Schiavo Debacle

At first I was going to resist commenting on the Terri Schiavo mess. After hearing so much from both sides, I just can't let it pass without commenting.

Foremost, I feel sorry both the Schiavos and the Schindlers. The Schindlers are doing what most parents would do and try to protect their daughter and still hold out hope. No matter what the Right Wingnuts say to cloud the issue, the husband has been consistent in his belief he is carrying out Terri's wishes.

No matter what hope the Schindlers hold out for, barring a Lazarus-like miracle, Terri will never improve. The Wingnuts can site example after example til the turn into a blue stater. It's not going to change anything. Dave at Justus for All has a link to a site which shows her CAT scan compared to a normal brain. It leaves no doubt.

I don't know whether or not the feeding tube should be removed allowing her to slowly die or not. Although I'm a strong believer in a person's right to die, I don't know enough about this case. I think if I was in Michael Schiavo's position, I'd sign over the power of attorney to the parents. They want to take care and love their daughter. Even though, if she really is 'alive', she'd be confined to a living hell. A prison only Kafka could imagine.

Now, what is just amazing to me is all the hypocrisy being shown by our Federal Govt. How in the hell can these Bozos think they take this action with a straight face and say anything about the Marriage Act or State's Rights? This case has been through 19 judges and the Florida Supreme Court, yet they want to complain about 'activist' judges??? They are pathetic. ESPECIALLY, in light of this site by News Hounds I stumbled upon today. It truly shows the hypocrisy of Bush, DeLay and their ilk. After all, Bush signed into law in 1999, a bill allowing hospitals to remove life support even over the objections of the family! So, if you run out of money or Medicare runs out, you get 10 days to find a new home or the plug gets pulled. The law was then modified in 2003 to allow this kind of Republican sympathy to be extended to children.

States have passed Right to Die laws and Medical Marijuana laws and yet the Feds will not recognize those state rights...But abortion and gay marriage?? Oh, these are states rights all the way!! The Left is just as ridiculous since they've encouraged the abrogation of right to the Feds. Now they want to take it back. Well good luck. This is just a mess and it shows our leaders to be puppets to special interests overriding the Federal principles they so often hide behind.

Cleft Palate Abortion

I was absolutely amazed with the Crown’s decision to not prosecute the appalling abortion of a fetus diagnosed with a cleft palate recently in the news. How can anyone with a conscience even begin to believe being born with a cleft palate can be described as a birth defect much less a ‘serious birth defect’? This is nothing short of elective abortion of a near term (+ 24 wk) baby. My own son was born at 30 wks, fullly formed and now a beautiful, healthy young man.

What is the next step in the evolution of abortion? I can understand the first trimester limitation. But now we have Partial Birth abortion, which as a father I don’t know how anyone can condone such an action unless the mother is in dire peril. After all, at this point it’s not a fetus but a real live baby. Otherwise, why was Connor Peterson even considered in Scott Peterson’s murder trial.

Now, as feared by many, we have elective abortion. This one was because of a cleft palate. Let me repeat, a bloody CLEFT PALATE!!! At what point do we draw the line? With modern medical procedures today, we are often able to predict how our children will turn out. Do we have positive AFPs aborted on the possibilities of neural defects? What about other genetic tests such as Tay Sach or Fragile X?

As a male, I feel I don’t have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. As a converted Liberal, I’ve grown up all my life with the thought of a woman’s right to choose. However, after participating in both my children’s births, I have changed my position on a personal level. But I still do not feel it’s right to tell women what to do. However, I won’t even go into parental consent now that I’m a parent of a young lady (tattoos require parental consent yet abortions do not ?!?!?!?) .

This action taken ( or not taken ) by the Crown in England borders on criminal not to mention the physicians involved.

Misplaced Responsibility

The parents of Rachel Corrie are suing Caterpiller for its 'part' in the death of Rachel. This is on top of suing Israel. The only folks they've forgotten are the petrol companies that provided the fuel for the bulldozer. Oh, wait that would be asinine, wouldn't it... This is truly sad. They refuse to be accountable for their own actions in raising a terrorist enabler.

Rachel burned an American flag (more like a drawing, but still symbolic) while screaming anti-American slogans in a 'war zone', yet thought standing in front of a bulldozer, with limited vision, was the ultimate act of heroism. It was her last stupid act.

North Korea appeasement?

