Harvard study confirms bisphenol A problems

What do those fancy-pants Ivy Leaguers know anyway? They're part of the global scientific conspiracy to use facts and disrupt businesses ability to do business. Is it really fair to hold back a business opportunity because some snotty-nosed baby can't make a free market decision? The youth of today is so lazy and self centered, crying for the mommy state to protect them. They need a bit of Republican capitalism to toughen them up for the real world. Boston Globe:

A Harvard study released yesterday supports what many public health specialists have long assumed: Hard plastic drinking bottles containing bisphenol A are leaching notable amounts of the controversial chemical into people's bodies.

Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health found that people who drank for a week from the clear plastic polycarbonate bottles increased concentrations of bisphenol A - or BPA - in their urine by 69 percent.

The study is the first to definitively show that drinking from BPA bottles increases the levels of the chemical in urine, researchers said. It was published on the website of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

Read More......

Friday night keyboard cat with special guest star, Dick Cheney

Cheney really is a piece of work. And, who is this keyboard cat, you might ask? Read this. Read More......

April employment improved in 21 states

Not too shabby.

The employment situation in the states showed signs of stabilizing last month.

The unemployment rate declined in 21 states in April, compared with the month before, while 11 states had no rate change, according to federal data released Friday.

The work situation, however, deteriorated in 18 states and Washington, D.C., last month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

A month earlier, unemployment rates rose in 46 states.

Read More......

Pick your poison - tortoise or the hare

Great read in Newsweek comparing the US to Europe during the recession. It wasn't that long ago when it was Europe looking to the west and dreaming of the benefits of a booming economy. Times have changed so now attitudes on both sides are changing. Europe (excluding the recent Thatcher/Thatcher-with-a-smiley-face a.k.a. Blairism) doesn't fully experience the good time highs nor the bad time lows that the US sees. It's always moderated and movement in one direction of the other is always slower. Is it better or worse? It really depends what is important for the government and it's people. Both have their benefits though it's hard to argue against the economic security and well being of Europe during the tough times.

One angle that is not in article is the slow, painful process of being hired in Europe, or at least France. As a general rule, Americans can change jobs quickly whereas over here this typically takes six months even during the good times. Because it's difficult to get rid of employees - it's not impossible, as the American right suggests - organizations are painfully slow to hire. The welfare state is there to keep families going which is great, but the process can take a very long time. Draw your own conclusions but if nothing else, this gives a good overview of the recession from this side of the pond. Read More......

Doggone socialist health care

I get so sick and tired of the terrible, pinko, commie-lovin' health care systems that lets faceless bureaucrats make health care decisions. Health care decisions should be made by the patients. Especially when cost savings can be made. Who really wants a lousy system such as this?

Now the 64-year-old activist is dying of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, an incurable lung disorder. Chamberlin's final wishes are to die the way she has lived, on her own terms. Late last year she halted hospitalizations and instead opted for home hospice care, which manages pain and emotional needs, but offers no curative treatments.

She had no idea she would end up fighting for herself the same battle she has long fought on behalf of others.

Her insurance company recently informed her that she has "used up" her hospice coverage. That benefit is limited to $5,000 in her insurance policy. She can, they said, file an appeal for an extension.

Hooked up to a portable oxygen tank, and often gasping for air, Chamberlin says this battle doesn't make sense; hospice care is not only her preference, it will cost her insurance company less.

Read More......

Former Bush Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge says Cheney is wrong

CNN:

Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told CNN former Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated charge the Obama administration has made the country less safe is wrong.

"Yeah, I disagree with Dick Cheney," the Pennsylvania Republican and former Bush administration official told CNN's John King, adding he "does not" think the country is more vulnerable to an attack under President Obama.

Ridge's comments come after both Obama and Cheney gave dueling speeches on national security, during which the president sharply condemned Bush administration interrogation practices while Cheney vigorously defended them....

"It's just the whole notion of a Republican vice president giving a speech after the incumbent Democratic president," he said. "It's gotta go beyond the politics of either party."

Read More......

