Monday, August 31, 2009

UPDATE! Is Jenkins a Slow Reader or a No-Reader?

Click on the title of this blog to read an article from the Topeka Capital Journal in which it is revealed that shortly before Jenkins used the term "Great White Hope" to describe the search for leadership in the Republican Party, she actually voted on a resolution to honor Jack Johnson that contained the words "Great White Hope."

On July 29th, Ms. Jenkins voted in favor of a resolution granting a posthumous pardon to Jack Johnson, who was imprisoned for transporting a white woman across state lines because he had the unmitigated gall to marry a white woman in those days and times. This was described in the resolution as a "racially motivated abuse of the prosecutorial authority of the Federal Government." The full language of the resolution is printed in the article.

Unfortunately, as explained by Jenkins' spokeswoman, she didn't have time to read the bill before she voted in favor of it. Mary Geiger, Jenkins' very busy press secretary, explained that the resolution passed on a unanimous consent vote rather than a roll call vote.

"The resolution came to the House floor at 5:40 p.m. and was on the floor about three minutes before a vote was taken.

Geiger said it would have been "nearly impossible" for anyone to read the resolution before it was approved."

Quick; read the resolution in the attached article. Time yourself. How long did that take?

Is Jenkins a slow reader or a no-reader?

You Make the Call.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, August 28, 2009

Lynn Jenkins: Racist, Ignorant or Both--You Make the Call

I don’t know much about boxing. I am not a fan of the “sport.” In fact, I don’t even consider it a sport.

But I know my country’s history of racism and I know my country’s culture. I know enough to know that when Jack Johnson, the first African American boxing champion won the Heavyweight Title almost one hundred years ago, whites in this country lamented that a white man might never own the title again and looked to “a great white hope” to regain the title.

For the record, it was several years later that a white fighter finally managed a win over Johnson in a fight surrounded by controversy. And it was over twenty years later that Joe Louis regained the Heavyweight Title for the African American community when he beat “The Cinderella Man” of recent movie fame.

Apparently, I know more than first term Kansas Republican Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins. This does not surprise me. If she believes half of the things that came out of her mouth during her recent campaign, she is either delusional or seriously ignorant.

At a recent town hall meeting with constituents, Jenkins made the following statement:

"Republicans are struggling right now to find the Great White Hope. I suggest to any of you who are concerned about that, who are Republican, there are some great young Republican minds in Washington." Jenkins reportedly went on to list the names of several young, white Republicans.

Of course, since the media got wind of her statement, she has her staff doing some very quick tap-dancing to try to defend herself against allegations of racism. From the Topeka Capital-Journal:

In response to inquiries by The Topeka Capital-Journal, a Jenkins spokeswoman said Wednesday the congresswoman wanted to apologize for her word choice and to emphasize she had no intention of expressing herself in an offensive manner.

Mary Geiger, a spokeswoman for Jenkins, said the reference to a great white hope wasn't meant to denote a preference by Jenkins for politicians of a particular "race, creed or any background." Jenkins was expressing faith fellow GOP representatives in the House would be key players in returning Republicans to a leadership role in Washington, Geiger said.

"There may be some misunderstanding there when she talked about the great white hope," Geiger said. "What she meant by it is they have a bright future. They're bright lights within the party."

Jenkins wasn't available to comment personally on her presentation in Hiawatha, Geiger said.

Figures. What is the criteria for being a “bright light” within the Republican Party? Who can tell? From where I sit, it appears that the criteria is to be able to deliver party LIES in the most effective manner. If that is the case, woe be to Jenkins because she doesn’t even do that well.

I recently had opportunity to view Lynn Jenkins’ White paper on healthcare reform, in which she supports all the lies and propaganda currently being floated by the insurance/healthcare-industry-owned opposition to reform. I won’t bore you with all the details (if interested, read it here: but she repeats the lies that you hear being parroted at any Teabagger’s picnic. Specifically, she states that, “If you like what you have, you can’t keep it, health savings accounts will be eliminated, 2 of 3 workers will lose their current coverage, and that a proposal will prevent private insurance companies from selling new policies. Her references for these supposed “facts”?? Kaiser State Health Facts, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and the Lewin Group. Obviously the first two “authorities” have an ulterior motive. But who is this Lewin Group, which Republican politicians continually cite? They describe themselves as a non-partisan consulting group. From their website:

The Lewin Group employs more than 140 consultants drawn from industry, government, academia, and the health professions. Many are national authorities whose strategies for health and human services system improvements come from their personal experience with imperatives for change.

