have to read Moeller's responses on the FB side. I am surprised he has time to peruse the forum with the rush in Olympia to get things done by March 8th.

manthou — February 27, 2012 at 5:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal

bell shaped curve explains a lot about why not everybody gets the As in school. Period.
As far as NCLB: let's face it, since when has teaching to the test actually worked? The thing was and is a farce and misses the main points. As you said, some goals are not attainable. Should we take a hard look at education? Absolutely. Seems we are falling behind every other civilized nation here, especially in science. But as long as we keep implementing new approaches nearly every week, with every state using a different approach, I don't think we will ever catch up. And as long as politicians get in the way of teaching, we are doomed.

luvithere — February 27, 2012 at 6 p.m. ( | suggest removal

luvithere: "Waiting for Superman" is an eye-opener documentary. One point that I remember best was the story of Michelle Rhee, the Director of Washington DC schools and her short-lived leadership there.

She came in and offered teachers this: Surrender your tenure, sumbit to a yearly evaluation based on performance and merit and student improvement and you can earn as much as $120,000 a year. Want to keep that tenure? You can, but your salary will top out at $60,000. She could not get the idea past the union and she left shortly thereafter.

Teaching to the test is not learning, I agree. And so many students, due to disabilities (think blind and visually impaired, for example), do not enjoy equal access to the tests the state administers. It is so much more than giving them accommodations and translating the items into Braille or large print. Many questions have inherent visual bias: if you have never had sight, how do you experience amd describe what a shadow is? What green looks like when you mix in red? How cloud shapes change in the sky?

I am grateful that Randy Dorn is asking for a waiver of this very flawed law. Our students are not doing well on the Math state tests in large part because they have not had a chance to learn the new curriculum

If citizens were asked to take the driver's exam, for instance, without having access to the state manual for study, there would be such a universal cry of protest, loud, long and rumbling.

manthou — February 27, 2012 at 7:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal

*Our students are not doing well on the Math state tests in large part because they have not had a chance to learn the new curriculum*

wow. i didn't know all that math i learned has changed.

where can *i* find this 'new math'...????

DeeLittle — February 27, 2012 at 8:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal

The state has adopted a new math curriculum. It certainly does differ in scope and sequence from what some of us dinosaurs learned.

State testing in math and science is now based on End of Course tests, administered in late May. This is new as of last Spring. Students will not be testing in an area until they have had a chance to learn the curriculum, therefore. It should be a fairer way of assessing high schoolers. Time will tell. Anecdotally, the students in my school have passed this first round of math tests in greater numbers than they did the WASL or HSPE Math.

Tests are only a snap shot of a moment in time and scores can be affected by so many variables. High-stakes testing is controversial, punitive to many students with disabilities and still one of the most hated mandates of NCLB.

OSPI's website explains it better than I:

manthou — February 27, 2012 at 9:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Hey, nailingit! Who is the genius in the video you posted at 8:47 pm? I first thought it was Santorum. :)

manthou — February 27, 2012 at 9:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal

manthou- Anonymous preacher! He articulates the the thought line of Santorum/evangelical movement with regards to public ed in a NUTshell. :) luvit's comments @ 6:00 really rung a bell. With individual states being in charge of curriculum, and controlling educational funding (at the forefront of all republican presidential candidates "public education" agenda), one can only imagine what a convoluted mess it would create.

nailingit — February 27, 2012 at 9:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Check out these Pat Robertson statements of 25 years ago. The conservative right has been vilifying Public Ed for decades. We are suffering some of the effects conservative guru's of the past and present have had and still have on society. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert. Jim and Tammy Baker, Dobson... and many more.

nailingit — February 27, 2012 at 9:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal

"I believe a huge downside to home schooling is the lack of peer interaction."

Well Nailingit, it all depends on what you are labeling as "peer interaction." Maybe a little study up by you on just what is involved with homeschooling would be in order. As a parent of three public-school educated students, I used to think the same thoughts but was recently shown otherwise in what is involved in homeschooling.

Now as far as peer interaction...

Tell that to the parents of the little 8-year-old girl in Bremerton...or to the parents of the students shot in Ohio...or to the student in Utah who was just arrested for plotting to bomb their high school...or the New Orleans Middle School student caught with a knife on the school bus...or the middle school student in Galveston, caught with a loaded pellet gun in their backpack...or the multiple Virginia middle school students who were found to be under the influence of alcohol...or the several Gresham middle school students who ingested marijuana-laced brownies.

Granted, there are good role models when it comes to peers in public schools...but it is sadly becoming a rarity, nailingit. I could continue with the list...but my friend, what I shared was just a smidgen of what is happening across Washington, Oregon and the rest of the nation.

...and a little idea of what resources are utilized:

goldenoldie — February 27, 2012 at 11:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Insomnia over a troubling public school issue that faces our team is bringing me to the computer at this ungodly hour. I kid you all not. Pathetic, I know.

goldenoldie: Home schooling options have improved over the years and many Clark County families are choosing this, often with the help of HomeLink in Battle Ground.

At the advice of a wise friend who recommended The Christian Science Monitor to me recently when I was complaining about the increasing loss of unbiased journalism sources today, I read this article:

School violence since Columbine has actually decreased dramatically.

In a cursory search of other major newspapers, I could not find a focus on that reassuring research fact in connection to any of the Chardon OH stories.

We often point to anecdotal and high-profile incidents to support our assertions about a trend or belief. It is good to temper our fears with facts (thank you, crazytrain). :) I am guilty as anyone else of resorting to this.

I know this is little solice to the families and students who have suffered school violence trauma. But something we are doing differently since Columbine is working as a whole.

Bullying awareness and prevention programs have been mandated by many states and that might have had an impact. Reporting suspicious behavior is another. We can always do more.

Just wanted to share that article before I try to drag my weary soul back to bed.

I think I found my new favorite print news source.

manthou — February 28, 2012 at 3:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Wow - So much on education.

I've always had a hard time with "teaching to the test" - but without the test, how else do you determine knowledge of a subject?

Might the local test (e.g., WASL) contribute to the problem? Does this cause teachers to follow a like curriculum, and in the long run detract from developing critical thinking? Using myself to explain - I went to school in Arlington VA 8-10 grade, and then to a town in Central PA 11-12 grade. Was a horrible student - barely passed my match and science courses (except Chem and Geometry - I had great teachers who made them interesting). Anyhow, when it came to tests like the PSAT, SAT, ACT, and a local science competitive test - smoked them. Teachers and fellow students were amazed. I truly think the reason was that I'd been taught to see the same subjects from two different perspectives because of the two school systems. When I got to a problem presented/defined differently than what I was taught, I was able to work my way through what they were asking and come up with (or guess) the correct answer.

And I'll go further later - I'm late for work.

Manthou - thanks again for this topic. Looks like several of us have opinions!

roger — February 28, 2012 at 6:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I took a look at your blog and could not see the problem of addiction, not to marijuana, but the opiates, which you also are advocating for. Did I just not see it?

normseubert — February 28, 2012 at 7:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal was insomnia last night for me as well. What you say about bullying awareness and prevention programs, I agree. The honest fact is...

Schools across the nation are struggling with budgets and not all schools have the capacity to provide such programs. Either that or it takes an issue such as the ones I have listed in my comment to nailingit before the districts and the parents take the situation serious. Some parents...actually, Many parents have elected to not put their children at risk in public schools...

Which provides the explanation for the transition for more children entering the education field at home rather than in public schools.

There's also another issue which I have noticed in recent months in the public schools and that is the child who has a gift...has the capability of excelling above their peers. One actual scenario...the young child of 3rd grade has reading comprehension skills of a young adult. Within minutes, their assignments or tests are completed and the child becomes bored. The teacher, in her frustration, must continue the attention to the students who have not completed their assignments or test...knowing all too well that one student had aced their scores. Thus, the gifted child has no challenge.

The district tried to include the 3rd grader in the 5th grade class but found the third grader's level of maturity does not equal that of the 5th graders, so the 3rd grader was reduced back to the level of their peers, only to be labeled a child at risk due to the boredom. No incentives to further their education...just waiting for the other students to catch up.

So Manthou, what would you do if you were the parent of that gifted child? I know what the parent is doing beyond the scope of the public school system, but I wanted to hear your philosophy regarding this issue.

goldenoldie — February 28, 2012 at 7:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal

normseubert — February 28, 2012 at 7:20 a.m.

I'm not an advocate for drug abuse of any type. I am, however, an advocate of treating the abuse as a social/health issue rather than a criminal act.

Back in 1914 when the Harrison Act was passed it was estimated 1.2% of the population had a drug problem. In 1970 (71?) when the Controlled Substance Act was passed that number was about the same. Today, same-same.

Every year we arrest about 1.6 million on drug charges. Per capita, we lock up more people than any other nation.

It's obvious our drug laws don't work. Exactly what the answer is, I dunno. I do know drug abuse can ruin a life, but a drug arrest can be much worse. A person can kick a habit. A drug charge will follow a person for life.

-Something- has got to change. To do the same thing time and again and expect a different result... that's insanity.

Drift — February 28, 2012 at 7:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal

goldenoldie- Thanks for the different perspective. Inordinate violence is always troublesome. I attended schools with high incidents of violence and look how I turned out!

I think media trumps up coverage of school violence as much as they can. It sells. Part of the big "culture war" the right is waging on America, but you have a point.

On the other hand kids that are isolated from the "all walks of life" people, to include the negative violent type, are exposed to them anyway after high school. Better to be seasoned than caught on your heels. But I understand your point.

It's the heavy religious indoctrination woven into education that Santorum and right wing leaders advocate that is so destructive. People that paid attention to conservative windbags (I'm still on my first cup of jo, don't wake Matt up anybody) like Swaggert and Robertson, who not only demonized gays and sex in general (Except when Swaggert went to the produce depot) but encouraged a religious elitist isolationism with their children, the bully's of yesteryear, are at the heart of the Bagger movement, and voted in the intolerant bagger politicians we see today. Which made it not only caused destruction=1000 X 911, but 1000 X 911 X 999. In my most humble, and low-caffeinated opinion.

nailingit — February 28, 2012 at 7:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Drift what up? I haven't read it yet, but will give a review when I do. I am so damn undisciplined!

I haven't brushed up on stats for awhile, but the money spent imprisoning people for drug use, possession and sales are astronomical. If we just took a portion of it and spent it properly educating people about drug usage and consequences to health, channeled another portion into building/funding rehab centers with good staffing and latest resources, it would not only help the multitude of people that have to wait months to get into a program, it would create thousands of jobs and lower incidents of crime in our communities.

We are treating a health concern with abandonment and incarceration. It just ain't right.

nailingit — February 28, 2012 at 8:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Hap'nin, Nail?

Here's one example showing the results of treating drug abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal act. The S.A. article is several years old, but I'm thinking you'll get the Drift.

I could also point to Switzerland, Great Britain, Spain... The thing is, these types of programs prove treating abuse as a health and welfare issue rather than a crime offer better results for those societies. Don't take my word, take a look.

And now I see the City Council is back on the pipe wagon. Rather than pass new laws, what'a'ya think about educating children on the risks of drug abuse? I mean -true- education. Not lies and deceit. Those haven't worked either.

Drift — February 28, 2012 at 8:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Obama knocking it out of the park in speech- CNN/MSNBC

nailingit — February 28, 2012 at 8:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal

wall st lobbyists are working and a wall st "trade group"-lobbyists-have filed a suit. It seems they don't like pending legislation limiting the amounts of energy futures speculators can buy. Most everyone agrees this practice contributes to higher prices, with the exception of the trade group's studies. Be interesting to see if the politicians hold up on this one or are just doing a little speculating of their own in an attempt to get more $$$$ out of the lobbyists.

mrd — February 28, 2012 at 9:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Drift_ Most excellent article. Legalization has decreased drug related deaths by a third and HIV cases close to 2/3 during a 5 year period!!! That alone...

This link to another ScientificAmerican article is related a bit to my post with goldenoldie. If I wouldn't have smoked ciggs I would have had a leg up!

When I was in middle school they made us watch "educational" drug video's. It was before Beta/VHS, most likely reel to reel! Many of us were already there with usage, and many of us immersed ourselves in the new found imaginative/creative freedom that tapping avenues of unused brain matter provides. The videos by and large displayed a ridiculous overreach with truth, and propagated lies concerning drug usage. It was the same years later with the dare programs my kids were forced to sit through. Only worse, taught by a cop propagating absurd generalities focused on law enforcement and penalties. I've read stats that show the dare program to escalate drug use rather than decrease it.

Kids aren't stupid. I remember thinking if they are that wrong with the dope we were using, what else are they lying about?

Truth is paramount with education. Not scare tactics and misinformation.

Yellow journalism with a badge and a billy club.

nailingit — February 28, 2012 at 9:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal

manthou- *Bullying awareness and prevention programs have been mandated by many states and that might have had an impact. Reporting suspicious behavior is another. We can always do more.*

Part of the religious right wing agenda is to gut or do away with laws that get in the way of bullying. Many feel their kids have a right to judge gay kids and "speak" face to face/book with them concerning their "immoral" hell entrenching acts.

nailingit — February 28, 2012 at 9:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal

It's an uphill battle to take back the House, almost impossible to retain the Senate given the number of seats to defend, leaving us a few months away from the possibility of a Republican controlled federal government. Don't mean to bang the drums too loud but...more than scary.

On Public Ed. It's important to understand the thought and motives of those who lead our country. Destroying Public Education and doing away with separation of church and state is nothing new in in the conservative movement. It is a Republican's dream.