Catholic Church may be violating tax laws by its involvement in Maine anti-gay campaign

The Catholic Church in Maine could be facing an IRS investigation over its role in the campaign to repeal the state's new same-sex marriage law. A complaint was filed against the Diocese of Portland:

A gay-rights advocacy group has complained to the IRS that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland is violating tax rules by helping a referendum campaign aimed at repealing the state's new same-sex marriage law.

The Empowering Spirits Foundation said its challenge was filed Wednesday at an IRS office in Dallas. The San Diego-based group said the diocese is engaging in political activity by collecting signatures for the referendum, violating IRS rules applying to nonprofits.

Opponents of the bill signed by Gov. John Baldacci need the signatures of at least 55,087 registered voters to get the question on the ballot. The petitioners have until three months after the Legislature adjourns, which is expected to happen in mid-June, to collect the signatures.

IRS policy allows the diocese to participate in the campaign and help collect signatures, said Marc Mutty, public affairs director for the diocese. He rejected the IRS challenge as a "bogus attempt to sidetrack the campaign."

Leonard Cole, a Portland attorney who specializes in tax and nonprofit issues, suggested that the church's involvement could put it at odds with IRS rules that restrict lobbying by tax-exempt nonprofits.

"It's hard for me to imagine how you seek someone's signature on a petition without it arguably at least being an attempt to influence their vote once the measure was on the ballot," Cole said.

After all those years of covering up pedophile priests, you'd think the Catholic Church would be more careful about breaking the law. But, they're obsessed with the gays.

Let's be clear: This isn't going to be Prop. 8 redux. No one is going to sit back while religious leaders in Portland (or Salt Lake City) try to take rights away from the gay community. This time, it will be different. Mr. Mutty, his bishop and all of their priests (especially the gay ones), better be prepared. The LGBT community learned some lessons from Prop. 8. When people come to take away our rights, we will fight back -- and fight back very hard.

The Catholic Church in Maine isn't rich -- far from it (although we've heard pretty convincing rumors about a multi-million dollar contract between the Diocese and a Portland p.r. firm.) The leaders of the church are going to be wasting money on the anti-gay effort. It's going to cost them a lot -- in terms of legal costs and lost contributions. And, if the Mormons decide to bail them out, that crowd better be prepared for battle, too. This time, everyone will know what the Mormon church is doing -- and everyone will know a lot of bizarre, but true, facts about the Mormons, too. I know a lot of Catholics in Maine. They won't appreciate the idea that their bishop is teaming up with an institution that, among other things, baptizes dead people into their faith. Read More......

Jerry Falwell's Liberty University bans "Democratic Club" because Democrats are un-Christian

From the Lynchburg, VA paper, via Ben Smith:

Liberty University has revoked its recognition of the campus Democratic Party club, saying “we are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by” the university....

Part of [vice president for student affairs Mark] Hine’s e-mail said, “The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)”

Remember, these are the people running the Republican party. It appears they'd be happier living in a theocracy like Iran where, ironically, people like them would be jailed for life, or worse. Read More......

CA Sup Ct to issue Prop 8 ruling on Tuesday

No further info Read More......

Blue Double Cross

NYT columnist, and Nobel laureate in economics, Paul Krugman raises an interesting point about Blue Cross's new Harry and Louise type ads opposing health care reform:

“We can do a lot better than a government-run health care system,” says a voice-over in one of the ads. To which the obvious response is, if that’s true, why don’t you? Why deny Americans the chance to reject government insurance if it’s really that bad?

For none of the reform proposals currently on the table would force people into a government-run insurance plan. At most they would offer Americans the choice of buying into such a plan.

And the goal of the insurers is to deny Americans that choice. They fear that many people would prefer a government plan to dealing with private insurance companies that, in the real world as opposed to the world of their ads, are more bureaucratic than any government agency, routinely deny clients their choice of doctor, and often refuse to pay for care.

