FDL Action
Help us reach 25,000 petition signatures: House progressives need to keep the pledge for a strong public option.
When Congress returns to work on health care next month, Jane Hamsher and nyceve will be there to deliver the petition.
Click here to add your name to our petition.
Dear June,
After two months of your hard work, 65 members House drew a line in the sand: no public option, no health care reform. You responded by raising more than $175,000 for those members in less than 48 hours.
It's a great start, but it's just the beginning. We need to make sure these 65 members hold firm. We've shown them we have their backs. Now they need to get ours.
I'm starting a petition to the House to keep their pledge to support only a public option in both the House bill AND the conference bill.
I'm going to be in DC next month. If we can reach 25,000 signatures, Jane Hamsher and I will be there to hand-deliver the petition to the House when they return to take up health care.
Click here to add your name to our petition to members of Congress who pledged to support only a strong public option.
Members of the House who took this pledge will be under insane pressure from Rahm Emanuel and the rest of the Obama Administration to cave for an insurance industry bailout.
Rahm's plan all along has been to trade away the public option. But Rahm didn't count on you. Now that we've shown progressives in the House it's possible to stick together, it will be our job to make sure these members hold the line on a strong public option.
Let's be clear: these members need to hold the line on two votes. Once when the House passes its own bill, and again on the conference bill that's combined with the Senate's version. Anything less is a vote for an insurance industry bailout.
Help us reach 25,000 signatures on our petition to House progressives. You can make sure that progressives keep the pledge to only vote for a strong public option.
Click here to add your name to our petition: http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/keepthepledge
Thanks so much for your help. I hope we can get to 25,000 signatures so I can deliver the petition with Jane next month.
Best,
Eve Gittelson (nyceve)
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Story Of The Day
Some days I think life would be a whole
lot more fun if I just knew how to make
it a whole lot more fun (& you can pretty
well imagine how those days go).
From StoryPeople.
lot more fun if I just knew how to make
it a whole lot more fun (& you can pretty
well imagine how those days go).
From StoryPeople.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
"Home Again" - From Roseann
I just got home from the hospital and man oh man am I glad to be here! I'm up on my couch nesting with the wiener dogs. I still have some congestion in my lungs but Dr Kimball loaded me up with drugs and inhalers and everything I need to get rid of this crud. Great news, the feeding tube is removed. I'm FREE again! ha!
My new priest at St. Peter's came to see me twice and I really like her a lot. We had an instant and deep ability to communicate and I feel like I can trust her.
Thanks everyone for the prayers and emails. They mean so much. Love, R
My new priest at St. Peter's came to see me twice and I really like her a lot. We had an instant and deep ability to communicate and I feel like I can trust her.
Thanks everyone for the prayers and emails. They mean so much. Love, R
Will Democrats Go It Alone?
From the New York Times:
Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.
Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans’ purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month’s Congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed.
Finally they see the light! What took them so long? Did the Dems really think that they would bring Republicans along, even after this statement by Sen. Jim DeMint one month ago, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"?
The Democratic shift may not make producing a final bill much easier. The party must still reconcile the views of moderate and conservative Democrats worried about the cost and scope of the legislation with those of more liberal lawmakers determined to win a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers.
On the other hand, such a change could alter the dynamic of talks surrounding health care legislation, and even change the substance of a final bill. With no need to negotiate with Republicans, Democrats might be better able to move more quickly, relying on their large majorities in both houses.
Democratic senators might feel more empowered, for example, to define the authority of the nonprofit insurance cooperatives that are emerging as an alternative to a public insurance plan.
One wonders if the conservative Democrats are really worried about the cost of the health care plan, or is it rather the cost to them in campaign funds from the health care industry if they support the public option. They don't seem overly concerned when Halliburton, Blackwater, and other companies with government contracts rip off taxpayers' money in massive amounts, but when it comes to providing health care to citizens in great need of help, cost concerns kick in.