This sounds like the LA Times... but I like the 'it's not our fault, it America's' tenor.

"There's never been a positive article about North Korea, not one," he said. "We're portrayed as monsters, inhuman, Dracula … with horns on our heads."

Or here's the closet Capitalist:

He said better relations with the United States were key to turning around his nation's economy, which has nearly ground to a halt over the last decade amid famine, the collapse of industry and severe electricity shortages. "For basic life, we can live without America, but we can live better with" it, he said.

And I like this one:

While Westerners tend to stress the rights of the individual, he said, "we have chosen collective human rights as a nation…. We should have food, shelter, security rather than chaos and vandalism. The question of our survival as a nation is dangling."

Or this, blaming this Admin for packs create in the `90s:

But he faulted the United States for the collapse of a 1994 pact under which North Korea was supposed to get energy assistance in return for freezing its nuclear program. The agreement fell apart after Washington accused North Korea in 2002 of cheating on the deal, and the U.S. and its allies suspended deliveries of fuel oil.

"Electricity is a real problem. We have only six hours a day," said the North Korean, who lives in an apartment in a choice neighborhood of Pyongyang, the capital. "When you are watching a movie on TV, there might be a nice love scene and then suddenly the power is out. People blame the Americans. They blame Bush."

But what get's me is the tenor of the article, I'd call it a bit soft or even sympatheic.

As for international negotiations aimed at getting North Korea to give up its nuclear arms program, he said he thought Pyongyang would probably show up at the next round of talks. But his country would prefer to negotiate directly with the United States, he said, rather than in six-party discussions that also include China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.

He said the Americans' insistence on including six countries had caused undue complications.

"If we sort out the problems with America, everything else will fall into place. The problems with Japan can easily be sorted out," he said.

The North Korean criticized some Japanese politicians' efforts to link the nuclear talks to the question of Japanese citizens kidnapped by North Korea in the 1970s and 1980s.

"This was something done by a few overly enthusiastic people long ago," he said. "We tried to make amends.

"Now people like Shinzo Abe [deputy secretary-general of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party] are using it for political purposes and destroying the interests of millions of people."

The most important point the North Korean said he wanted to convey in the conversation was that his nation was a place just like any other.

"There is love. There is hate. There is fighting. There is charity…. People marry. They divorce. They make children," he said.

"People are just trying to live a normal life."

Honorable Sen. Byrd

Did anyone see or hear what came out of the Hon. Senator from W. Virginia's mouth? I was uncertain at first. I mean, let's have enough of PC already. Can't ANYONE say ANYTHING without it being insulting?

But then . . . I actually read what he said. Now, I know he's supposed to be the 'historian of the Senate' given his propensity for injecting history into his debates. But as a 'historian' one would think he's understand the implication of his words:

"We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men," Byrd said. "But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends."
Byrd then quoted historian Alan Bullock, saying Hitler "turned the law inside out and made illegality legal."

I know he's a doddering old man of 87, but com' on. Was he subliminally still attached to the Dems thought that Bush was equal to Hitler? After all, what got me was this:

...Byrd's remark that "some in the Senate are ready to callously incinerate" senators' rights to filibuster.

He must be losing it if he's using 'incinerate' and comparing this administration to Hitler in the same speech.

And I'm not even going to bring up HIS past (OK, so I am now...), but it has nothing to do with this issue.

Miss Me??

Thought so . . . sorry but I've been immersed in Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) interfaces at the lab. A couple of Hospitals and Physicians later and I've survived . . . until next week!! It's an explosion of technology!!

Insurance Thoughts

I was wondering what to blog on since I've not been stimulated these last few days to jot anything down on topics I do not find interesting.... blah. blah. blah... And here I though August was the 'dog days'.

But then I clicked on the link for a commenter at one of my 'daily fares' , my so called blog. Lachlan's been having a spot of bad karma lately, but she's showing her true Midwest spirit by either kickin' ass or taking names. Any way, the commenter, Mark, has a site called Tangent to Reality . So, being the kind and courteous type, I thought I'd check it out and found an interesting topic; one that stimulated that little kernel of a brain... Healthcare Insurance Rant.