Several brilliant points. First, if Blue Cross says we can do better than a government option, then why doesn't Blue Cross do better? Why does Blue Cross's best, most expensive, plan only offer self-employed people, like me, a maximum of $1500 in prescription drugs a year (which basically means you're dead if you get any serious illness)? And why aren't those benefits indexed to inflation - I get the same $1500 today that I got in 1997 when my plan started, even though my premiums are now 3 times higher. Why did Blue Cross terrorize the widow of my high school Spanish teacher?

Fernando Mendoza had insurance when doctors inserted a catheter to deliver his chemotherapy last July. The procedure was covered by his HMO, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois. But almost 10 months after Mendoza received the catheter--and nearly three months after he died of esophageal cancer--his widow continued to receive statements showing $1,743 was unpaid. Thinking she was being billed, Suzanne Mendoza said she called Blue Cross several times and was told the doctor submitted the claim too late to be covered. -- Chicago Tribune, May 17, 2006

Blue Cross can surely do better than that.

Second, and this is the crucial point, Blue Cross is saying that we should stop the government from giving you THE CHOICE to join a government plan that "may," Blue Cross claims, ration out health care. Well, if it's only a choice, and if in the end the new government option doesn't work, and ends up rationing health care, then none of us will choose the government option, and if we have already, we'll simply switch back to Blue Cross. So what's the problem? Why does Blue Cross not even want you to HAVE that choice? That tells you much more about Blue Cross than it does Obama's health care plan. It tells you that Blue Cross is afraid that you may like the government option. And if you do, Blue Cross won't make as much money.

Let me reiterate this. If you don't like the government option, you can always stick with Blue Cross under Obama's plan. So why is Blue Cross fighting Obama's plan? Because they're greedy special interests, and over your dead body they're going to permit the government to give you a better option.

Someone needs to start running ads showing Blue Cross terrorizing the wife of my deceased Spanish teacher. Or ads showing Blue Cross slowly letting my prescription drug benefits wither on the vine. Where are the hard hitting ads on our side? It's 1993 all over again. And the left appears, yet again, to be playing far too nice. Read More......

Connecticut House and Senate have voted to abolish death penalty. Governor supports the death penalty and may veto.

Both Houses of the Connecticut legislature voted to repeal the state's death penalty. Now, it's on the Governor's desk. Jodi Rell is a Republican. She's not one of the hard-core right wing types. But, she supports the death penalty. So, this is a real test for her:

In a historic action -- which may be rendered short-lived by a gubernatorial veto -- the state Senate narrowly gave final legislative approval early Friday to a bill that would abolish the death penalty in Connecticut.

The 19-17 Senate vote came at 4:11 a.m., after nearly 11 hours of impassioned debate in the Senate chamber, and eight days after the state House of Representatives' approval of the bill by a 90-56 vote.

Now the question is whether the bill will ever become law, because Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell has steadfastly said that she supports capital punishment, and repeated that Thursday.

Asked at the Capitol whether she would veto the death penalty abolition bill, Rell said: "I haven't seen it, but you know how I feel about the death penalty. I've always believed that there are some crimes that are so heinous that it deserves the death penalty."

And, she gets to ultimately decide life and death. Although, Connecticut isn't Texas or Georgia. There's only been one execution in the past few years. But, this is an important statement about who we are as a society.

Earlier this year, New Mexico's Governor, Bill Richardson (who also supported the death penalty), signed the law that abolished his state's death penalty law:

Governor Bill Richardson just repealed the death penalty. Richardson repeatedly said that he was signing the repeal because "the system is not perfect."

"Innocent people have been put on death row all across the country," Richardson said. The governor also said that we cannot be 100% sure that innocent people aren't convicted.

The death penalty will now be replaced by life in prison without the possibility of parole.

"They will never get out of prison," Richardson said.

That same provision is in the Connecticut law. It's not like they're going to let convicted murderers go free. They're just not going to kill them. Amnesty International has a map showing the breakdown of state death penalty laws.

Now, the Catholics have been very vocal in Connecticut about same-sex marriage. This is supposed to be a big issue for them, although they sure cut George Bush a lot of slack on it. Will the Catholic hierarchy put the same energy into getting a veto from Rell?