When will we see that Democratic senators feel empowered enough to actually do something about the health care crisis? What will it take?
The White House has also interpreted critical comments by Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican negotiator in a crucial Finance Committee effort to reach a bipartisan compromise, as a sign that there is little hope of reaching a deal politically acceptable to both parties.
A brilliant interpretation. Again, finally the White House joins the Congress in seeing the light. I see it! I see it! Look there's the light! The Republicans won't deal with us.
For the second time in two days, Mr. Obama did not mention health care on Tuesday, a marked departure from the aggressive public relations campaign he mounted in July and early August. The White House is striving to stay out of the fray, aides said, until the president can get away on vacation this weekend.
And doesn't that make you want to cry? The president wants to stay out of the fray and get away! I know I've said this over and over in the comments here, there, and everywhere, but please, someone, somewhere remind President Obama about the bully pulpit!
As for the much-discussed non-profit cooperatives (whatever they are) being pushed by conservative Democrats who want so much to have a bipartisan bill:
In what Democrats regarded as further evidence that Republicans were not serious about negotiating, Mr. Kyl and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking House Republican, described a co-op as a public option carrying another name.
There you go, Democrats. No matter what compromises you make, you will not have a bipartisan bill. You are a majority. We elected you to move forward with a progressive agenda. Do your job. Folks are hurting. They need help. Do the right thing!
Do I sound shrill?
Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.
Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans’ purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month’s Congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed.
Finally they see the light! What took them so long? Did the Dems really think that they would bring Republicans along, even after this statement by Sen. Jim DeMint one month ago, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"?
The Democratic shift may not make producing a final bill much easier. The party must still reconcile the views of moderate and conservative Democrats worried about the cost and scope of the legislation with those of more liberal lawmakers determined to win a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers.
On the other hand, such a change could alter the dynamic of talks surrounding health care legislation, and even change the substance of a final bill. With no need to negotiate with Republicans, Democrats might be better able to move more quickly, relying on their large majorities in both houses.
Democratic senators might feel more empowered, for example, to define the authority of the nonprofit insurance cooperatives that are emerging as an alternative to a public insurance plan.
One wonders if the conservative Democrats are really worried about the cost of the health care plan, or is it rather the cost to them in campaign funds from the health care industry if they support the public option. They don't seem overly concerned when Halliburton, Blackwater, and other companies with government contracts rip off taxpayers' money in massive amounts, but when it comes to providing health care to citizens in great need of help, cost concerns kick in.
When will we see that Democratic senators feel empowered enough to actually do something about the health care crisis? What will it take?
The White House has also interpreted critical comments by Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican negotiator in a crucial Finance Committee effort to reach a bipartisan compromise, as a sign that there is little hope of reaching a deal politically acceptable to both parties.
A brilliant interpretation. Again, finally the White House joins the Congress in seeing the light. I see it! I see it! Look there's the light! The Republicans won't deal with us.
For the second time in two days, Mr. Obama did not mention health care on Tuesday, a marked departure from the aggressive public relations campaign he mounted in July and early August. The White House is striving to stay out of the fray, aides said, until the president can get away on vacation this weekend.
And doesn't that make you want to cry? The president wants to stay out of the fray and get away! I know I've said this over and over in the comments here, there, and everywhere, but please, someone, somewhere remind President Obama about the bully pulpit!
As for the much-discussed non-profit cooperatives (whatever they are) being pushed by conservative Democrats who want so much to have a bipartisan bill:
In what Democrats regarded as further evidence that Republicans were not serious about negotiating, Mr. Kyl and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking House Republican, described a co-op as a public option carrying another name.
There you go, Democrats. No matter what compromises you make, you will not have a bipartisan bill. You are a majority. We elected you to move forward with a progressive agenda. Do your job. Folks are hurting. They need help. Do the right thing!
Do I sound shrill?