Republican Tea Party Presidential Candidate Michele Bachman admitting to accepting monies from from the Alliance for Separation of School and State, a group pledged to ending public education in America.

nailingit — February 28, 2012 at 10:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Just to add it's from 6 years ago. The age speaks somewhat to how pervasive and entrenched demonizing public ed is within the movement.

nailingit — February 28, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Nailingit @ 7:48 am

I couldn't agree more with you that the media hypes the issues in the schools, just as they do the other issues at hand including slanting voters to believe what each media outlet wants you to believe. I can't agree with your philosophy regarding children being "isolated from all walks of life." The parents don't keep the children locked up at home away from the grim and violent world we live in. In fact, the approach taught by the parents is to ensure that the children see the reasoning behind the behaviors. Truth always prevails. Also, the children are allowed time to mingle with others in sports, music, science projects, visits to the library or museums and so on and so forth. They are still exposed to the negative elements of society as soon as they walk out that front door with their parents...and it's all in how the parents approach the issues we face as the issues arise.

To say the children are isolated from the down side of society isn't a correct assumption. You think they don't have television or internet??? They see. They hear and they need to be educated on the reasoning behind the acts of criminal behavior even if there's no reasoning behind the violence. Of course, I speak of the reasoning of why human behavior is displayed with such anger and frustration...speaking in terms the child would comprehend. Washington State, home schooled children also attend part-time classes in the public schools when applicable. You ought to go back to that link I shared and do a little reading.

Anyhow, children are curious. Would you...a result of public education...take your child who is in the public school system...who might have experienced bullying by another student...and not educate them on why that student or that group of students did what they did???

goldenoldie — February 28, 2012 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal

"""I attended schools with high incidents of violence and look how I turned out!"""

Honestly, Nailingit...the only visualization I have of you is that you have grasped the concept of writing and reading comprehension and that you have done your homework in studying human behavior and social skills. I must add that you do have quite a wide array of interests in which to share discussion and are quite opinionated...not afraid to speak your mind (as I admit I am as well). I cannot say I attribute these skills solely to the public school system. I will give credit where credit is due and I believe that begins with those who created you in the first place.

goldenoldie — February 28, 2012 at 1:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal

this is starting to get to me....

1. afganistan's trying to put our soldiers ON TRIAL
2. the wa-dem's think the school budget's finished by simply delaying paying a bill
3. the r's presidential race has turned into an anything-goes death match
4. we're refusing to support our only real ally in the mid-east, isreal, who wants to end a madman's ability to build nukes while tacitly supporting HIM by doing/saying nothing

my surroundings are strange and unfamiliar i've fallen into a time hole and gone back to the 1939's. i've read this book, and know how it turns out and i don't want to go through it.

maybe i've overdosed on news and need a little ... cloistered time....

DeeLittle — February 28, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal

nailingit, goldenoldie,

I went to Benson Polytechnic about a hundred years ago and it was an all boys school. There were NO fights and NO violence allowed. You couldn't even run in the halls. Everyone wore clean, well fitting clothes, your hair was neat and trimmed, you said yes Sir and no Sir, you respected your elders and if you were on a bus, you gave up your seat for someone who needed it. I know this seems foreign to many these days but that was the rule or you were out of there. It was a school the people had to apply to and get recommendations from their teachers to attend. They also taught you something.

hawkeye — February 28, 2012 at 2:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal

...and yeah, i'm beginning to believe that clinging to my guns and butter ain't such a bad idea....

DeeLittle — February 28, 2012 at 2:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Guns and butter???

goldenoldie — February 28, 2012 at 2:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Hawkeye, I remember those days...not exactly a hundred years ago but it just seems that way. The school district I attended, the principal actually had control of the students. His son, thinking he had instant immunity from reprimand, found out the hard way that Daddy won't give you favors just because he's the principal. Needless to say...any troubles with students happened away from school grounds.

My question will always be....

where were the parents?

goldenoldie — February 28, 2012 at 2:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


your post actually gave me a lot of comfort: remembering when things actually made sense and 'society' wasn't a euphemism for animal pack.

i went to public school, but catholic school on saturdays. i felt safer and learned more on saturday.

knowing there is a system of authority that keeps order frees a child to focus on learning, and not on their physical safety.

when did we decide that freedom could only be real if we could do whatever we wanted, whenever the idea occurred and wherever we wanted to? think that's too broad...? just look south.

DeeLittle — February 28, 2012 at 2:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Dee, that happened the same day "they" decided that correcting a child was child abuse.

***This just in***

Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, Will Not Seek Re-election

WASHINGTON – In a stunning upheaval in the race to control the Senate, Senator Olympia Snowe, a three-term Republican from Maine, said Tuesday she would not run for re-election, citing excessive partisanship in the Senate.

hawkeye — February 28, 2012 at 3:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Palin aide fined $11,000 for releasing email the state of Alaska didn't want seen.

"Are they private emails belonging to the owner, or are they official state documents subject to public records requests? The State of Alaska, apparently, feels they should have it both ways – private correspondence mandated to be kept secret by the government, or official government documents that you don’t get to see – depending on how you look at it.

These emails, which corroborate first hand accounts, contain critical information, solidifying evidence that **Palin knowingly broke campaign finance law by coordinating with the Republican Governor’s Association, then headed by current GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.** They revealed the extreme measures to which the Pain administration went to exact revenge for perceived personal slights by private citizens, political enemies, and also by Palin’s former brother-in-law Mike Wooten in what became the scandal known as “Troopergate.”

Perhaps Palin/Romney in a brokered convention? I hope so. I'd hate to see this show end early.

mrd — February 28, 2012 at 4:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Here's an item overlooked in previous posts - the VA State Senate has modified their abortion bill and now require an external ultrasound within 24 hours of the abortion. The reason given is to determine the age of the fetus - apparently for the woman having the abortion to be able to make a "fully informed decision."

Whatever. But the state Dems are still in an uproar. One quote that caught my attention.

"We have taken out the state required rape from the bill, but the way it is now is still an assault because it's an unwanted touching," Sen. Janet Howell (D) told HuffPost on Monday, "and the woman is being coerced to have that happen in order to exercise her constitutional right to an abortion."

OK, Senator - nice one-sided interpretation of Roe v. Wade. Taken verbatim from Wikipedia - "The Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the woman's health. Saying that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the woman's current trimester of pregnancy."

There have been numerous modifications on this, such as tying to the viability of the fetus and other things. But no decision has ruled that the state has no say.

I'm sure we'll hear more on this.

roger — February 28, 2012 at 4:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Concerning WA State's abortion insurance legislation - this is craziness.

The bill that has passed Washington's House and is working its way through the Senate would make the state the first to require all health insurance plans under its jurisdiction — except those claiming a conscience-based exemption — to include abortion coverage.

"Washington state has historically been in the forefront for women's reproductive rights," said Rep. Eileen Cody, D-West Seattle, who sponsored the measure. "We're just trying to maintain the status quo." Cody and other abortion-rights advocates say the bill is necessary because of the uncertain status of abortion coverage under the federal Affordable Care Act, the implementation of which is a work in progress.

Opponents note that "The state of Washington, or any state for that matter, that receives federal funds is prohibited from mandating that insurance plans cover abortion." A stated concern is that the state will forfeit access to federal health care money (about $6 billion) by making this requirement.

The response is that the bill has a self-destruct clause nullifying it in the event it were found to conflict with federal law.

All of this is tied to the Affordable Health Care Act, which is still being hashed out and details on exactly what will or won't be covered not finalized until 2017.

So, I gather from all of this that WA State, in an attempt to force the discussion of federal dollars being spent on abortion coverage (currently prohibited), is going to put a lot of requirements on the insurance companies that they can control (whoever that may be). Even though this may all get tossed out in a couple of years. One thing I am quite certain of - the premiums will go up, and stay up.

roger — February 28, 2012 at 5:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal

**Guns and butter???

dem smear of repubs from a few elections ago:

[> The Bush administration is currently
> engaged in an audacious -- some would
> say reckless -- experiment to disprove
> this theory. To judge by his actions,
> President Bush's response to the
> question ''Guns or butter?'' is:
> ''Thanks, I'll take both.'' This, in
> short, is the guns and butter
> presidency.][1]


DeeLittle — February 28, 2012 at 5:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal

The Washington Post had a comment about the Affordable Care Act that caught my attention.

In order to ensure no federal funds get spent on abortion, the Affordable Care Act set up special accounting rules for insurance plans that cover the procedure and receive federal insurance subsidies.

Here’s how it works: Under the Affordable Care Act, an insurer will have to collect two payments from every enrollee. One would go to the general fund, the other to a fund exclusively covering abortion. Every enrollee - male, female, regardless of whether they wanted an abortion - will have to pay into both funds, the idea there being that the separate payment is not a rider but a standard part of premiums that must be paid separately.

Something tells me they will have a hard time enacting, much less enforcing this.

National Health Care is an idea whose time has come. Silly crap like this will sink it. There are instances where abortion makes sense, and I have no problem supporting it. But when abortion is simply per an individual's choice, it is no different that plastic surgery or any other elective procedure. And I'll be damned if I'll pay for it.

roger — February 28, 2012 at 5:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Grandpa and Grandma may not worry about abortion, other things may be more pressing.

soapbox4u — February 28, 2012 at 6:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal

What's next for the state of Washington? With the abortion bill, if it passes, along with legalizing pot and letting homosexuals get married, every deadbeat, pervert and loser in the country will move into the state. Not a place where decent people will want to live and the exodus will begin. Idaho is looking better every day. Of course, that doesn't take much when compared to Washington or Oregon.

cranky — February 28, 2012 at 6:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Romney Wins Arizona; Locked in Tight Race in Michigan

Mitt Romney has won the Republican presidential primary in Arizona, based on preliminary exit polling, but is locked in a tight battle with Rick Santorum in Michigan, a crucial electoral battleground where Mr. Romney’s hometown advantage has all but evaporated.

Mr. Romney’s victory in Arizona will earn him 29 delegates, extending the lead he already enjoys over his rivals. The win comes after his rivals largely conceded that Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, would take the border state.

But Michigan has been a much tougher challenge for Mr. Romney, who was raised in the state and whose father served as the state’s governor. Exit polls and early returns showed Mr. Santorum mounting a fierce challenge to Mr. Romney in a state that was not expected to be close just weeks ago.

hawkeye — February 28, 2012 at 7:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal

cranky — February 28, 2012 at 6:44 p.m

I'm thinking Nevada, tax-wise.

hawkeye — February 28, 2012 at 7:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal

goldenoldie @ 7:24 am: Sorry it has taken me all day and then some to reply to your thoughtful question.

What can be done about a bright, talented and gifted student who is not being challenged in a full and diverse classroom?

My answer is simple and involves two things:

1. Tenacious parent advocacy
2. Differentiated instruction by an exceptional teacher

What is differentiated instruction? Here is a nutshell version from Wiki:

Differentiated instruction is:

*Proactive, meaning that the teacher plans and uses a variety of ways to teach learning.

*A combination of whole group, small group, and individual instruction.

*Qualitative, meaning quality work over quantity work.

*Created through assessment (to evaluate where each child is and how/if they are making progress).

*Uses multiple approaches to accommodate multiple intelligences.

*Student centered, meaning that lessons are engaging, relevant, interesting, and active.


*Organized and planned

Strong and skilled teachers can do this. Weak teachers present material at one level only, usually the mid range, leaving the far left and right ends of the bell shaped curve left to their own little devices.

Most schools should have programs for the highly capable students, as well. The state offers some guidance:

manthou — February 28, 2012 at 7:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal

cranky @ 6:44 PM: I am actually looking forward to folks moving here who are fed up with repressive and misogynistic laws in other states. I'll place my bet that they will add a great deal of positive energy and good ideas, not to mention increasing the tax base. :)

I truly believe, as you so aptly threaten, that the door will swing both ways and some folks will want to leave Washington. Hope you decide to stay, though. We need a wide range of ideas and opinions to keep each other in line.

manthou — February 28, 2012 at 7:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Romney Wins Michigan Primary

Mitt Romney has narrowly won the Republican presidential primary in Michigan, deflecting a powerful challenge from Rick Santorum and boosting his hopes of becoming the Republican nominee.

Only weeks ago, Mr. Romney had viewed his home state of Michigan as a firewall against his rivals, an important battleground state where his background and his message would carry the day.

That changed dramatically in the wake of victories by Mr. Santorum in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota earlier this month. Within days, Mr. Santorum surged to a double-digit lead in Michigan.

hawkeye — February 28, 2012 at 8:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal

goldenoldie- Thank you for your thoughtful posts! I want the best for my kids and don't begrudge anyone for same. If parents feel homeschooling best suits their kids, more power to them. I begrudge those that demonize public education as Santorum, Gingrich and many do. Overall, with all that goes with it, America's Public Education system not only does a great job, but represents what America used to be and is about. Diversity. Tolerance. Acceptance. Science (oh man, I'm describing Holland..)Hard work etc. School Teachers are some of the most dedicated, caring and hard working people I've ever known. I've been acquainted with many both professionally and personally.

My schools were rough, but we had great teachers, great facilities and lots of money from both public and private sectors. But money couldn't buy love for forced minority busing.

A south all it's own, but Southwest! Ahhh..those were the days!

*To say the children are isolated from the down side of society isn't a correct assumption. You think they don't have television or internet??? They see. They hear and they need to be educated on the reasoning behind the acts of criminal behavior even if there's no reasoning behind the violence.*

Yes & no. Gaining life experience from living it, rather than through media or like-minded instructors, is much more valuable in the real world. imo. Demographics & crime rate aside.

nailingit — February 28, 2012 at 9:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal

soapbox- Thanks for the link. It's good to know the Fed's doing their job. Great bust!!!

nailingit — February 28, 2012 at 9:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal

crank- "...the exodus..." Philippines?

nailingit — February 28, 2012 at 9:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal

hawk @ 3:17- The best political news of the day! :))))) :)))))

nailingit — February 28, 2012 at 9:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal

hawk @ 2:32- Where was the smoking area located? :)

nailingit — February 28, 2012 at 9:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Manthou, thanks for your explanation...and right to the point. Now the problem can parents as individuals be assured the teacher chosen for their student by the school district has their best interests at heart??? With schools capped out, there isn't much room for students to change teachers these days. I honestly believe this is a push for the districts to reduce student enrollment by parents who feel they have no other choice other than to home school their child.

goldenoldie — February 29, 2012 at 6:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Roger @ 5:06 am:

As the famous redneck would say....