However, a Washington Post article is very enlightening about who they really are:

July 22 Washington Post

Generally left unsaid amid all the citations is that the Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation's largest insurers.

More specifically, the Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, a UnitedHealth subsidiary that was accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association…of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data. Ingenix supplied its parent company and other insurers with data that allegedly understated the "usual and customary" doctor fees that insurers use to determine how much they will reimburse consumers for out-of-network care. In January, UnitedHealth agreed to a $50 million settlement with the New York attorney general and a $350 million settlement with the AMA, covering conduct going back as far as 1994.

In that article, a representative of the Group explains that there is an APPEARANCE of conflict of interest since the Group was bought out by UnitedHealthcare, but that they retain all editorial control over their reports. If that was meant to comfort me about the unbiased nature of their numbers, the following paragraph disabused me of any notion of lack of bias:

But not all of the firm's reports see the light of day. For example, a study for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association was never released, Sheils said.

"Let's just say, sometimes studies come out that don't show exactly what the client wants to see. And in those instances, they have [the] option to bury the study -- to not release it, rather," Sheils said.

And, sadly, as they so often do, not only are the Republicans citing biased corporate-produced data, they are also cherry-picking what they want from the report that they are currently quoting.

Politicians have argued that the public plan would place bureaucrats between patients and doctors. However, Lewin wrote that, like traditional Medicare, the federal program for the elderly, a public plan would do less than private insurers to restrict medical care.

"People would indeed lose what they have, but they might very well be better off," he said.

The Tax Foundation, which Jenkins also cites in her white paper, could more aptly be called the ANTI-Tax Foundation. The Board members are all engaged in careers that either help others avoid paying taxes, are associated with tax preparation. The commentary page listed articles such as, Higher Cigarette Taxes: Unhealthy and Unfair, and The Tyranny of Taxing Sin. I’d say it’s a good bet that this foundation is not going to be coming out in support of anything that might raise anyone’s taxes anytime soon.


Is Lynn Jenkins lazy?

Is she a liar or just a syncophant?

OR is she actually THAT stupid?

Whatever the case, I sure as hell would not judge her a qualified representative of ME to our Federal Government. Hear that Second District? The Representative you elected is either knowingly lying to you, parroting the Republican Party line, protecting the insurance industry at your expense and probably raking in lots of insurance company lobbying money OR she is lazy and/or lacking the intelligence to properly gather and analyze the FACTS and come to a logical conclusion.


Kansans and Americans: We cannot allow the willfully misinformed and purposefully propagandizing opposition movement to hijack and derail progress for meaningful health care reform in this country. Stand up and Fight Back!

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, August 21, 2009


This is my healthcare protest flyer/sign. I am fed up with the Democrats on this issue.

Are they weak? No testicular fortitude?

Are they in bed with the insurance industry?

Are they stupid or lacking in vision?


I will not settle for anything less than the Public Option. It isn't even the answer, but it is a better band-aid. We need to fight against anyone, from any party, that doesn't have the best interest of the people at heart and isn't willing to stand up and do the right thing, regardless of the political consequences.


Sphere: Related Content

Friday, August 14, 2009

IT JUST AIN’T SO, JOE: Debunking the Biggest Healthcare Lie Repeated by the Willfully Ignorant Right

This nation needs healthcare reform badly. In order to reform the current system, we should be having an intelligent debate over new ideas. Unfortunately, this nation isn’t really having a healthcare debate. What we’re having is more of a healthcare war of words, with slurs and slogans tossed about mostly by people who aren’t even aware that there isn’t ONE finished bill on the table and who haven’t bothered to read what HAS been written.

The one slogan that I have heard the syncophant army repeat more than any other was repeated again yesterday morning as a matter of fact by a television talking head. I generally don’t watch this show because I don’t have the time or patience to listen to uninformed, knee-jerk mannequins lacking in the ability to reason and analyze information properly. The offending slogan:

Joe Scarborough: That’s Socialism and It Will Never Work.