If you live in Connecticut, call or email Jodi Rell. Urge her to sign the law that to abolish the death penalty.

Rell should know, it's not only her constituents who are watching. The use and abuse of the death penalty in the United States puts us in some un-Democratic company, again from Amnesty:

In 2008, at least 2,390 people were known to have been executed in 25 countries and at least 8864 people were sentenced to death in 52 countries around the world.

Some of the methods used to execute people in 2008 included beheading, electrocution, hanging, lethal injection, shooting and stoning.

Continuing the trend from previous years, in 2008 China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States of America were the five states with the highest rate of executions. Together they carried out (93%) of all executions worldwide.

Jodi Rell can be a symbol of change and decency -- or she can be a typical pandering American politician. Read More......

DOD relents on DADT

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, who earlier in the week said that DOD wasn't doing anything at all with regards to the President's promise to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT), yesterday reversed course:

"President Obama has been clear in his direction to Secretary Gates and Chairman Mullen that he is committed to repeal the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy. He has also been clear that he is committed to do it in a way that is least disruptive to our troops, especially given that they have been simultaneously waging two wars for six years now. Although this will require changes to the law, the Secretary and Chairman are working to address the challenges associated with implementation of the President's commitment."

It's been a bad month for the administration on the DADT issue, including White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, oddly, talking about "reforming" the DADT policy today, as if there's some middle ground between bigotry and equality (perhaps we split the difference at 4/5ths a man?). But this statement out of the Pentagon is a good sign. It's a sign that the Pentagon understands that it doesn't run the commander in chief, and it's a sign that the White House is beginning to understand the depth of the angst, doubt, and anger many are feeling over the uncertain future of President Obama's many promises to gay Americans.

This doesn't mean we've won. It means we're finally taking a step in the right direction. Read More......

McClatchy: Cheney's speech "contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements"

McClatchy was one of the very few news outlets to challenge the Bush/Cheeny lies in the build up to the war. Two McClatchy reporters, Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel, actually checked the facts in Cheney's speech. No surprise to most of us, while Cheney was stoking fear and condoning torture, he played fast and loose with the truth. And, Landay and Strobel used facts to rebut Cheney:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney's defense Thursday of the Bush administration's policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements.

In his address to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative policy organization in Washington, Cheney said that the techniques the Bush administration approved, including waterboarding — simulated drowning that's considered a form of torture — forced nakedness and sleep deprivation, were "legal" and produced information that "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people."

He quoted the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, as saying that the information gave U.S. officials a "deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country."

In a statement April 21, however, Blair said the information "was valuable in some instances" but that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

The article easily deconstructs a series of Cheney's errors -- he's so blatant. There was no way Cheney could give a speech without invoking again his most famous lie -- the non-existent ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. And, he's still desperate to convince us that torture works. Cheney had detainees tortured to "prove" the Iraq/al Qaeda relationship:

Cheney said that "the key to any strategy is accurate intelligence," but the Bush administration ignored warnings from experts in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department, the Department of Energy and other agencies, and used false or exaggerated intelligence supplied by Iraqi exile groups and others to help make its case for the 2003 invasion.

Cheney made no mention of al Qaida operative Ali Mohamed al Fakheri, who's known as Ibn Sheikh al Libi, whom the Bush administration secretly turned over to Egypt for interrogation in January 2002. While allegedly being tortured by Egyptian authorities, Libi provided false information about Iraq's links with al Qaida, which the Bush administration used despite doubts expressed by the DIA.

A state-run Libyan newspaper said Libi committed suicide recently in a Libyan jail.

There is, of course, this one:

Cheney said that, in assessing the security environment after 9-11, the Bush team had to take into account "dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists."

Cheney didn't explicitly repeat the contention he made repeatedly in office: that Saddam cooperated with al Qaida, a linkage that U.S. intelligence officials and numerous official inquiries have rebutted repeatedly.

The late Iraqi dictator's association with terrorists vacillated and was mostly aimed at quashing opponents and critics at home and abroad.