Story Of The Day - Favorite Things
My favorite
thing is the
wind, she said,
& my second
favorite is
chocolate but
I just do that
so I don't get
too skinny &
blow away
From StoryPeople.
thing is the
wind, she said,
& my second
favorite is
chocolate but
I just do that
so I don't get
too skinny &
blow away
From StoryPeople.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Covenant - "An Idol Of Global Proportion"
TheMe at Conscientisation on the covenant:
As with MPs sermon I suggest that covenants, as well as communion are the prerogative of God and not of men. Their terms are of the universal given. They are given by god and not negotiated by men. The biblical covenants concluded by god are not ones in which we negotiate on terms and conditions for our own advantage. It is not by our demand or effort that grace is achieved, but solely by the open offer of god. The covenants which are struck between men are doomed to failure as we do not possess the universal capacity for the love of difference, that we understand in god, and there is an almost arrogance in presuming that we can. In its existing form, the alleged covenant is a fetter, a manacle that will bind both those inside its provisions and those outside and inhibit communion, not strengthen it.
And I am not simply arguing for a name change here, I would like for our noble leadership to recognise that they are saying something very profoundly unsettling about our faith with this proposal. That the Anglican communion is an homogenising institution where people all think the same, pray the same, eat, drink, play, fart and shag the same way. This is absurd. So is the covenant. An idol of global proportion.
Read the entire post, please. In my comment, I said:
Grandmère Mimi said...
TheMe, this is excellent writing, well-reasoned and quite right in it's conclusion.
18 August, 2009 19:12
to which TheMe responded:
themethatisme said...
Thank you Granmère, I'm not sure it's that well reasoned, some study and deeper thought, then perhaps.
So. He's not done with thinking on the covenant, yet, and we shall hear more from him on the subject. I look forward to his further thoughts, but I still believe that what he has written is quite good.
As with MPs sermon I suggest that covenants, as well as communion are the prerogative of God and not of men. Their terms are of the universal given. They are given by god and not negotiated by men. The biblical covenants concluded by god are not ones in which we negotiate on terms and conditions for our own advantage. It is not by our demand or effort that grace is achieved, but solely by the open offer of god. The covenants which are struck between men are doomed to failure as we do not possess the universal capacity for the love of difference, that we understand in god, and there is an almost arrogance in presuming that we can. In its existing form, the alleged covenant is a fetter, a manacle that will bind both those inside its provisions and those outside and inhibit communion, not strengthen it.
And I am not simply arguing for a name change here, I would like for our noble leadership to recognise that they are saying something very profoundly unsettling about our faith with this proposal. That the Anglican communion is an homogenising institution where people all think the same, pray the same, eat, drink, play, fart and shag the same way. This is absurd. So is the covenant. An idol of global proportion.
“The test of faith is whether I can make space for difference. Can I recognise God’s image in someone who is not in my image, whose language, faith, ideals, are different from mine? If I cannot, then I have made god in my image, instead of allowing him to remake me in his.” Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.
Read the entire post, please. In my comment, I said:
Grandmère Mimi said...
TheMe, this is excellent writing, well-reasoned and quite right in it's conclusion.
18 August, 2009 19:12
to which TheMe responded:
themethatisme said...
Thank you Granmère, I'm not sure it's that well reasoned, some study and deeper thought, then perhaps.
So. He's not done with thinking on the covenant, yet, and we shall hear more from him on the subject. I look forward to his further thoughts, but I still believe that what he has written is quite good.
The Desecration Of Jane Austen
Unfinished drawing of Jane Austen by her siser Cassandra
From the Independent:
With their smouldering heroes, beautiful heroines and exquisite observations of the social mores of the Regency era, all encapsulated in some of the finest dialogue ever created in the English language, Jane Austen's novels might appear to have everything. Everything that is except zombies, vampires and mutant sea monsters.