This must be the hundredth time I have heard this slogan uttered in response to discussion about the healthcare issue and it continues to go unchallenged. Chuck Todd stammered through a reply to this statement that was so lame that nothing he said even made sense and Scarborough interrupted him with more ignorant untruths.

Well, since Chuck Todd didn’t have an answer for you, Joe, allow me:

No, that’s NOT Socialism and it’s ALREADY working. No matter how many times you repeat your little mantra/lie/propaganda, repeating it will never make it fact. Your brainless fans can eat it up with a large wooden spoon, and it will still not be fact. Here are the facts:

Number one
, the bills that are being offered for consideration are not even CLOSE to socialized medicine. They include forcing everyone to buy private insurance or buy into a government insurance plan. Socialized medicine does not involve insurance; it is health care with all the profit motive removed, paid for with government funds. There is no need for insurance in a system of socialized medicine because the costs are controlled by removing the profit, removing unnecessary middlemen and regulating costs. Socialized medicine would be far superior to what has been offered in the existing bills. But then you and the hysterical fringe would have apoplexy if anyone actually tried to implement REAL CHANGE.

Number two, socialized medicine has in the past and currently continues to work very well in those countries which have implemented it. I don’t see anyone in those countries marching in the street to change it. As a matter of fact the UK’s socialized health care system received a ringing endorsement from Steven Hawking just the other day. What do you think, Joe, is he stupid or misinformed about the healthcare system in his country? I wonder how well he would have faired in our healthcare system with the health problems that he has had to bear?

Number three, we currently have government-run healthcare programs that are already working in THIS country. Ever hear of Medicaid or Medicare? You may have your complaints about the programs, but they are working well enough that the elderly in this country would NEVER DREAM of allowing the government to cut their government-run healthcare program. And I have had children on the State healthcare program here in Kansas in the past, and I can attest to the fact that it covered everything needed with less hassle than the private insurance that is currently provided by my employer and costs me $800 in premiums per month for my family.

And here’s a question for you, Joe; why do you want poor people to go without healthcare? Why do you want the working poor to suffer and die young? Why do you want the insurance companies, hospital corporations, healthcare supply corporations, pharmaceutical corporations and various and sundry middleman corporations to keep raking in huge profits while poor people are dying due to lack of insurance and lack of care? Perhaps it is because you suffer from a different kind of lack of care?

We aren’t even dealing with socialized medicine here. All that is being proposed, all that Obama ever suggested in his healthcare plan, is an expansion of current plans so that the uninsured in this country would be covered. Yet wealthy people like Joe Scarborough would begrudge the working poor even that simple helping hand. Why are conservatives so damn stingy? Does Joe Scarborough seriously expect me to believe that he never once benefited from a government program? Every person in this country has benefited from SOME government program at SOME point in their lives.

I have the solution to the impasse. Why don’t those of you that insist that the government can’t properly implement a government-run system just stick with the crappy health care system we have while the rest of us will design a better system for ourselves? And all the senior citizens out there protesting the public option; drop your Medicare today. Call the government and let them know that you are not interested in receiving “Socialized Medicine” anymore and see how you fair in your God-Blessed capitalist “free market” private insurance market. But I’m not siding with the heartless, corporate, pocket-picking insurance companies. So, don’t’ tell me that I can’t have a government option.

And I have one simple question for the lunatic fringe that is capitalizing the airways and trying to intimidate the rest of us into submission: If you think the capitalist free-market system is so perfect, and you truly believe that a government-run system would be so poorly run, why are you afraid to let a government-run insurance plan compete with the private insurance carriers? You are all Hypocrites and Liars.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, August 3, 2009

What’s With All the Douchebags?