Awrighty then...Now this is something that piques my interest. As mentioned previously, I've worked in the Healthcare industry for about 20 yrs. Now while I may not be on the front line of HC (doctor, nurse, MT, MLT, et al) , I am closely tied to them by both marriage (the better half is a MedTech at a local hospital) and career ( PM for Electonic Medical Records division) so I live this shit every day. So when folks have a hard time with Insurance Carriers, I totally understand. I, too, feel they are the parasites of society. After all, while they may profess not to take 'pre-existing' conditions, they will do nothing to prevent illness and disease. In my lab, we just run the tests. We have no control over what is ordered nor why. Yet, most of the time we are the ones required to 'collect' payment. This saves the provider the trouble of having to bill the patient. While propagating the fallacy of the abusive Healthcare Industry... After all, who likes to get a notice from the Lab or Hospital saying their Insurance Carrier has denied 20% of their bill, but since it's been requested by the physician, we are required to perform the requested tests if the required ICD-9 (diagnosis codes).

See our problem? It's the lab who is caught in the middle. . . but the patient suffers if they have to pay a bill they were not expecting and will be more than happy to blame the lab and not the physician who ordered the test!!!

Now a word from our Libertarian sponsor. . . Can any of you tell me just when it became the responsibility of the employer to provide health insurance ? ? ? Anyone??? Well, it came about during FDR's grand scheme of a greater society. But let's think about this...What or who decides the employer is responsible for their employee's healthcare? Shouldn't it be your responsibility? But until the dreaded Insurance Carriers adjust their costs for the self-insured, nothing will happen and all will suffer. Believe it or not we do have the best health care in the world, we just have to pay or supplement the Insurance Carriers to provide it.

Insurance = Legalized Loan Sharking

What Age do You Act? ? ?

Man, do I feel old . . .

You Are 34 Years Old

34 Under 12: You are a kid at heart. You still have an optimistic life view - and you look at the world with awe. 13-19: You are a teenager at heart. You question authority and are still trying to find your place in this world. 20-29: You are a twentysomething at heart. You feel excited about what's to come... love, work, and new experiences. 30-39: You are a thirtysomething at heart. You've had a taste of success and true love, but you want more! 40+: You are a mature adult. You've been through most of the ups and downs of life already. Now you get to sit back and relax.

What Age Do You Act?

The Gannon Problem

Has anyone kept up with The Gannon Problem for the White House? AMERICAblog has posted a couple of entries on it with one going into detail of his 'night job'.

I really haven't paid much attention to it, but after checking it out some I find it a little troubling. How did he get access? Who authorized it? Someone is going to take the fall on this, rightly so. I don't care about the sexuality spin on this. I'm more troubled with the fact he was able to have indepth access to the White House using a nom de guerre.

The Right is getting a taste of a pajama party from the Left. I think this shows the power of the blogs, no one is safe anymore. Good!

Who Owns What?!?!?!?

How often have you wondered in this day and age of mega-corporations, who really owns what? What power is concentrated into whose hands? Remember the power of the people when it came to the dissolution of apartheid? It was through the power of divestment.... Just imagine the power... Hummmmmmm.

Oh, sorry. I was just day dreaming of the power.

Anyway, I was checking out the Daou Report when I came across a rather innocuous direct to Will Pitt's site . It was titled Buying Back the Media, One Billionare at a Time . The nugget in the article is the link to Columbia Journalism Review's article on what Corporations own what. Now the limitation with this article is that it is only for Media Corporations, not all Corporations.

Pity...

But it's still a powerful list.

Rafsanjani's Interview with USA Today

As I mentioned before, I spent a couple of years during the late `70s in LA. This was during the Iranian crisis. Many of my friends were Iranian children of ex-pats who barely escaped with their lives. Some were even attacked here by some dubious characters.... So I just happen to have a certain affinity for them.

So, I was more than a little interested in what Rafsanjani had to say last week during an interview with Barbara Slavin (bold added by Docter Zin):

Slavin: Would you be prepared to reopen a dialogue with the United States?

Rafsanjani: The first step has to be from the U.S. part. They have to show positive signs for us so we can believe they are sincere. The main thing would be our assets. That would be the best positive sign. This is a very wrong action that they have betrayed our trust. When I talk about the assets, that was at the beginning of the talks. I was president then. I'm not president now. When I said it, this would be a sign of goodwill to begin the talks.

Slavin: Should Iran show goodwill by using its influence over the Palestinian groups to stop violence against the Israelis?

Rafsanjani: The Palestinian groups do not listen to us. We only help them in a humanitarian aspect like other countries, but they have no obligations towards us.