The new trend for adding a touch of blood and gore to the genteel world inhabited by the likes of Elizabeth Bennett and the Dashwood sisters is set to reach grisly new heights next month with the publication of a series of books which will indulge the public's apparently insatiable thirst for horror "mash-up" literature.
Don't mess with my Jane Austen. The world of the late 18th and early 19th century landed gentry portrayed in her novels is not so genteel as all that. A woman whose family was without wealth had few choices in making her place in the world: marrying a man with enough money to care for her, becoming a governess, or living as a maiden aunt, dependent on her family for the rest of her life.
If the woman married, she often bore child after child with the result that a good many died in their thirties from childbed fever or from being worn out by one pregnancy after another. Foolishly enough, the women generally farmed out the nursing duties to wet nurses, so they did not even benefit from the period of relative infertility provided by breast-feeding. All five of Jane Austen's brothers who married had second wives, because their first wives died young.
In my opinion, Jane is one of the finest writers of fiction in the English language, if not the finest. When I read her six novels, each of which I have read far too many times to count, I'm awed by her masterful employment of the words of the English language to make a good story with characters that spring to life on the page. Her sharp wit, keen observation of character, and great gift for irony are evident in all six novels which she completed in her adult life and even in her Juvenilia.
Winchester Cathedral
Jane never married and died at the age of 41, it is believed from Addison's disease, which was unknown and untreatable at the time. Who knows what masterpieces may have followed had her life not been cut short? Then too, if she had married and begun the usual cycle of one pregnancy after another, she may not have left her legacy of the six novels that we have. She herself noted that her novels were her children. She is buried in Winchester Cathedral, pictured above.
Some years ago, I had the good fortune to enjoy a one-week study tour at Oxford University, which included visiting the significant places in Jane's life, and I
Chawton Cottage
We visited her last home, the cottage at Chawton in Hampshire. A video tour of the house is available at the website of the cottage, which is now a museum.
Below is a picture of the church where her father served for many years, St. Nicholas at Steventon.
She hardly benefited from her writing in her lifetime, knowing little of fame or financial reward. Her books are for the ages, for the likes of me, and I'm more grateful than I can say for the many hours of pleasure that her writing has given me. Her gift for irony delights and amazes still.
Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice is one of the most delightful characters in English fiction. I quote her words in my sidebar, words which I believe express the true thoughts of the author:
"I hope that I never ridicule what is wise or good. Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies do divert me, I own, and I laugh at them whenever I can."
In Mr Collins, from the same book, Jane created a biting and hilarious caricature of a hypocrital English clergyman. Of the wayward sister of the family, Lydia and the ne'r-do-well with whom she elopes, who is finally forced to marry her, Mr Collins advises her father, Mr Bennet, in a letter:
"You ought certainly to forgive them as a Christian, but never to admit them in your sight, or allow their names to be mentioned in your hearing."
Mr Bennet comments, "That is his notion of Christian forgiveness!"
I never read the prequels or the sequels to Jane's novels or completions of her unfinished work. I've read a few brief parodies of her writing that were quite funny, but I shall not be reading the vampire stories inspired by her novels. The stories and characters in her novels are quite enough to stir my imagination all on their own without having to be pumped up by the macabre or any other tricks.
Thanks to Ann for sending the link.
Monday, August 17, 2009
You gotta love Frank!
Mildred, the church gossip, and self-appointed monitor of the church's morals, kept sticking her nose into other people's business...
Several members did not approve of her extra curricular activities, but feared her enough to maintain their silence.
She made a mistake, however, when she accused Frank, a new member, of being an alcoholic after she saw his old pickup parked in front of the town's only bar one afternoon.
She emphatically told Frank (and several others) that every one seeing it there WOULD KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING !
Frank, a man of few words, stared at her for a moment and just turned and walked away. He didn't explain, defend, or deny. He said nothing...
Later that evening, Frank quietly parked his pickup in front of Mildred's house ..... walked home. . . .and left it there all night!!!
(You gotta love Frank!)
Thanks to Susan S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)