HEEERE'S yer sign!!!

Guess he'll make it on the next edition of Darwin Awards.

goldenoldie — February 29, 2012 at 6:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Nailingit @ 9:18 pm

You also might add the little quip I said before the quote you shared which states

"The parents don't keep the children locked up at home away from the grim and violent world we live in. In fact, the approach taught by the parents is to ensure that the children see the reasoning behind the behaviors. Truth always prevails. Also, the children are allowed time to mingle with others in sports, music, science projects, visits to the library or museums and so on and so forth. They are still exposed to the negative elements of society as soon as they walk out that front door with their parents...and it's all in how the parents approach the issues we face as the issues arise."

Exposure to the media is only part of the discussion.

goldenoldie — February 29, 2012 at 6:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Nice snow shower at my place this morning. It gave us a nice dusting in the garden and lawn. I love it when the roads aren't affected.

A Perfect Snow!

goldenoldie — February 29, 2012 at 6:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Good News! ..... caveat aside.

**Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans**

The new rules -- which deal with Section 1022 of the law -- are aimed at soothing many of their gravest concerns, an administration official said. Those concerns are led by the possibility that a law that grants the president authority to jail Americans without trial in Guantanamo Bay based on secret evidence could easily be abused.

"It is important to recognize that the scope of the new law is limited," says a fact sheet released by the White House, focusing on that worry. "Section 1022 does not apply to U.S. citizens, and the President has decided to waive its application to lawful permanent residents arrested in the United States."

It also addresses a concern of the White House and advocates of civil law enforcement, insisting that even if a suspect is transfered to the military, the person can be shifted back if the administration believes it is important for national security.

"An individual required to be held in military custody under Section 1022 may be returned to law enforcement custody for criminal trial," the White House summary says. "In addition, Section 1022 does not change the FBI’s authorities to respond to terrorism threats and these *procedures do not apply to any individuals held in the custody of the Department of Defense,* state and local law enforcement agencies acting under their authorities, or a foreign government."

nailingit — February 29, 2012 at 7:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal

***Even more good news***

North Korea Agrees to Stop Nuclear Tests and Uranium Enrichment at Main Facility, U.S. Says

North Korea has agreed to stop long-range missile launches, nuclear tests and uranium enrichment at its main facility, and the United States has agreed to a food aid package for North Korea, the State Department announced on Wednesday.

hawkeye — February 29, 2012 at 8:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal

WASHINGTON — Mortgage giant Fannie Mae said Wednesday that it lost money in its fourth quarter and is asking the federal government for $4.57 billion in aid to cover its deficit.

Washington-based Fannie said it lost $2.41 billion in the October-December quarter, stung by declining home prices. Revenue was $4.53 billion.

The government rescued Fannie and sibling company Freddie Mac in September 2008 to cover their losses on soured mortgage loans. Since then, a federal regulator — the Federal Housing Finance Agency — has controlled their financial decisions.

Taxpayers have spent more than $150 billion to prop up Fannie and Freddie, the most expensive bailout of the 2008 financial crisis. The government estimates that figure could top $259 billion to support the companies through 2014 after subtracting dividend payments.

Fannie has received more than $116 billion so far from the Treasury Department, the most expensive bailout of a single company.

Fannie officials say losses have increased in recent quarters for two reasons: Some homeowners are paying less interest after refinancing at historically low mortgage rates; others are defaulting on their mortgages.

ELISI — February 29, 2012 at 8:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal

hawkeye- I wonder how much $$$ we spent paying them off. Or/and if this is signaling the start of a friendlier relationship with Kim Jung's kid. Great news regardless!

nailingit — February 29, 2012 at 8:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal

nailingit, I just read, "In return, the United States will "move forward with our proposed package of 240,000 metric tons of nutritional assistance along with the intensive monitoring required for the delivery of such assistance,"

hawkeye — February 29, 2012 at 9:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"Fannie officials say losses have increased in recent quarters for two reasons: Some homeowners are paying less interest after refinancing at historically low mortgage rates; others are defaulting on their mortgages."

And this was caused by the mortgage companies like Countrywide (BofA) that sold junk mortgages to Fannie & Freddie, saying they were perfectly fine. This way the companies got their money and the government took it in the shorts.

hawkeye — February 29, 2012 at 9:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal

nailingit, this is Kim Jung Un's way of making his country stronger by feeding them better and then starting up his nukes again after everyone is strong again. It's all a ploy to get them healthy. However it does get us back into the country for inspections. Maybe we can put nano trackers in the food and figure out how to control their brains from here.

hawkeye — February 29, 2012 at 9:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Agreed. Did you hear that B of A lost their headquarters due to foreclosure about a month ago?

ELISI — February 29, 2012 at 9:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Davy Jones, Age 66...from the musical group, the Monkees passed away from a heart attack this morning.

goldenoldie — February 29, 2012 at 10:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal

goldenoldie — February 29, 2012 at 10:20 a.m

That's too bad. He was the ONE with the talent. I always enjoyed their TV show, it was stupid but funny.

hawkeye — February 29, 2012 at 10:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal

A congressional candidate running as a Republican in the upcoming Illinois primary says the “Holocaust never happened.”

Arthur Jones, 64, a Lyons, IL, insurance salesman who organizes family-friendly, neo-Nazi events around Adolf Hitler’s birthday, hopes to be the Republican candidate chosen to run against Democratic Congressman Dan Lipinski in Illinois’ 3rd Congressional District.

“As far as I’m concerned, the Holocaust is nothing more than an international extortion racket by the Jews,” Jones said. “It’s the blackest lie in history. Millions of dollars are being made by Jews telling this tale of woe and misfortune in books, movies, plays and TV.

"The more survivors, the more lies that are told."

*I'm glad republicans are moving towards the center. ;))*

nailingit — February 29, 2012 at 10:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal

More good news for the Senate!

**Bob Kerrey Announces Run For Nebraska Senate Seat**

nailingit — February 29, 2012 at 12:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal

*And this was caused by the mortgage companies like Countrywide (BofA) that sold junk mortgages to Fannie & Freddie, saying they were perfectly fine. This way the companies got their money and the government took it in the shorts.*

Fannie & Freddie are as complicit in this mess as any bank or federal official that was asleep at the switch. If someone had not been paid off, stupid, or careless-whatever-this mess probably could have been averted.

Fannie was to back mortgages of known origination-period. As they began backing the credit default swaps and derivatives, they had no idea where these loans originated nor what underwriting standards were used.

Even worse, Fannie and the other GSEs (government sponsored enterprises) began losing market share to private loan securitizers. But the huge difference was the government (taxpayers) backed the GSEs while the private ones were not backed. But no problem, bundle 'em up and dump it off to the GSEs. At this point, someone should have pulled the plug. But, for some inexplicable reason, they took them and all of the ensuing risk, and there was plenty of it. As long as the private entities weren't holding the bag when the music stopped, they were OK.

The fact that all this mess hasn't warranted a major investigation thru the Congress and even the White House amazes me. It's as though no one wants to see how totally corrupt and inept these folks are.

mrd — February 29, 2012 at 12:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal

mrd, thanks. Couldn't have said it better.

hawkeye — February 29, 2012 at 3:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal

as i understand it (could be wrong, of course), the lenders *made* those loans b/cause fannie & freddie ... let's just call it as it is; barney frank lowered the qualifications for loans to such a low benchmark that people who couldn't make payments qualified. and the loans were made because frank guaranteed them with the full force & credit of the united states -- our tax monies.

DeeLittle — February 29, 2012 at 4:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal

I just heard the Housing Sec-forgot his name-talking about the $26B judgement against the banks for violating the foreclosure process. I'm not sure it's punitive enough, two grand to some folks that lost their homes, but, oh well. It was the first step, however, Obama's plan includes making these guys write down mortgages that are underwater (a little "shared sacrifice" after all), and programs to help folks struggling stay in their homes. Ok, I was premature, maybe the White House isn't up to their eyeballs in this mess, but some members of Congress and various regulatory agencies must be. There's way, way too much smoke not to be somewhat of a fire.
I'd think Obama's people would be screaming from the rooftops about this, this action goes to the heart of taking on the folks in Romney's circle, not such a good place to be anymore,at least politically. But as Citizens United has raised the ante for political office, the big boys will probably prevail at the end of the day. Too bad...

mrd — February 29, 2012 at 4:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal

The people that started all this crap had no idea that the bubble would pop and it would all fall apart. They started loaning money to people who couldn't pay and giving rates and terms that were totally unreal. I don't know who started this garbage, I don't think we'll ever know who actually started it but it seems to me that it became a get rich quick scheme and NOBODY had a conscience.

hawkeye — February 29, 2012 at 6:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Another moderate, collegial Republican is retiring from the Senate. Olympia Snow is tired of the gridlock and partisanship.

I really think this is significant news, something that indicates a trend, I fear.

Centrist Republicans are either losing the election or refusing to subject themselves to the bickering.

Some trivia, goldie: She is the first Greek-American woman to serve in the House and Senate.

manthou — February 29, 2012 at 6:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal

**Rush Limbaugh Calls Female Contraception Expert a ‘Slut’ (VIDEO)**

nailingit — February 29, 2012 at 7:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal

manthou- Republicans also lost one of two Republican pro-choice women, and one of only five Republican women in the Senate.

With the exception of senior white bigoted old men, the Republican Party has isolated just about every voting block one can think of.

Except for Pediatricians and NASCAR fans.

nailingit — February 29, 2012 at 8:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Oh, excellent point you added about Olympia Snowe at 8:17 PM, nailingit!

This news of her leaving really hit me hard and made me quite morose tonight. She started out in the House in 1978! That's how loooooooong she has served the public. And she has done so with integrity and dedication and a desire to find common ground. She served as a role model.

Women voters are marginalized this year like no other time I can remember in my adult life. How arrogant can some of these men be in thinking they can vomit out such repressive laws that send us back to the 1950s? Like we are not going to notice that? Like we are going to nod our foggy little heads in subservient agreement? Like hell. I can tell you this is a uniting force for Republican and Democratic women.

I swear I feel like I have fallen into a Quantum alternative and parallel reality.

Olympia Snowe's waving the white flag is a loss for us all.

manthou — February 29, 2012 at 8:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal

*I swear I feel like I have fallen into a Quantum alternative and parallel reality*

Weird, isn't it? The more these extremists speak against Federal government while enacting laws that subvert our constitution, the more they remind us of how important having a federal government is!

They are counterproductive at every level!

Here's some great insight from the future Senator of Massachusetts.

nailingit — February 29, 2012 at 9:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal

nailingit — February 29, 2012 at 7:45 p.m.

Ah, reminds me of the early years on SNL. "Jane, you ignorant slut".

Rush is getting worse, I get angry just hearing his voice.

hawkeye — March 1, 2012 at 7:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Rush is getting worse, I get angry just hearing his voice.

hawkeye — March 1, 2012 at 7:23 a.m

Not being a smart... but why do you even listen to that over weight nutball?

ELISI — March 1, 2012 at 7:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 7:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal

...and Republicans accuse Dems of playing the race card. Not too many days pass that we don't read about ANOTHER incident involving racist GOP leadership messaging. Just sad, and speaks volumes.

Republicans rant about liberal Federal Judges being "activist radicals". What a joke.

Judge Richard Cebull admits to anti-Obama email

The chief federal judge of Montana on Wednesday admitted to sending a racially charged email about President Barack Obama that seems to compare African-Americans to dogs, but denied circulating the note because it was racist, saying he only did it because it was “anti-Obama.”

Read more:

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 8:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 8:03 a.m.

And this guy is a JUDGE??? What a maroon! I thought they were supposed to be impartial.

hawkeye — March 1, 2012 at 8:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 7:44 a.m


Lew will be crushed.

They said it was from "natural causes", I wonder what that means these days. What is natural about dieing at 43?

hawkeye — March 1, 2012 at 8:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal

hawkeye- I don't want to speak ill of the dead just in case this rabble rouser tries to infect the spiritual realm of liberal and independent thinking with 'death eaters'. I don't want to, but to quote Jagger, "you can't always get what you want". A few weeks back I posted a video of Breitbart picking a fight with Occupy protesters. He was more than over the top and seemed disoriented.

He kinda reminded me of me. :) (self-deprecating humor lives!) Several years ago a guy the same age dropped dead in the bowling lane next to me during warm ups. League play stopped for about an hour while paramedics tried to revive and then transport him.

When it's time to go, it's time to go. No one knew him that well as his name was drawn from a subbing pool. Sometimes a flawed heart, birth defect, bodies that were used abused and not taken care of...I shot my *** off that night with a high 600 series. I had a bit more zest for life after warm ups. I'll find that Breitbart video

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 9:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal

This is how I will remember him. He spread his brand of hate and bigotry through many channels.

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 9:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal

I find that video humorous and frustrating at the same time. Although he seems agitated and belligerent, he has as much right to be there as much as the protesters do. The fact that he was escorted away ( by it looks like the Police)is a commentary on society as much as it is a commentary on him. I was not a fan of his by any means but he had the right to protest the protesters as well.

hawkeye — March 1, 2012 at 10:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal

hawkeye- He had the right I agree. It's the over the top vitriolic hate he's spewing. I'm surprised his head didn't spin around. Once again the long arm of the law intervenes to prohibit free speech. In the end they probably saved Breitbart from himself. This was over the top even for him. A publicity hound wanting more, or just another ring wing messaging profiteer that had one too many. Or both.

God rest his soul.

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 11:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal

crazytrain- Thanks for your input!

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 11:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal

nailingit, news!