I’m a little confused. What is it with the word “Douchebag”? I have been hearing it all over lately, even on the radio. I thought it was maybe some random midwestern thing, and then I received a link to the following clip from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
So You Think You Can Douche
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorJoke of the Day

Just in case you may not know what a douchebag ACTUALLY is—the REAL definition—here is Merriam Webster’s take:

Merriam-Webster Online
Etymology: French, from Italian doccia, from docciare to douche, from doccia water pipe, probably back-formation from doccione conduit, from Latin duction-, ductio means of conveying water, from ducere to lead
Date: 1766
1 a : a jet or current of liquid (as a cleansing solution) directed against or into a bodily part or cavity (as the vagina) b : an act of cleansing with a douche
2 : a device for giving douches
3 British : an abrupt often chastening shock to the nerves, emotions, or awareness --the icy douche (what he said about my work) — John Fowles

Knowing what we all now know, what in the world does it mean when someone calls someone else a douchebag? Since this term is being used in the pejorative, I wonder what is so bad about a bag full of cleansing fluids? Or, to be precise, is the bag empty or full? Is it worse to be an empty douchebag or a full one? Does this matter when using the slang version?

Since knowing the true definition of the word doesn’t help me understand the slang definition any better, I turned to Wikipedia, and this is what I found:

A douche is a device used to introduce a stream of water into the body for medical or hygienic reasons, or the stream of water itself.

Douche usually refers to vaginal irrigation, the rinsing of the vagina, but it can also refer to the rinsing of any body cavity. A douche bag is a piece of equipment for douching—a bag for holding the fluid used in douching.

Etymology: The word "douche" comes from the French language, in which its principal meaning is a shower (it is thus a notorious “false friend” encountered by non-native speakers of English; the French phrase for vaginal douching is douche vaginale, meaning vaginal shower).

Slang: Douchebag, or simply douche, is considered to be a pejorative term in North America, the United Kingdom and some other English speaking countries. In some English speaking countries the term is not well known. The slang usage of the term dates back to the 1960s. The term implies a variety of negative qualities, specifically arrogance and engaging in obnoxious and/or irritating actions without malicious intent. It is generally used for males only.

Okay, but then how in the world did arrogance or obnoxiousness become associated with either the action of douching or any equipment that might be necessary to perform the activity? I genuinely find that to be very confusing. Thinking that perhaps Wikipedia was ill informed in their definition, I turned to the ultimate slang resource: The Urban Dictionary.

Urban Dictionary
1. a word to describe an individual who has shown himself to be very brainless in one way or another, thus comparing him to the cleansing product for vaginas.

3. Actual - (Adj) A person who is a waste of oxygen; an idiot. Also used to describe a male / female (N) that won't let you run your game. To act in a ridiculous manner; embarrassing (V).

So now I need to know, am I douche if I don’t know what it means to “run your game”? I might interfere with your game without even knowing about it because I have no idea what this means. Is it only a purposeful interference with your game that defines a douche or am I a douche even if I am completely innocent with regard to intent? And why would it be embarrassing to ME to prevent you from running your game? This definition leaves me more confused than ever before. And having attempted to digest those definitions, I find that there is a DIFFERENCE between a douche and a douchebag.

1. Someone who has surpassed the levels of jerk and asshole, however not yet reached fucker or motherfucker. Not to be confused with douche.

6. An individual who has an over-inflated sense of self worth, compounded by a low level of intelligence, behaving ridiculously in front of colleagues with no sense of how moronic he appears.

And just when I thought that there was a consensus on the whole stupidity/lack of intelligence angle, I came across the following definition (on the same website):

5. What used to be accurate on this site was replaced by a bunch of people who defined it because they really had no clue what it meant. A douchebag is a pretentious, sugar coated prick, but with emphasis on pretentious and sugar coated. It's not an adjective for an asshole, because assholes call other people douchebags, and assholes are more often than not proud of being assholes.

If you know me at all, you will know that I cannot stand to have misspellings or incorrect grammar published to my blog, so I have fixed many incorrect spellings and poor grammar in nearly ALL of the above definitions. This leads me to believe that maybe the folks that are posting entries to this website are not the smartest people in the world. Does that mean that any douchebag can post their definition to The Urban Dictionary? And, if so, does this make the entries douchy? Apparently not, according, again, to the Urban Dictionary:

1. when someone is being difficult or just plan stank. "Douche bag-ish" if you will.

Whatever. In the end, it comes down to this; I am just not a fan of the word. It doesn’t have the proper connotation in my mind, with one possible exception-

Sphere: Related Content