The last State Department report on international terrorism to be released before 9-11 said that Saddam's regime "has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President (George H.W.) Bush in 1993 in Kuwait."

A Pentagon study released last year, based on a review of 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the U.S.-led invasion, concluded that while Saddam supported militant Palestinian groups — the late terrorist Abu Nidal found refuge in Baghdad, at least until Saddam had him killed — the Iraqi security services had no "direct operational link" with al Qaida.

Cheney didn't "explictly" make the claim about Saddam and al Qaeda again, but he sure intimated it. Cheney never, ever let that one go.

It would hurt the heads of most D.C. reporter-types to read this McClatchy article. CNN's John King and NBC's David Gregory come to mind. But, it should me mandatory reading now that Cheney is back. He's still a liar.

And, again, Cheney and Bush weren't assessing the national security environment before 9/11. That's why bin Laden pulled off the horrific attacks. Our leaders weren't protecting us. Read More......

Friday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

As predicted, the traditional media was agog over the Cheney speech yesterday. Just felt like many of them fell right back into their circa 2002 reporting. Dick Cheney said we must be afraid. Dick Cheney said terrorists were going to get us.

If Dick Cheney put as much time into thinking about protecting the nation at this time eight years ago, he and his hapless president might have prevented the worst terrorist attack in our history. But, many in the media forget that Bush and Cheney failed to protect us. And, a lot of them forget Bush and Cheney lied to them about so many issues. Lied right to their faces.

But, Cheney is back. He's the GOP's future. And, while most Americans are long past the politics of fear, the D.C. press and pundits fall for it every time.

So glad it's a three-day weekend.... Read More......

GM heading into bankruptcy next week

A few decades ago, this would have been unthinkable. It's not the ideal situation though it's much better than the other option, total failure. The impact across the US would be a serious challenge to an economy that is treading water. Some of the shareholders continue to complain though maybe they haven't calculated the full impact of 0 on the books. Washington Post:

The Obama administration is preparing to send General Motors into bankruptcy as early as the end of next week under a plan that would give the automaker tens of billions of dollars more in public financing as the company seeks to shrink and reemerge as a global competitor, sources familiar with the discussions said.

The move comes as the administration prepares to lift the nation's other faltering car company, Chrysler, from bankruptcy protection as soon as next week, industry sources said.

The shifts into and out of bankruptcy are landmarks in the Obama administration's attempt to broker a historic restructuring of the American auto industry in the space of months.

Read More......

AIG CEO stepping down

Current CEO Edward Liddy is not a bad person. He left a comfortable retirement to come in and work for $1 per year to try and help a troubled organization. AIG is an ugly organization that previously allowed some very dangerous business practices which was no fault of Liddy. Liddy has pushed back against public fury over the excessive bonuses and that is where he started to lose support. Whether he really believed they deserved that money or whether he was trying to get the story out there for public debate is a question that I've had but either way, this was a losing battle. The latest report on AIG the company is that they could likely require an additional bailout. Liddy had to know that would not be well received. What real change is even possible for the new CEO?

American International Group Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Edward M. Liddy plans to step down from the troubled insurance giant, now largely owned by the US government, after less than nine months on the job.

Liddy told the board that he will step down once it finds a replacement. He recommended to the board that the roles of chairman and CEO be separated.

Read More......

UK S&P; rating slashed to "negative"

Gulp. Not the most promising news for the UK. Financing their massive debt now just became that much more costly.

Ratings agency Standard & Poor's lowered its outlook on Britain to negative on Thursday while affirming its 'AAA' long-term and 'A-1+' short-term sovereign credit ratings.

"We have revised the outlook on the UK to negative due to our view that, even assuming additional fiscal tightening, the net general government debt burden could approach 100 percent of GDP and remain near that level in the medium term," Standard & Poor's credit analyst David Beers said in a statement.

Beers said S&P; had a more cautious view than the UK government of "how quickly the erosion in the government's revenue base may be repaired, the extent to which the growth in government spending can be curtailed, and consequently the pace at which historically high fiscal deficits are likely to narrow."

Read More......