In a win for Democrats, the Senate voted Thursday to table an amendment permitting employers and insurers to opt out of provisions in President Obama's health care proposal on moral or religious grounds.

The Senate voted 51-48 to kill the amendment, which was offered by Senate Republican Minority Leader Roy Blunt of Missouri as an add-on to the transportation funding bill. Blunt and fellow Republicans cast the amendment as a fight to protect First Amendment rights (which include the freedom of religion.)

hawkeye — March 1, 2012 at 11:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Good news hawkeye!

crazytrain_ Thanks for your understanding!

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 11:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal

hawkeye- The Huff has a classic headline with regards to this...


nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 11:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal

No really crAzy, check it out!

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 11:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Mang, I don't like getting into these types of conversations..., but--

I don't see the Senate smoking Blunt as a first amendment issue.

If I decide to start a health insurance outfit for Pagans only, well that's fine and dandy. That's my business model, right? Now let's say I'm insuring 3/4 of the Pagans in the country and an analysis of the claims reveal those darn Wiccans are getting into my bottom line. So I decide that whole pantheism thing... well, I've a problem with that. I kick the Wiccans to the curb. I can't abide by that pantheism thing. Nope.

Allowing insurance companies to make decisions based upon religious morality is like calling a corporation a person. Uh, wait a minute... oops. I guess I'm not helping my case?

Drift — March 1, 2012 at 12:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal

crazytrain, explain to me how they destroyed the "freedom of religion"? Are they forcing people to take birth control pills? Are they forcing religion on people? What ?

hawkeye — March 1, 2012 at 12:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal

if my religion says abortion is the murder of a baby, and the government tells me i must buy insurance that pays for it, the government has just destroyed my *FREEDOM of religion*.

DeeLittle — March 1, 2012 at 1:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal

The law that Obama is mandating commands some religious institutions to do what their religious commands tell them not to. That is a violation of religious freedom.

Woosker — March 1, 2012 at 2:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Woosker, religious institutions or insurance companies?

Dee, say I believe the taking of a human life, for any reason, is against my religious beliefs. Does that make me exempt from paying federal income tax? You know a portion of that goes to having people killed. I'm not talking assassination, I'm speaking of "the theater of operations."

The parents who've let their children languish and die because prayer would save them... no harm no foul? Freedom of religion, right?

Oh, geez. I should stop before I get in clear to my knickers. These types of disussions I've no place in.

Drift — March 1, 2012 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Hi Woosker! The religious freedom argument is a red herring. Conservative republican states led by conservative Republican Governors legislated/enacted laws requiring the same thing. i.e. Huckleberry in Iowa and Catholic Gov in Arizona. Just two examples of many.

Think this through. Employers/Corporations deciding what they will cover based on "religious beliefs" and "moral objections". Another words they can deny anyone for anything with a little creativity.

All of a sudden this is an issue. Watch the vid @ 8:33 yesterday.

This is all about subverting "Obamacare" and suppressing women's rights.

Like always!

Drift- *These types of disussions I've no place in*. Your voice always has a place in the basement!

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 3:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Woosker, religious institutions involved in medical care? Would you care to elaborate? School me.

Drift — March 1, 2012 at 3:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


your example is defective. the federal income tax supports so many things it's impossible to isolate that portion that funds your example.

this attack on religion is DIRECT and BLATANT. it's a direct demand that religion fund something that is against their belief system, in effect *making them* committ a sin against their God.

DeeLittle — March 1, 2012 at 3:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal

as for parents who refuse medical care, they have a clear duty to protect their children. the issue means the difference between life and death, and, while less clear than the prior one, i can still support a system that comes down on the side of life.

DeeLittle — March 1, 2012 at 3:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal

So then Dee, are you stating that medical care combined with religion are in conflict? Should different religions that care to engage in medical care do so with the knowledge that in order to help a bunch of folks, there might be a conflict or two with care for a few.

Should the Jehovah Witness church decide to open a hospital would it be ludicrous if blood transfusions were forbidden?

For *you*, it's not about "medical care" at all is it?

Humbly submitted.

I'm off to pitch shoes. I'll catch up later.

Drift — March 1, 2012 at 4:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Hi Nailingit! Drift - The Health care law mandates that employer group health plans cover all FDA contraceptive methods, including contraception, sterilization procedures, and emergency contraception “morning-after” pills.

The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church commands that “human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception,” and the papal encyclical on human life that sets forth the Church’s beliefs regarding life prohibits any direct interruption of the life process that has already begun, sterilization and any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse that is specifically intended to prevent procreation.

This healthcare mandate to a Catholic institution to provide health insurance coverage for its employees that covers contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization clashes directly with the Church’s mandate based on religious belief that the institution is not allowed to do.

I am not Catholic and I do not share these beliefs. However, I stand with the Catholic church's right to not be forced by the federal government to violate the church's religious practices. Individuals are free to seek contraception but the church as an religious institution should never be forced by the government to go against these beliefs.

Woosker — March 1, 2012 at 4:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal

It should be noted the overwhelming majority of women professing to be catholic used contraceptives at some point in their fertile years. 98% was the number I saw being batted around which makes me think a lot of these women did.

Also, many employees of these religiously affiliated groups may not follow the same religion as their employer, so may not give two hoots what their employer's think.

My biggest objection to the Blunt amendment is, as Nailingit mentions, are the broad and vague reasons an employer could deny coverage.

The fact this thing came down, as always with this bunch, to a party-line vote makes me think it's just a dysfunctional body doing what they do best-nothing significant. If I wasn't a skeptic, I'd think the R's are pulling the usual fast one to fire up the base. When they can't address the serious issues to garner support, there's always some crap like this to stir up.

But hey, in the name of relgious freedom perhaps we should take another look at stoning people to death-it works for some. Never seen a public flogging, might be cool. Yea, accomodating EVERY religious belief should be the ticket, and not just the views we find politically acceptable. Polygamy, aw if I was just 25 and rich....

mrd — March 1, 2012 at 4:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Woosker, nice to see you again.

So, according to you, the insurance company is going to be instructed to cover birth control devices, pills and whatever else there is to stop contraception. Yes?

And you are saying that it's against the church's beliefs to use these things. Yes?

So who is forcing the parishioners to USE them?

Also, do you think that there may be some people working for the Catholic Church that aren't Catholic? It does happen. Why should they be denied the health care they want and need?

hawkeye — March 1, 2012 at 4:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal

This argument is nutty on it's face! Do we really want corporations to decide what's best for the health of the patient, not our doctors or we as people? :))))))))))))))

Maybe it's time we tax these extreme political entities called churches, who hide behind the skirts of victimization when it profits them, while dictating to it's followers not only how to lead their lives, but who should pay for it.

Let's consider taxing these theocratical institutions at the corporate rate. I have a feeling they would take a seat in the back and Silently voice their concerns. It's all about money and the Catholic health care system.

Will they deny Parochial sex abuse victims coverage on the grounds it violates their "moral objections"?

The Catholic leaders protect their clergy from prosecution when they are raping little boys. They shouldn't even have a voice at the table.

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 4:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Hi Hawkeye! Nice to see you too. It is not a matter of forcing the parishioners to use them. It is the fact that the federal government is mandating a religious institution to purchase a specific insurance plans that provides these items when they are clearly against the beliefs of the Catholic church. People are free to work for who they choose. If a private, religious instituion makes the decision not to provide contraception, that individual has the right to change jobs. The federal government should not be forcing a religious institution to provide services that clearly violated what their doctrine teaches. I am for contraception but we must all be careful as someday the government may be mandating something that goes against what you absolutely believe right down to your core.

Woosker — March 1, 2012 at 4:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Good discussion. Woosker: very well stated. Crazytrain, Dee: excellent. Thank you.

Lost in all of this, is why the government at any level, has any business in mandating the levels of coverage, health insurance companies, i.e. private enterprises, offer in the first place.

Most auto insurers, for example, will not issue a policy to those who have been convicted of driving under the influence. In those cases, the driver needs to get insurance from a high risk insurer, which carries a higher premium.

When health insurance companies are forced by government, to take on those with pre-existing conditions, it is nothing less than a mandated charity: the healthy having to pay higher premiums, to care for the unhealthy. While one may understand the spreading the wealth around idea of so-called progressives, it might be nice if progressives, so-called, could aknowledge their totalitarian nature.

Businesses and insurers should be able to offer their own coverages, as they see fit. On a similar note, the issue of FORCING, pharmicists to dispense the morning after pill is an abomination. A political outlook which encourages diversity on the one hand, is the same group of folks that abhors others who have ideas contrary to their own collectivists’ ideas.

These various mandates are totalitarian. Collectivism at its finest.

Be careful what you wish for.

Nailingit. Huckabee aligned with Obama on this most recent controversy over birth control? Is that what you are saying in your post of 3:32 p.m. It might be nice if you could elaborate on that.

Mrd. I see were Nancy Pelosi brought up that 98% figure. Apparently from some Alan Guttmacher Institute survey. Maybe. But then again, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. That Guttmacher survey has plenty of criticisms.

kn_dalai — March 1, 2012 at 7:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Wal-Mart employs about a million and a half people. They've had many labor relation problems with employees to include paying less than minimum wage.

If they don't wish to cover contraception, abortion, cardiovascular disease, cancer, obesity......any health care claims that are remotely related to a standard of living that is not employer/company friendly could be refused on moral grounds.

Another back door attempt to subvert Obamacare. I have to think most everyone can see through this.

Woosker-Aren't you an employer? Would you discriminate and make health care choices for your employees?

This is how far right the GOP has taken issues. We are sanely discussing this!

Just crazy.

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 7:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal

kn_d! What up?? Huckerbee aligned with Obama when he had to work for a living as Governor. When he had to manage more than a biased red meat religious sideshow on Faux news. Check out the vid @ feb. 29 @ 8:33 (don't worry, just because Rachel is the first openly gay Rhodes scholar don't be intimidated) for a sound/quick explanation. So much is happening! Still think the Republican party isn't in trouble? :)

How does President Santorum sound? Romney? :)) Newt could come back! :)))

If a doctor (I believe in Alabama) doesn't ensure his patient is watching ultra-sound imaging, he or she can get ten years in prison. How's that small Gov thing goin'?

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 7:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal

This BS fight the Republican'ts are putting up in congress about this has nothing to do with contraception, religion the church or anything except the healthcare bill "Obamacare". They don't care if the Catholic Church is offended, they only care that they are pissing off the President. I'll bet you that Romney's Michigan version includes contraception, birth control pills and everything else. Also, I'd be willing to bet that at least 65% of Catholics use some kind of birth control and that they would be more than happy to have their health care plan pay for it.

hawkeye — March 1, 2012 at 7:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Kinda like the "individual mandate" idea for health care. Republicans introduced it, but when Dems liked it, they change their mind! Are you guys for Cap n Trade now, or agin' it? It's hard to keep up with so many changing positions within the party.

Great to see you post by the way!

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 7:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal

*This argument is nutty on it's face*! nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 4:51 p.m.

No offense meant to forum tea party supporters.

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 8:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal

**Rush Limbaugh Bomb Scare: Authorities Called To Palm Beach House After Suspicious Package Discovered**

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 8:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal

A tribute to Rush

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 8:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Abortion for a solid medical reason - saving mother's life, or for various physical conditions where the child would be incapable of growing to be a functional adult - OK - I can live with helping cover this with my insurance premiums.

Abortion for the sake of convenience - because I don't want to be a mother and it's my choice? Fine - pay for it your own self. Or find an insurance plan that offers this coverage, for a price. This is an elective surgery. No different than Joan Rivers' latest facelift. But no one who doesn't believe in on demand abortion should be expected to help pay - by being forced into an insurance plan that covers this. Which is what the Affordable Care Act's provision requiring mandatory participation in the separate abortion coverage does.

roger — March 1, 2012 at 9:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal

roger- I'm not seeing this. How so?

*on demand abortion*... *forced into an insurance plan that covers this. Which is what the Affordable Care Act's provision requiring mandatory participation in the separate abortion coverage does.*

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 9:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal

nail, I believe that would be in section 3.

Roger, I totally agree.

hawkeye — March 1, 2012 at 9:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal

*I think the language should be aborted. Mama never said I was the sharpest knife in the drawer but...*

Sec. 3. Community Health Center Program. The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using Federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

nailingit — March 1, 2012 at 9:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal

And here's what recently left the WA State House. If signed to law, I would expect it to be challenged in court. Maternity services are very expensive; it would be foolish for most to purchase insurance that doesn't cover this area. WA State's pro-abortion advocates have successfully tied this service to abortion - even though this bill pays lip service to right of choice to opt out based on convictions, this summary clearly states maternity must include abortion.

Summary of Engrossed Substitute Bill:
If a health plan issued or renewed on or after June 7, 2012, provides coverage for maternity care or services, it must also provide substantially equivalent coverage to permit the
voluntary termination of a pregnancy. The plan may not limit a woman's access to services related to the voluntary termination of a pregnancy, except for generally applicable terms and conditions, including cost sharing. A health plan is not required to cover abortions that would be illegal under state law. The coverage requirement does not apply to a federally designated multi-state plan that does not, under federal law, cover the voluntary termination of pregnancy.

roger — March 2, 2012 at 5:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal gotta love the US Coast Guard. Seems to me they're putting a thorn in the CRC hoo...NOT!!! Discussion has restarted on the CRC forum!!!

Eight attempts on Captcha this morning. Make that NINE!!! Sheesh!!!

goldenoldie — March 2, 2012 at 7:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal

NEW YORK — Big banks, facing declining revenues and a regulatory climate that leaves them fewer creative ways to make money, are quietly introducing or experimenting with fees that are sure to outrage customers.

Bank of America was shouted down by angry customers last fall when it tried to impose a $5 monthly fee for using a debit card. JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo backed off plans to impose their own fees.

But the major banks have imposed or are testing other fees:

_ Since November, Wells Fargo has charged $15 a month for some checking accounts unless customers have three accounts with the bank, maintain a minimum balance of $7,500 or have a Wells Fargo mortgage.

_ Some Citibank customers are being charged $20 a month unless they keep $15,000 in their accounts, up from $6,000 before December. They're also being dinged with a $2 fee for using non-Citi ATMs if their balance falls below the minimum.

_ Bank of America, even after a backlash last fall when it tried to impose a $5 monthly fee for debit card transactions, is testing a menu of checking accounts in Georgia, Massachusetts and Arizona with monthly fees of $6 to $25.

Banks aren't charities, and they say they need to make money, or at least cover the cost of doing business. Consumer groups — and customers, too, it's safe to assume — have a less forgiving view.

ELISI — March 2, 2012 at 8:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Feel free to remind your credit union how much you love them.

hawkeye — March 2, 2012 at 8:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal

By the way, this <<<< is Jay Inslee and he's running for Governor of this great state.


hawkeye — March 2, 2012 at 8:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal

re. religion vs. obamacare:

kn_dalai's post is dead-on. we are, in this very issue, seeing the wisdom of the founders who put 'separation of church and state' into the constitution: NOBODY is free unless EVERYBODY is free.

i am not going to support, by money, by word, by ANYTHING, a mother aborting her unborn child. since science cannot say that a fertilized egg does not have a soul, i cannot support contraceptives, either.
it's not a matter of a woman's choice, or anything the women's movement tries to make it. plain and simple.

as for belief systems that PREVENT the continuation of life, such as denying medical treatments, i cannot support that any more than i can the killing any OTHER way of a human life. and yes, i am in favor of capital punishment; some evil needs to be removed from existence.

the founder's usa drew a bright line between what is the province of government, and what it cannot legislate: RELIGION. this attempt by obama/progressives to attack us is unconstitutional.

it's not a leap to imagine that here, in our homeland, the 'cradle of freedom', people of peace AND religious belief will be arrested, fined et al simply for following their conscience.

what does that remind YOU of...?

DeeLittle — March 2, 2012 at 1:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal

lou...if you're still lurking, congratulations on the bridge coverage: newspapers performing at their best.

DeeLittle — March 2, 2012 at 2:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Dee, let me get this straight. You are against the pill, condoms, and every other type of contraception? So you are in favor of supporting unwanted children regardless how they were conceived? Whether it be rape or incest or accident? And you attribute this to your religion? But it's OK to kill a guy that has committed certain offenses? Is that in your religion too? Just wondering.

hawkeye — March 2, 2012 at 3:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Hawk, I was also just wondering the same as you.....

I better keep mouth shut though or Matt will boot me.

And last time I looked, founders also said I have freedom FROM religion. Right?

luvithere — March 2, 2012 at 4:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal

-freedom FROM religion is as important as leaving me alone to practice my beliefs. again, no one is free unless *everyone* is free.

-capital punishment: catholics have a disagreement on this issue. rome hasn't made any decision one way or the other. there are some parishes that are against it, most are neutral. i, personally, believe that capital punishment is needed to not only serve as a deterrent to heinous acts, but (as i said above) there is some evil that needs to be removed from existence.

-birth control: pills prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. that's just abortion in it's earliest state. condoms are a matter of scripture (i'm not a bible-quoting person here); there's an old-testament story of God punishing a man who "wasted his seed on the ground". however, Jesus said that his new laws (love one another, etc) replace those of the old testament. but he didn't say anything about God's actions. it's a fuzzy area, but rome DID make a rule on it. the only allowable form of birth control is the rhythm method; sex when the woman is considered not fertile. apparently, that's ok because God is still in charge and can produce an egg if he wants a child born to this couple.

DeeLittle — March 2, 2012 at 5:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Well, folks, I'm going to keep thumping my alternate view.

I don't care about the religious "sanctity of life" argument. Different religions place a different value on this. And as luvithere notes, we do have freedom from religion - if not in fact guaranteed by the Founding Fathers, then certainly established in law since that time.

I find contraceptives and other birth control a perfectly good health care expense. As Hawkeye alludes to, this has prevented countless millions of unwanted children.

I will support abortion when there's a sound medical justification, due to rape, or for other plausible reasons.

I will not support abortion "just because." I won't try to deny your right to feel otherwise, but don't expect me to support your decision financially. You're on your own here.

roger — March 2, 2012 at 5:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal

OK Dee, in that vein, does that mean that the government needs to follow ALL religions or just Catholic, or maybe NONE OF THEM?

This is my take on it, I go along with Roger in his beliefs and since you can't possibly please everyone and you have to include everyone in the law then you have to cover everything.

Just the fact that you cannot tell me exactly what your church believes leads me to think it's a gray area for most religions. Are you going with the Old Testament or New? Since the two don't really agree with each other on some things, you have to pick. And if you can't pick, you can't know where to stand.

hawkeye — March 2, 2012 at 6:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Last I knew the First Amendment of the Constitution states:

*"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Shortly after Thomas Jefferson was elected president, some Baptists from Connecticut asked that he declare a national day of fasting in order to help the country recover from a bitterly fought presidential campaign. He disagreed, feeling that the Federal government should not recognize a day set aside for religious reasons. In his reply of 1802-JAN-1, he stated:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."*

So with that, the founders made it clear there is to be a separation of church and state. Which is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

ELISI — March 2, 2012 at 6:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Also mean the church can not dictate to the state about laws etc nor state to the church.

I hate this captcha thing

ELISI — March 2, 2012 at 6:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal

From a late posting on The Columbian - in an article on the WA State budget talks running into a roadblock.

A bill to link abortion coverage to maternity care has died in the Washington state Senate. The bill was caught up in a Friday afternoon Republican budget coup, in which the GOP peeled off the necessary three Democratic votes to introduce an austere budget plan.

The abortion measure, HB 2330, had passed the House and Democrats expected it to have the votes necessary in the Senate, but two attempts to bring it to the floor were narrowly voted down in the aftermath of the budget coup.

The bill is likely dead for this session, but could be taken up again in a special session — and could be used as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations.

Supporters say the bill would ensure continued access to abortion coverage once federal health care reforms are enacted in 2014.

roger — March 2, 2012 at 7:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal

***And in this string***

NEW YORK (AP) - Stepping into an emerging culture clash over women, President Barack Obama made a supportive phone call Friday to a law student who testified before Congress about the need for birth control coverage, only to be called a "slut" by Rush Limbaugh.

For Obama, it was an emphatic plunge into the latest flare-up on social issues. Democratic officeholders and liberal advocacy have accused Republicans of waging a "war on women" because of GOP stances on contraception and abortion rights, and Limbaugh's tirade on his radio talk show was seen as an escalation.

In addition to her call from the president, the third-year Georgetown University law student, Sandra Fluke, was backed by members of Congress, women's groups, and the administration and faculty at her Roman Catholic university.

Demands for Limbaugh's sponsors to pull their ads from his show rocketed through cyberspace, and at least four companies, Quicken Loans, LegalZoom online legal document service, and bedding retailers Sleep Train and Sleep Number, bowed to the pressure.

***Sometimes corporate America does do the right thing.***

hawkeye — March 2, 2012 at 8:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal

why should this woman expect me to pay for her recreational sex? this isn't a "women's health" issue at all. it's an attack on religion, as well as an attempt to push socialism (european stype) on citizens.

you want to have sex? PAY FOR IT YOURSELF.
you don't want kids? DON'T INCLUDE ME IN YOUR PROBLEM


as for the "...follow ALL religions or just Catholic" strawman, the gvt cannot constitutionally tell me what to belive or how to worship my God. in fact, it's *supposed* to protect ME in the practice of my religion. nothing in the catholic church's teachings CURRENTLY conflicts with any law passed by congress. and, as for the sharia-law ploy, NO LAW can be passed which conflicts with laws passed by the feds. so sharia is, not only a red herring, but a dead one.

DeeLittle — March 2, 2012 at 8:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal

You can watch what is going on right now in Olympia on TVW or;=LIVE247

langenthal — March 2, 2012 at 9:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Wow Dee, I can see you jumping up and down and screaming but I'm not understanding what's coming out of your mouth.

Nobody WANTS to tell you who to worship. Nobody WANTS to tell you anything about sex. Nobody WANTS to know anything about your sex life. Nobody cares.

Your big complaint (as far as I can tell) is that you don't want to fund their sex life.

Well guess what, they don't want to fund your cancer or your heart problems or your dermatitis or your broken bones or your anything..... but they do. That's the whole thing about insurance, one bill covers all. Get over it.

hawkeye — March 2, 2012 at 9:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal

i've got to hand it to the republicans on the whole birth control, abortion, etc issue that's raised it's head just in time for an election year, they've framed the discussion perfectly. So well, in fact, as in the case of abortion, the fact the law isn't on their side doesn't seem to carry as much weight as their moral indignation. and if they got off their high horse and thought about it, they'd realize passing out contraceptives like candy would probably result in fewer abortions. but if people would like to believe in teaching abstinence, using the rhythum method, and other quaint notions are going to stop people from having sex and prevent unwanted pregnancies, so be it, but reality isn't on their side either. while I'm no fan of abortion, it is legal, but I don't feel it's my right to make that choice for others because abortion is a personal choice, but not a choice based on another person's value judgement.

mrd — March 3, 2012 at 6:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal

mrd and hawkeye: Well-stated, both posts!

My new favorite political button:

"Women bring all politicians into this world. In 2012, women can also take them out."

Where did I see this?

In the world's most dangerous cyber beauty salon! Check out this out sometime:

Juanita Jean's rocks!

manthou — March 3, 2012 at 6:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal

manthou @ 6:17 _ Excellent!

nailingit — March 3, 2012 at 7:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal

**Will Sandra Fluke Sue Rush Limbaugh?**

“Men are on board,” Fluke said. “A lot of them write to me. They say ‘I support you. I’m doing this for my granddaughters.’ They really do care.”

nailingit — March 3, 2012 at 7:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Interesting back and forth on religion and religious freedom.
I still say I also have the right FROM religion. And that's important to me and to many others. If it were not so, religion could tell me what to do - including ignoring the laws of the land. And that is MY OPINION, just like everything else written here is an opinion.
What's not opinion but fact is that abortion is still legal;it is the law of the land. Now why do some religious people want to overturn this law? Or ignore it and make it so their religious teachings tell them it is wrong and illegal? You no like, you no do.

I grew up (in a European somewhat socialist country - how nice it was, you know, older people receiving social security, a paid police force, etc etc, all those bad socialist things we cannot have in this country)in a small village where the catholic church ruled. If you ever watched the movie 'Chocolate', you know what I speak of. That's probably where my love of separation of church and state comes from.

Again, all Saturday morning opinions....
and here is another question. Why so many against the pill and why so many in favor of the little pill that enables the male to enjoy that bad bad act of sex? They invented that pill and voila! Every third male has the problem. But it is a medical problem...must fix, must have ability to enjoy life...a woman who uses the pill, on the other hand,does it for sex just like the male on Viagra, but she has mo medical problems. never, ever. Must be an evil female. Having sex! O the horror of it. Good thinking! No logic needed.
And that's also where I draw the line. That smacks as always of sexism.
Musings over coffee.

luvithere — March 3, 2012 at 8:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Anything about the shooting in SE Vancouver? The TV already has some info.

Hey The Columbian, how about using DISQUS instead of CAPTCHA? I have grown tiered and frustrated with this and it has not got better. I don't believe spam is the issue here I believe it's money driven.

JohnCasey — March 3, 2012 at 8:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal

luvithere — March 3, 2012 at 8:33 a.m

IMO a woman has the right to take birth control if she so chooses.
Same as woman chooses to abort her child, it's her choice, not mine nor my right to tell her which path to take.

Abortion isn't an option that I would pick, but that is me and me alone. I make this choice not because of what religion tells me, personal I feel it is taking a innocent life.

In case of rape or incest which at or about less than 1% I would struggle with the decision of abortion, but in the end I would have to say that I agree. Mothers health, or life, I would agree.
So many young woman that I have met over the years has used abortion as a contraception. That to me is very, very wrong.
One young woman I have known since she was 6yrs old, at age 17 had her first abortion, by the time she was 29 she'd had 5. Now at age 34, she just had her first child a few months ago.
She had those abortion simply cause she was too lazy to take the pill. She had insurance, she had a job, she just chose the easy way.

What I object to is the government mandating laws forcing companies and churches to carry coverage for. That IMO is walking past the fine line of Separation of Church and State.

ELISI — March 3, 2012 at 9:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal

luvithere — March 3, 2012 at 8:33 a.m.,

As to your questioning why it's all about the man (loosely paraphrased) - here you go, from Mr. James Brown. (I'm not sure if it answers the question, but....)

This is a man's world, this is a man's world
But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl

You see, man made the cars to take us over the road
Man made the trains to carry heavy loads
Man made electric light to take us out of the dark
Man made the boat for the water, like Noah made the ark

This is a man's, a man's, a man's world
But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl

Man thinks about a little baby girls and a baby boys
Man makes then happy 'cause man makes them toys
And after man has made everything, everything he can
You know that man makes money to buy from other man

This is a man's world
But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl

He's lost in the wilderness
He's lost in bitterness

roger — March 3, 2012 at 10:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Hi Elisi,
thanks for giving me such a well thought out answer. Good to see we can discuss all this without resorting to attacks. I like that!
Sadly, I have known a woman just like the one you described. I agree that sheer laziness or stupidity played a role. I just want abortion to be kept legal as I am afraid of the back alley procedures of old. Human nature is such that unwanted pregnancies will happen. For rape/incest/medical reasons I want it legal. If not, then I want birth control to be accessible to ALL.
I want no church to tell me or the state what can be done. If they are allowed to set rules, then we also must allow ALL religions in this country to have a say. I have the feeling that there would be a major outcry all over the place if such religion would be non-Christian...

And thanks Roger-how could I not agree with this? Still a man's world (sadly) but where would you dudes be without us good women? Lost!

luvithere — March 3, 2012 at 10:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal

"What I object to is the government mandating laws forcing companies and churches to carry coverage for. That IMO is walking past the fine line of Separation of Church and State." -- ELISI — March 3, 2012 at 9:59 a.m.

Elisi, there are two answers here.

First, and I could be wrong, but every health insurance plan out there that covers maternity, prenatal, etc, care also covers birth control. The rationale is that this is by far the cheapest aspect of this care, and it saves them a lot of money.

As for WA State abortion coverage, the way I understood the plan, there would be two separate insurance policies. The business would be required to buy the primary health coverage. You, I, and everyone else would be required to pay directly for the one covering abortions. This neat little trick addresses both the moral/religious issue (for businesses) and the problem that they couldn't place this requirement on insurance companies that also do business outside the state. As for what you or I believe....

roger — March 3, 2012 at 10:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal

The Pentagon is once again trying to renege on the tacit agreement for health care made with those who joined the Armed Forces. The latest plan is to charge a means tested annual premium for Active Duty family members and for Retirees. The general plan is to increase the cost every year until the premium costs are equivalent to those for the private sector. Most Veterans groups (who tend to be a bit on the conservative side) claim this is being done to force us into the "ObamaCare" plans.

Congress will have to agree to this. In the past, they've always shot these proposals down - largely (I suspect) due to pressure from their constituents reminding them of the sacrifices made by those who served and that this agreement was made - whether in the actual contract or not.

I've already sent my letter to Senator Murray. The lady has a nice little decision process to work through with this - she's been at the forefront of the fight for better veteran services (jobs, medical, etc), but this latest proposal plays into supporting The Pres's health care plan.

roger — March 3, 2012 at 11:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Hi kids, I just got an email from Jamie asking me (get this) how the higher gas prices are effecting me? REALLY?

Here is my response to her;

You asked me about gas prices. Why do you care, you can't do anything about them can you? And if you can, why haven't you? Why do you have to ask me about them, can't you figure this out by yourself? My God woman, you were elected to help us with this stuff, why are you wasting my time with emails about "how do the gas prices effect you". It COSTS me MORE money which comes out of my pension which means I can't spend it on other things so I have to cut back, but you knew that, didn't you.

hawkeye — March 3, 2012 at 2:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Did you send that response to her, exactly as written?
If so-bravo!

luvithere — March 3, 2012 at 3:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Of course I did, why would I hold back. It's really not in my nature at my age.

hawkeye — March 3, 2012 at 3:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Very nice Hawk,
let's hope she actually sees it and not a shorter version like "Yes, affects"

A "duh" question alright.

luvithere — March 3, 2012 at 3:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal

- Wow Dee, I can see you jumping up and
down and screaming but I'm not
understanding what's coming out of
your mouth.-----------------------------------
- Well guess what, they don't want to
fund your cancer or your heart
problems or your dermatitis or your
broken bones or your anything.....
but they do.-----------------------------------

for starters, i'm 1)not jumping (knees long ago prevented that) nor 2) screaming. get over yourself.

now, as for your 2nd statement, i began my working career at a major insurance company, as a claims examiner. i have a thorough understanding of that field due to this. take a look at the examples you yourself gave...see anything different about them and abortion/contraception...? look, i promised myself i'd be nice, so forget that. the difference is one of *ILLNESS OR ACCIDENT*. sexual activity, being a deliberate choice, hardly falls into that category.

every time insurance adds coverage for a new it maternity or dental or whatever..*the cost goes up*. insurance is simply a bunch of people's pooled money that's there to pay expenses if they get sick or have an accident. what's next? paying for OTC allergy meds...? i need those, too and they're a good % of my monthly income. how about covering gym membership for obese people?

insurance was created to cover UNEXPECTED medical expenses for illnesses and accidents...just like car insurance.

want to have sex w/o protection, that's your problem, not mine. if you get an STD, that's a public health problem, and that's about as far as i'm willing to fund your bad decisions.

DeeLittle — March 3, 2012 at 4:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Hawkeye @ 2:15 p.m.

I received the same request from her as well...and if people think I write long notes here on the C...they ain't seen nuthin' yet!!!

Poor Jaime. I probably put her to sleep, lol.

Pretty much the same thing in my note, though. We can't afford to keep taking out of our pensions or there'll be nothing left for us to live on. I also let her know that day trips are awash since the higher fuel prices have put a damper on that. I also told her there's less trips to the store for groceries and rarely do we visit relatives who live more than 50 miles away.

Like you say...I don't think there's much if anything our politicians can do. Maybe they're cookin' up a possible cap on the price. All I know is...why in the heck are we shipping out fuel to other countries???? Higher supply and lower demand here with all the hybrids out on the road possibly???

goldenoldie — March 3, 2012 at 4:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal

people make poor health choices daily. as lifestyle choices directly affect health, especially after 50, do we deny coverage of lung cancer for people that have smoked? Deny coverage for folks with heart disease because they're overweight? Deny coverage for people that contracted HIV sharing infected needles? Imagine the quandry an insurance copany would find themselves if a fat dude working out to lose weight has a heart attack. Where would he fit in to the coverage scheme? At the end of the day, insurance companies want to sell insurance to those least likely to have a claim, car, health, life, whatever. Expecting these corporations, with their faceless and nameless adjusters and underwriters, to give two hoots in hell about their "customers" situation is ridiculous. Maybe I should be presented a choice in my policy selection, and be able to opt out for coverage I'll never need, such as pregnancy, HIV, or ingrown toenails. If everyone was allowed to pick and choose, people selecting to pay for, say HIV benefits, what do you think would happen? If the insurance companies couldn't drop them, the rates would be outrageous. Confidentiality-forget it.

mrd — March 3, 2012 at 4:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Big Government isn't coming after our guns & ammo, They're coming after our women and a persons right to an American's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I'm not a fan of one is. But I'm a fan of individual freedom and by God a fan of not letting the idiots in Congress decide something as personal/medical as this! What's wrong with people!

Conservatives are always screaming for government control when it comes to limiting individual choice. Except the choices of white bloated over-paid government working men in state and fed run Congresses. Scary. It's hard to believe some of these issues are being discussed in the political arena 2012!!!

Conservatives want government just small enough to imprison you for the "crime" of taking a morning after pill for up to 1 year. Your doctor for 10 years if he doesn't follow the letter of the law.

You really want a Boehner in your Moehner?


Abortion Bans


Alabama has not repealed its pre-Roe abortion ban, which is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

The ban provides that any person who willfully administers or prescribes to a woman any drug or substance or employs other means to induce an abortion, unless necessary to preserve the woman's life or health, **will be fined from $100 to $1000 and may also be imprisoned or sentenced to hard labor for up to a year.** Ala. Code § 13A-13-7 (Enacted 1852; Last Amended 1975).


Alabama's previability abortion ban outlaws abortion after 20 weeks without an adequate exception to protect women's health or for cases in which the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. H.B. 18, Act No. 2011-672, 2011 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2011) (Enacted 2011).

Alabama's law makes **previability abortion after 20 weeks a felony,** unless necessary to save a woman's life or to avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions. **Physicians in violation of the law would be guilty of a Class C felony which carries a one- to 10-year jail sentence and possibly a fine. In addition, the law allows the woman or the man involved in the pregnancy to bring a civil suit for damages against the physician.** It also **allows the woman, her parents, her husband, her siblings, her guardian, her other health-care providers, or the state attorney general to file for injunctive relief blocking the abortion provider from providing abortion care after 20 weeks in future instances.** H.B. 18, Act No. 2011-672, 2011 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2011) (Enacted 2011).


nailingit — March 3, 2012 at 5:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Alabama also has an **unconstitutional and unenforceable ban** that outlaws abortion as early as 12 weeks. Ala. Code §§ 26-23-1 to 26-23-6 (Enacted 1997).

A court held that this ban is **unconstitutional and unenforceable** because it does not contain an exception to protect women's health, and **because its wording is so broad that it covers "pre-viability second trimester abortions."** Summit Med. Assocs., P.C. v. Siegelman, 130 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (M.D. Ala. 2001). The U.S. Supreme Court previously held that a similar ban that lacks an exception to protect a woman's health and that **bans more than one abortion procedure places an undue burden on a woman's right to choose and is unconstitutional.** Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).

Alabama's unconstitutional and unenforceable law makes the provision of **any abortion procedure that falls within a broad definition a felony** unless it is necessary to preserve the woman's life. Ala. Code §§ 26-23-1 to 26-23-6 (Enacted 1997).

There is also a Federal Abortion Ban, which applies nationwide regardless of state law. The federal ban prohibits certain second-trimester abortion procedures and has no exception for a woman's health. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban, making it the first time since Roe v. Wade that the court has upheld a ban on a previability abortion procedure. Click here to read more about the Federal Abortion Ban.;=5&ssumID;=2445

nailingit — March 3, 2012 at 5:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


> people make poor health choices daily.
> as lifestyle choices directly affect
> health

and if they have health impairment due to them, insurance generally covers them.

what's the health impairment of not taking a contraceptive? fwiw, *pregnancy is not an illness*.

as for the menu of coverage, that's what we *used* to have, and it worked. i vote for its return.

DeeLittle — March 3, 2012 at 5:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal

CNN just projected Romney to win tonight's Washington State Caucus. (does it matter?) :)

nailingit — March 3, 2012 at 5:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal

DeeLittle — March 3, 2012 at 5:49 p.m.

Lucky for us, that makes ONE of you.

hawkeye — March 3, 2012 at 6:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal

*what's the health impairment of not taking a contraceptive? fwiw, pregnancy is not an illness.*

deelittle asks a very good question. Let's go ask that little pill what it can do...

**What kinds of medical conditions can be helped with birth control pills?**

Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS)


Lack of periods (“amenorrhea”) from low weight, stress, excessive exercise, or damage to the ovaries from radiation or chemotherapy

Menstrual Cramps

Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS)

Heavy Menstrual Periods



nailingit — March 3, 2012 at 6:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


i haven't stooped to personal attacks. you just did.
knock it off or i won't play anymore.

DeeLittle — March 3, 2012 at 6:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Dee, how is that a personal attack? I was referring to your VOTE!

***In Other Funny news***

WASHINGTON (AP) — Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh apologized Saturday to a Georgetown University law student he had branded a "slut" and "prostitute" after fellow Republicans as well as Democrats criticized him and several advertisers left his program.

The student, Sandra Fluke, had testified to congressional Democrats in support of their national health care policy that would compel her college to offer health plans that cover her birth control.

"My choice of words was not the best, and in the*** attempt to be humorous,*** I created a national stir," Limbaugh said on his website. "I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."


hawkeye — March 3, 2012 at 7:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal

nailingit: Very, very funny video from Second City! I enjoyed the laughs and needed them!

hawkeye: Carbonite was the fifth advertiser to leave Rushbo. Sounds like his bosses made him issue an apology pronto. I doubt his conscience lead him there, do you? :)

I am with you: humorous? Really?!!! What a lame rationalization. An apology with a caveat. Priceless.

manthou — March 3, 2012 at 7:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Good Sunday morning, everyone. Looks like we're getting a nice respite from the winter weather doldrums today. Monday night and Tuesday morning appears to be yet another reminder that it is still winter.

I never could figure out the "Punxsutawney Phil" aspect of 6 weeks more winter or 6 weeks till spring...then the little light bulb went off in my brain. Either we'd have 6 weeks of winter-like weather or 6 weeks of mild, nice weather. Looks like it's the 6 weeks of winter-like weather for us, huh! Any bets we will see a Spring Snow Shower this year???

goldenoldie — March 4, 2012 at 6:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Hey everyone, I am asking for an explanation regarding a local issue which has me a bit puzzled. Yes, it has to do with the pending tolls on the I-5 Bridge (I know, I should take it to the CRC site but I thought I'd go to this forum first). If anybody has the would be appreciated.

In recent days, the Washington State House of Representatives approved tolling on the I-5 Bridge in order to help offset costs associated with the replacement CRC. If I'm not mistaken, this is a Federal Highway so my question is...

What gives Washington State or any single state the right to toll the Interstate Bridges in the first place??? Shouldn't this be a decision on the Federal level??? If not, then please explain.

goldenoldie — March 4, 2012 at 6:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I guess I don't see how one can justifying denying health insurance coverage for women who "chose" to have unprotected sex resulting in a pregnancy then having an abortion, yet at the same time be OK with paying for treatment and complications arising from "choosing" to drink too much or eat Twinkies five times a day. Basically, you're paying for poor choices either way thru your insurance premiums. I think, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm pretty sure you will, heh, heh) but I feel as though it's the abortion part that bugs you, which makes me believe the "choice" thing is, well, kind of a stretch. As I've said before, I'm not comfortable with abortion, but being male and married for 40 years, it's more of a topic than an issue to me.

And seeing how you mentioned health insurance is, just like car insurance, to provide for unexpected things that would be a financial disaster. I agree, totally. It seems a lot of folks figure a health insurance should be like a pre-paid medical plan that picks up everything, minus a small co-pay. But, I wonder, where is the outrage from car insurance being required by government? Where are the complaints that the state can mandate certain car insurance requirements? But if the president pushes the same thing for health insurance, people-generally R's-scream foul, even though a majority of people approve of something like 14 out of 16 of the major provisions of the plan. I've heard people justify the irony saying driving is a privilege, not a right. BS. My former employer wouldn't hire anyone w/o a driver's license. Driving may not be a right, but it's pretty much required and needed in most places.

mrd — March 4, 2012 at 7:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal

mrd- Some good points. This article in today's Huff speaks much on healthcare.

**Mitt Romney Health Care Op-Ed Presents Deeper Problem**

As for the "government insurance plan," also known as the public option, Obama discarded that. The final bill did not increase the debt according to the Congressional Budget Office. And it will reduce "health care costs for all Americans" not just by providing subsidies but also by rewarding doctors and hospitals for healthy outcomes in general, rather than for a total number of procedures, just as Romney has repeatedly advocated.

nailingit — March 4, 2012 at 7:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal

What gives Washington State or any single state the right to toll the Interstate Bridges in the first place??? Shouldn't this be a decision on the Federal level??? If not, then please explain. -- goldenoldie — March 4, 2012 at 6:57 a.m.


As near as I can tell, the Feds don't manage these projects - they just make rules and delegate management to the states. Washington was put in charge (vs. Oregon). We're also supposed to be providing oversight to the CRC and contract management for Evans. In the long run, this is a sweet deal for Oregon. They get to insist all their requirements be met, have a relatively minimal investment, and hold little or no responsibility for screw ups.

roger — March 4, 2012 at 7:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal

A little Sunday morning hilarity. Best impression ever of Shep, and we see his Mom!

nailingit — March 4, 2012 at 8:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal

From Rasmussen Reports;

Tennessee Primary: Santorum 34%, Romney 30%, Gingrich 18%, Paul 8%...

So what's going to happen when they get to the convention? Santorum is going to have 35%, Romney is going to have 35% , neither one is going to give up and it's going to turn into a big pissing match. More fun to come.

HEY, I can read the captcha

hawkeye — March 4, 2012 at 8:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Good morning, goldie. Hope you are well. Glad to see you chiming in more often here! :)

You asked a good question at 6:57 am. It got my curiosity going early, too.

I think you might find part of your answer here:

But, as you know, laws can be challenged.

Most states have their own tolling authority, it seems, to regulate what is or is not being collected on Federal highways and bridges.

manthou — March 4, 2012 at 8:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Any one read Mielke's statement about medicinal cannabis in today's "C"? It's in the blog section. Basically, he says he thinks medweed is a sham. Says there are other drugs that are just as useful. I won't bother pointing out the contradiction in that statement.

I will point out those other "useful" drugs kill 100 people a day, in the United States. Cannabis has never destroyed an internal organ nor resulted in a death from overdose.

Scientific research has proven phytocannabinoids are an efficient anti-inflammatory and pain reliever. Scientific research bears out the synergistic relationship between opioid pain killers (pun intended) and cannabis, thus providing for efficacy with lower doses.

I'll point out...

Heck, I think I'll just drop Ol' Tom a line.

Drift — March 4, 2012 at 9:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Drift at 9:04 am: I did read Mielke's opinion on that. In case you are not a follower of his verbal farts as I am, this is par for the course. Heck with science and fact.

A couple of years ago, he made the outrageous statement that the mentally ill can be cured with "tough love." We know what current best practices research says on that.

To add a bit of compassion to the issue: I truly think he is suffering from some cognitive decline, the etiology yet undisclosed. Some of us have our theories, but......

He needs to be out of the decision-making role because of this suspected decline. He needs to be in a place where he cannot do any more damage to the public good.

Remember: he only won this seat by a narrow margin of less than 300 votes.

manthou — March 4, 2012 at 9:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal

I want to add this: Another excellent All Politics is Local Blog, Columbian staffers! As I have said often here, this is my favorite feature on The Columbian. You make good points with such well-written humor!

Also to John Laird: Thanks for the data on voting records. Cannot argue with them. Nice to know that Jaime HB is coming out in the middle with her liberal vs conservative record. That surprised me.

manthou — March 4, 2012 at 9:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Drift: I wrote Mielke once. Sent him a very respectful and concerned email about his erroneous statments on the benefits of tough love for the mentally ill.

What I received back was an angry tirade, defending his expertise on this issue. The email was full of run-on sentences and misspellings.

It will be interesting if you receive something similar from your email to him.

Let us know.

manthou — March 4, 2012 at 9:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal

manthou, I just sent off my letter (from the county site). I CC'd Boldt and Stuart. Once again, I offered an open invitation to come to my home and discuss both law and medicine in more detail.

I'll let you know what (if anything) I get in response. I have a feeling, though, they REALLY don't wanna talk to me ;^)

Drift — March 4, 2012 at 10:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Drift: After my one and only crazya$$ email response from "Dr." Mielke, expert on all things in the medical and mental health fields, I ceased CC'ing him on any other correspondence I had with Mr. Stuart and Mr. Boldt. I just figured, why bother? He doesn't understand and he does not care to understand. Maybe, as I opined earlier, he is not capable of understanding.

If you get some time on your hands, read some of the archived "All Politics is Local" blogs for other rich Mielke-isms.

All that needs to be done is simply report what he has said. The words and ideas speak louder than any editorializing on them would do.

Problem is, this guy wields some power and can continue to damage county credibility with their own experts who are charged with program administration under his foggy-brained and myopic watch.

manthou — March 4, 2012 at 10:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Santorum on Fox new sunday...

nailingit — March 4, 2012 at 11:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Mrd, I also commented on auto insurance. I did not say that auto insurance is just like health insurance, but noted that insurance companies can deny coverage based on high risk factors, and that other insurers will charge higher premiums. It is discrimatory based on risk factors, and thereby places drivers with higher risks in a separate pool from those safer drivers. It does however, lead to a question of why one size fits all, in health insurance.

Actually, in Washington, financial responsibility for driving is required, which is not necessarily the same as obtaining an insurance policy. [][1]
The purpose of financial responsibility is for the protection of others, not for the protection of oneself. Quite unlike health insurance.

While your job may require that you drive, not all jobs do, nor do all people drive. If it is a job requirement, it is one’s own resposiblility, just as some jobs require an education degree of some level, or previous job experience.

The health care insurance issue IS NOT about making contraceptives illegal. It is about government dictates being applied to insurers. If someone wants their pill then fine, they can pay for it themsevles without forcing others to share the costs. All of this sounds to me rather much like an entitlement mentality. While there is a proposal for the insurers to pay for this themselves, one might question that it all comes out of the same pocket anyway.

All of this is about matters of conscience and the majority running over the sensibilities of a minority through compulsory participation. Certainly matters of procreation, have nothing in common with breaking an arm or developing cancer.

So just why is the government mandating these things to begin with, in what is supposed to be a free country. Be careful what you wish for.

By the way, are Christian Scientists exempted from Obamacare? Anyone.


kn_dalai — March 4, 2012 at 11:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Effective hit job Mike Wallace performed on Santorum. Wow! Santorum is pouring sweat at end of interview!

nailingit — March 4, 2012 at 11:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal

You know kn, if someone wants their Viagra, they can pay for it themselves. This sounds to me like an entitlement mentality.I see it serving no medical purpose.
Just switching it around...

luvithere — March 4, 2012 at 11:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal

by the way KN, I was not picking on you. Just thought I throw out the same arguments I have heard about female birth control. Seems to me when they cover one, they should cover the other.

luvithere — March 4, 2012 at 11:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal

k_nd, mrd, luvit etc. Here's a LA Times op-ed that speaks to compulsory participation aka the individual mandate in a very reasonable way.

**The conservative case for healthcare reform's individual mandate**

In considering the individual mandate, conservatives need to address three questions. First, why is it so troubling that the government is requiring responsible individuals to purchase what they would purchase anyway? Second, is it fair or appropriate to make the responsible pay more in order to protect the rights of the irresponsible? Third, what should be done when the principle of limited government clashes with that of individual responsibility?

read more @

nailingit — March 4, 2012 at 11:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal

luvithere — March 4, 2012 at 11:23 a.m.

While an argument can be made that Viagra is for a physical affliction, I will not do so. As far as I'm concerned, they can pay for it themselves or shop around for a policy they like better. Government has no business mandating what should be a decision between supplier and consumer.

kn_dalai — March 4, 2012 at 11:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Thanks nail, for the link. A good take and reasonably stated.

luvithere — March 4, 2012 at 12:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal

gotta agree w/kn_ on this one.

need viagra....? *pay for it yourself.* just like i have to pay for my allergy pills.

"insurance" used to mean "in case of". nowadays, with this pernicious entitlement groupthink, it now means 'guaranteed'.

back when it still was for unexpected medical bills, almost any small business could afford a group medical plan. i've worked for some very small businesses, and they still paid for insurance.

very small ones got the basics...what they could afford. if they were larger, they added benefits. remember; the owner had the *same plan* the workers had.

if you want to socially engineer, *somebody* has to pay for it. who should assume the burden, the person benefiting from these services that do not treat an illness or injury, or all of this person's neighbors? food..? shelter...? yes. recreation...? *no.*

DeeLittle — March 4, 2012 at 2:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Dee, I have to ask. Are your allergy pills prescription?

hawkeye — March 4, 2012 at 3:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal

***Now, I'm laughing my friggin butt off***

NEW YORK — A flower company is the seventh advertiser to pull its ads from conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh's radio program in reaction to his derogatory comments about a law student who testified about birth control policy.

ProFlowers said Sunday on its Facebook page that it has suspended advertising on Limbaugh's program because his comments about Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke "went beyond political discourse to a personal attack and do not reflect our values as a company."

The six other advertisers that say they have pulled ads from his show are mortgage lender Quicken Loans, mattress retailers Sleep Train and Sleep Number, software maker Citrix Systems Inc., online data backup service provider Carbonite and online legal document services company LegalZoom.

ProFlowers had said on Twitter that posts it received about Limbaugh's remarks affected its advertising strategy. ProFlowers is an online flower delivery service.

hawkeye — March 4, 2012 at 3:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal

allergy pills OTC (mentioned in an earlier post)

DeeLittle — March 4, 2012 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal

WOWWW!!! What a gorgeous day outside!!!

Roger and Manthou, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Blue skies and warmer temperatures called me outside today. I thank the both of you for giving me an explanation or at least a link which has the information to clarify my confusion regarding tolls (and thanks also goes to the one from the forum who also provided me a link to research).

goldenoldie — March 4, 2012 at 3:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal

allergy pills OTC (mentioned in an earlier post)

DeeLittle — March 4, 2012 at 3:35 p.m

Well then you can't compare that to prescription meds,(viagra or birth control) can you.

hawkeye — March 4, 2012 at 4:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Hawkeye: Thanks for posting all the companies that have pulled ads from Limbaugh's show. The list is growing!

I heard Mary Matalin (how the heck do she and Carville live together?) rationalize RL's outrageous behavior as "satire." She also says he continues to enjoy a great deal of power with the Republicans: one needs Rush's holy seal of approval to get anywhere politically. God help those in the party who stand up to him.

He is an entertainer, I guess. So was Don Imus. At some point, someone has to take a stand and demand civility. We are becoming desensitized to this kind of entertainment journalism and that worries me beyond words.

I am so glad that these companies are pulling the plug on Limbaugh. Money speaks more than reason and good manners, I guess.

manthou — March 4, 2012 at 4:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal

luvit @ 12;25- Your very welcome. Notice no one chimed in to address these three basic questions.

**Baggers n' Naggers**

It's one thing to tout a philosophical belief. It's another to try and squeeze this belief in the framework of our constitution, attach a fancy high minded title to it like "constitutional constructionism", and apply it to a society that doesn't reside in the 17th Century. I believe Ron Paul and his ilk take great pride in feeling that they are the ones being true to this "living document", when in fact they mock the very spirit of it. They boo someone fighting for our country because they don't agree with his sexual orientation. They cheer the idea of someone dying in the street because they lack funding for proper healthcare. They want to fine and incarcerate citizens for taking charge of their lives and decision making when it comes to family planning. They wish to defund public education, roll back roe v wade and crush the unions that employ workers with a voice and decent pay. To name a few.

It's not enough to say Government shouldn't be involved/mandate/regulate private enterprise, and then offer zero ideas to supplement. deelittle brought up social engineering. So did Newt when he had a slip of the tongue, and a moment of truth.

I suppose one could call lawmaking/enforcement, regulatory standards, safety standards etc. social engineering. Whatever it is, it's needed in this 21st century America.

[above opinion stated by nailingit and endorsed by God]

I'm nailingit, and I approve of this message. And the one above it. And the one above the one that talks abou...anyway, PEACE

nailingit — March 4, 2012 at 4:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal

My favorite movie line refers to Rush and his ilk. It's from "The American President" and the President (Andrew Sheppard) says about his opponent, "He's not interested in making things better or in the truth, he's only interested in making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it".

Well, sounds like Rush to me.

hawkeye — March 4, 2012 at 4:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal

What is really amusing ...when constituents listen to lifetime government workers (like Paul, Boehner, Santorum etc.) preach how bad government is. Then they run for office to work for this, "evil government", get voted in by the ones they convinced Government is evil, collect their paychecks, perks and laugh all the way to the bank.

Till next election cycle.

nailingit — March 4, 2012 at 4:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Time for Sunday School Class!

nailingit — March 4, 2012 at 4:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal

crazytrain, I guess I'm middle of the road, I don't listen to ANY of those guys. I find them ALL over the top and mostly disgusting.

Someone referred to those people as "journalistic entertainers". Seems like an oxymoron to me.

hawkeye — March 4, 2012 at 5:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Howard Stern is a disgusting puke of a human, RL and DI are no different.

ELISI — March 4, 2012 at 6:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Nice to get a "Christian" view of Howard.


nailingit — March 4, 2012 at 6:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal

crazytrain at 4:49 PM: I find Howard Stern crass and offensive. I don't care where he leans politically. He is not funny to me. He is not entertaining. He is crude.

If you caught any of my posts last week, I have been complaining about the fact that journalism has become entertainment on both sides. MSNBC is the place for politics, not news. FOX is far from fair and balanced.

I am starting to read the Christian Science Monitor as one of the last bastions of traditional print journalism. It was founded in 1908 as an alternative to yellow journalism.

Thanks for asking. I gave you more than you wanted to know, so I apologize.

It is worth taking a look at the page that outlines what The CS Monitor is all about. Nailingit: it is not a religious rag, just in case you were wonderin' :):

manthou — March 4, 2012 at 6:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal

*Well then you can't compare that to prescription meds,(viagra or birth control) can you.

my OTC allergy meds are more in keeping for payment than contracpetion or abortion; at least *they* treat an 'illness'.

as i said before, pregnancy is *not* an illness.

as for viagra...that's voluntary, too. even though that, at least, *does* treat a disorder, just not one that's in need of correction in order for the patient to continue living.

as i said before, pregnancy is *not* an illness.

DeeLittle — March 4, 2012 at 7:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal

DeeLittle — March 4, 2012 at 7:37 p.m

Still not the point. It doesn't matter what the prescription is for, it's a prescription and if it's covered by insurance (most are) then you may get a break on it (not all do). The main thing is, my medical needs are none of your business as yours are not mine. Period, end of story.

hawkeye — March 4, 2012 at 8:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Dee, let me ask you this. If someone was trying to get pregnant and couldn't, would you accept insurance help to help her with that? Be honest.

hawkeye — March 4, 2012 at 8:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal

infertility is medical disorder. what do *you* think?

AND JUST AS YOUR ''MEDICAL NEEDS'' are none of my business, how you pay for it isn't either. wanna sleep aroound? not my business, and not my problem, either.

DeeLittle — March 4, 2012 at 8:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal

also, policies used to exclude coverage for infertility-- specifically.

DeeLittle — March 4, 2012 at 8:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal

infertility is medical disorder. what do you think?

But having kids is not necessary, is it. You can't have it one way and not the other. If you are going to pay for one, you have to pay for the other.

hawkeye — March 4, 2012 at 8:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal

what part of "medical disorder" don't you see??

DeeLittle — March 4, 2012 at 8:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal

[above opinion stated by nailingit and endorsed by God]
I'm nailingit, and I approve of this message. And the one above it. And the one above the one that talks abou...anyway, PEACE -- nailingit — March 4, 2012 at 4:33 p.m.

Was there a burning bush involved?

roger — March 4, 2012 at 9:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal

I have been complaining about the fact that journalism has become entertainment on both sides. MSNBC is the place for politics, not news. -- manthou — March 4, 2012 at 6:59 p.m.

It's a two-edged sword, in my opinion. People who used to ignore government - "they'll do whatever they want - no one will listen to me" - are now starting to get involved and voice opinions. Unfortunately, as you note, most of what they get is one-sided and a sensationalist presentation of a topic, so it's hard to say they've really learned anything.

I happen to find Morning Joe to be a good discussion of the day's topics. I'm just pissed off that the network ran Pat Buchanan off. Where else could you see someone as far right as Pat having a civil discourse with someone like Rev Al Sharpton? Anyhow, they occasionally beat a subject to death (like the VA ultrasound law - I think they're still talking about this), but they do their best to present all sides of the topic.

roger — March 4, 2012 at 9:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal

roger- *Was there a burning bush involved?*

I posed that question a week ago and got yelled at by elisi and Matt!

Ohhh, now I'm gonna git it....

nailingit — March 4, 2012 at 9:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal

DeeLittle — March 4, 2012 at 8:59 p.m

What part of "having kids is NOT necessary" don't you understand?

hawkeye — March 4, 2012 at 10:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal

roger- I like Pat. I think he put the network in a tough place with his book. Letting Pat hawk his book with a chapter called the End of White America (to name one) wouldn't bode well with most networks. I've always respected Pat's brain, especially with foreign affairs, I'll miss him. I hope he has more dignity than to go to fox, but then again he is a right wing conservative. I kind of like Morning Joe now and then, but Mika's so doped up all the time it's embarrassing.

If there's two shows I try not to miss it's Hardball and Rachel Maddow. I like Shep and enjoy Chris Wallace. As I mentioned before, he hammered Santorum today. Santorum was visibly pouring sweat at interviews end! Rick entered like a lamb and had his rack roasted.

Again I'll miss Pat. He's a dinosaur! One of the relics of the Nixon administration. A faithful soldier if there ever was one. Misguided but loyal, a quality many today's politicians lack.

nailingit — March 4, 2012 at 10:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal

For those who on a daily basis that seem to take delight in bad mouthing Christians..

Yep, I am one, not perfect by no means, never have been, never will be. No, I don't walk on water either, like someone..seems to think they do. Do Christians make mistakes? Yep, everyday, at least we admit to doing so. Do we have the same right as others to voice our opinions? You bet we do.
We are just ordinary people. And because we are ordinary, we carry our own baggage, insecurities, lack of faith, neuroses and fear into our Christian life. We try to serve God, but as ordinary people we mess it up. No matter how sincerely we try to live for God, somehow we will make a mess of it.

Why is it, that those who are the most afraid are the very ones to be on a hate crusade against Christians? One must ask, what is it about Christians, or God for that matter, are they so afraid of?
You might say, The Bible is not true And I would say, But there are other books that are not true also What is it about Jesus Christ that hurt you so much? What is it that you are so scared of?

ELISI — March 4, 2012 at 11:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal

elisi- If you are addressing me your comments are misguided. Please be more specific. I hope this helps...

*No matter how sincerely we try to live for God, somehow we will make a mess of it.*

*Howard Stern is a disgusting puke of a human*

If I may offer some friendly advice, to judge and use such strong language about a human being you've never known, might scare off a few people thinking about those you do know. Of course you're not perfect elisi, none of us are. But spewing such vitriol is unbecoming. Christian or not. Limbaugh is finding this out.

Chill out, grab a snack and tune in to a little Joplin. Remember. Nothing to fear, but fear itself.


Gaga is so passionate and heartfelt on "The Edge of Glory. One of my favorite female vocalists of all time in a great performance, definitely worth 6 and a half minutes. Platinum!

nailingit — March 4, 2012 at 11:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Pres Obama - "When the chips are down, I have Israel's back."

"As the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran loomed over the three-day conference, Obama reaffirmed his willingness to use "all elements of American power" -- including military force -- to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and denounced a policy of containment."

roger — March 5, 2012 at 5:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Ref: Rep Jim Moeller's position on the WA State budget fiasco. I'm really trying hard to understand the reasoning behind his position, but am coming to the point where I don't think it exists.

About a week ago, The Columbian noted it was a bad thing to "balance the budget" by deferring $400 million in education payouts to the next budget cycle. Manthou, you also voiced displeasure with this. (At least, that was how I took your comments.)

Rep Moeller has responded with saying mothers and children would do without health care if we didn't take this step, and that one day doesn't matter with the education side. Then we have the little budget coup a couple of days ago, with the 3 Dems siding with the Repubs to stop the budget bill being pushed. Rep Moeller is livid, and threatening the political careers of the 3 Dems, among other things.

My problem is that he continues to harp on the deprivation of health care, yet offers no details. I'm finding this very typical of him - for example, he also insists the CRC is critical and on the way, but offers nothing to the conversation to support why this is so.

So, my question to Vancouver's 49th Dist Dems would be - Why did you elect this man? Does he truly understand your needs and views, and represent them? If so, what are they? Or is he little more than a trained parrot, trotted out by the State's Dem powers to repeat a political mantra?

roger — March 5, 2012 at 5:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Aww yes, perfect!... divert the the issue and come back with "pot n kettle" or would tripe be more

Excellent question, just what is it are you scared of?

ELISI — March 5, 2012 at 6:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal

elisi @ 6:31- Spiders. I don't like spiders. Never have. Something about the way they consume and digest their food.

And they look creepy!

nailingit — March 5, 2012 at 7:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal


That makes 2 of us..

spiders, snakes..I'll run screaming every time.

ELISI — March 5, 2012 at 8:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal

And they are starting to come out! Ahhh! :) Although I put on a brave face for the family and carry out arachnoid assassinations when needed.

nailingit — March 5, 2012 at 9:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal

> Notice no one chimed in to address these three basic questions.-- nailingit — March 4, 2012 at 4:33 p.m.

Notice the discussion had been about mandated birth control coverage. Your link to Professor Zelman’s opinion piece is not about this specific issue.

> First, why is it so troubling that the government is requiring responsible individuals to purchase what they would purchase anyway?-- Zelman

Well, if they’re going to purchase health insurance in the first place, then no requirement is necessary, now is it? So the professor really isn’t saying anything here.

> Second, is it fair or appropriate to make the responsible pay more in order to protect the rights of the irresponsible?--Zelman

Of course, the question raised here is one of government forced transfer of wealth. You might note the use of the word “rights”. The supposed “right “ to health care, is a collectivist idea. Forgetting about certain pragmatics, I doubt it is a conservative idea, and certainly not the Libertarian idea of a “right”. Currently, by law, hospitals cannot turn down emergency room patients. Then there others who cannot pay for their hospital stay. And there are those who receive government assistance. Irresponsible, may not apply in many or most these situations, but either the hospital or government is paying, which ultimately ends up costing others. Seems to me, the professor’s question could easily be seen as making a case of the unfairness of one having to pay for another, including Obamacare.

> Third, what should be done when the principle of limited government clashes with that of individual responsibility? --Zelman

Again, his question rests on the idea of healthcare as a right. A creation of collectivists. Were it not for this assumption, there would be no clash i.e. the sickie/injured has every right to pursue their own life, liberty and happiness, but has no right to infringe on others, against the others will, regardless of outcome. We may tend to think about traumatic circumstances, but most health care is for far more minor things, where possibility of death is not a factor.

His idea seems to rest on the problem of those who can afford to buy health insurance, but do not, and then end up being a burden to others. Yet he puts no numbers on these.

I think the good professor’s opinion piece may be a little mis-titled.

However, there is one good point in the write. The lack of clear response by Republicans over the question of what government should do, if anything. I think there is clearly a problem with affordability. I am also sure that leftists know no place to stop. I do not like the current plan and I really don’t like the single payer idea. When in doubt, do nothing. For the time being, that’s my position.

Now nail… about your other comments:

kn_dalai — March 5, 2012 at 9:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal

When home alone, with no one to come to my rescue....the vacuum is my friend..

Perfect for getting those on the ceiling

ELISI — March 5, 2012 at 9:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal

In his Politics, Aristotle used his idea of the Golden Mean, nothing in extremes, to explain his ideas of the importance of the middle class to a sound democracy. But since that was 2300 years ago, I guess it has no relevance today.

Don’t know if Leftists have ever used John Donne’s famous “no man is an island quote” as a sentiment through the ages, of sorts, to support their collectivism through government, but if they did, they’d have no business quoting that 17th century poet.

Nailingit says: "It's one thing to tout a philosophical belief. It's another to try and squeeze this belief in the framework of our constitution, attach a fancy high minded title to it like "constitutional constructionism", and apply it to a society that doesn't reside in the 17th Century."

And get a load of those 18th century guys who stuck that funny thing called the Bill of Rights into some living document, or something, and none of it really means anything anyway.

Back then modern weaponry was a flintlock, surveillience equipment was a telescope and state of the art communications was Paul Revere on a fast horse. Now we’ve got WMD, electronic bugs and Netflix! Terrorists in caves in Afghanistan with laptops and google satellite, can keep an eye on everything and watch Driving Miss Daisy at the same time. Considering everything is different now, nailingit, I’m pretty sure you were a big supporter of the Patriot Act.

kn_dalai — March 5, 2012 at 10:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal

k_nd- *nailingit, I’m pretty sure you were a big supporter of the Patriot Act.*

Absolutely not! Perhaps the biggest price we paid in terms of fallout from 9/11 is the "Patriot Act".

*And get a load of those 18th century guys who stuck that funny thing called the Bill of Rights into some living document, or something, and none of it really means anything anyway.*

A little rough, but considering their Pappy's were witch burners and they had more slaves than they knew what to do with, ... or did they? Some might view they accommodated their slaves just fine.

*In his Politics, Aristotle used his idea of the Golden Mean, nothing in extremes, to explain his ideas of the importance of the middle class to a sound democracy. But since that was 2300 years ago, I guess it has no relevance today.*

Your point?

*However, there is one good point in the write. The lack of clear response by Republicans over the question of what government should do, if anything.*

Point taken.

*Again, his question rests on the idea of healthcare as a right. A creation of collectivists.*

I think a re-read would cause a re-framing of your questions.

*Of course, the question raised here is one of government forced transfer of wealth.*

Is it? Or would one be able to opt out? Why wasn't the individual mandate problematic (in the context of limited government) when Republicans first introduced it?

When Hucklebee signed into law as Gov of Arkansas, the same "war against religion" clauses as Obama, why wasn't it not only a war on religion, but embraced whole heartedly by the right?

It's good to have you post k_nd. I appreciate your view. But what about the spirit behind the Paul movement? The cheers and jeers I referenced? It's toxic. Your take?

nailingit — March 5, 2012 at 11:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal

I was being facetious about the Patriot Act. You have made reference to “a society that doesn't reside in the 17th Century.” Presumably to the Libertarian origins of the Constitution. So how come the Bill of Rights in the Constitution is ok, but not the limited government part? In a similar vein…what about other earlier thought. Presumably, if a society doesn’t reside in the 17th Century, then that would also render political thought such as Aristotle’s middle class null and void, which clearly isn’t the case.

I believe my reading of, and statements I made, about Zelman is correct. He has clearly stated “the rights of the irresponsible”.

If Republicans have made a flip flop, then those R's can address that. I have no problem with that. Ron Paul however has not.

As far as Ron Paul goes, the Left is going to absolutely hate him and whatever he does. I recall the cheers at the debate, which Paul did not encourage. I’m not aware of some of the other things. I am, aware of the story crazytrain told earlier this week, of the Ron Paul hater who spit in a Paul supporter,s face. I’m also aware of some of the violence committed by some of the OWS crowd. Something tells me they don’t vote for R’s and especially Paul. Wonder who they do vote for.

kn_dalai — March 5, 2012 at 12:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Forum Login