[...]

Slavin: Isn't your real problem with the United States? You know the Europeans are never going to attack Iran.

Rafsanjani: We say they (the United States) wouldn't dare to attack us and they have tested it once (the failed hostage rescue in 1980). Before the U.S. was in Iran, they had all the means here and we threw them out with our bare hands.

[...]

Slavin: What about Iran's connection with al-Qaeda? There have been persistent reports that Iran has several high-level al-Qaeda people under house arrest in Tehran and won't turn them over.

Rafsanjani: Who created al-Qaeda? In fact they (the United States) were the ones who provoked al-Qaeda to come and give us trouble. These are all rumors (about high level al-Qaeda people here). When al-Qaeda was on the run from Afghanistan crossing through Iran, some were arrested and they are imprisoned. Some of them are charged with some actions in Iran.

These folks are a good people, there's not doubt. Unfortunately, the US did mess with them during the Shah's regime as we are want to do some times... But until their radical Shia form of government stops oppressing their folks, we will always be at odds.

Alan Keyes' Daughter

I stumbled on to something the other day at The Daou Report (and BTW, looks like he sold out to Salon... ugh) which I found intriguing.

I find certain folks reprehensible in their actions and deeds and Mr. Alan Keyes is truly reprehensible. The Daou Report pointed to an Oliver Willis site which brought to my attention something I didn't know (surprise!!!) but just floors me.

Seems the Alan Keyes, the rightwingnut, has a daughter who just happens to be a lesbian... This is the man who slams Mary Cheney as a 'selfish hedonist'. My god, the gall this 'man' has!!!

But wait, there's more!!! And this is enough to just piss off a 'normal' person. Seems, and I could be wrong, but from what I've been able to discern from her post, Maya was working for her father after moving from Maryland to Illinois. Well, she was fired from her job and now has been kicked out of her apartment. By her family unit....

So much for Compassionate Conservatives, eh? Now, I can see how a parent would not support a child for such things murder and other hard crimes, but to use a child and then discard them is unbelievable.

For the life of me, I can't understand the phobia some folks have over the gay/lesbian issue. The whole issue of marriage is beyond me. How can anyone think it's wrong for folks to love and support one another? Or deny access to a partner in a hospital? Or divide assets properly? Or, even better. go through the agony of divorce or child custody, which I've seen personally and it's no easier come hetero or homosexual.

Why does it seem these pompous asses have the ultimate 'shame' thrust upon them??? Let's see, we've got Dick Cheney (Mary), Phyllis Schlafly (John), Charles Socarides, National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (Richard), and Randall Terry (Jamiel) are just some to name a few. Good for them!!!

Eason Jordan

Sisypean Musings has been keeping tabs on the outrageous comments by Eason Jordan which has been ignored by the MSM....of course. I look forward to the video to refute the 'I never said that...'

The Fight Back

This is the moment we've been waiting for.

Ali has reported a town in the 'Sunni Triangle' has done then unspeakable! They fought back against the Islamofacists!!

Could this be the first sprout of Freedom?

"ALLAH FUBAR!!!"

Ok, I'm taking even the title from Michael King's article, but it can't be beat!! He points to Wizbang for the video, but it really is funny as hell!!!

The ad, a hoax viral ad not unlike last year's Ford Ka web ads that depicted a cat being beheaded and a pigeon being smacked into the street, is making it's way across the internet. The spot shows a man stepping out of a house in a nameless cosmopolitan European city and getting into a black VW Polo (a European-only sedan, similar to the American VW Golf). After driving the Polo through the city, he stops in front of a sidewalk cafe packed with diners. Inside the car, you see that he is a suicide bomber with a bomb vest on and a detonator in his hand. Outside the car again, the bomb detonates, and is completely contained within the car. A muffled "whumpf" sounds as the car remains intact. One diner
looks up at the car casually.

The captioned tag reads, "Polo. Small but tough."

So priceless, even the better half laughed out loud!!!

A World without Israel

Josef Joffe at Foreign Policy has an unbelievably illuminating article on the world if Israel didn't exist. As I've mentioned before, I am an undying believer in the right of Isreal's existence. Those who believe the Arab world would not be rife with strife if Israel was not around just don't have a clue.

Since World War II, no state has suffered so cruel a reversal of fortunes as Israel. Admired all the way into the 1970s as the state of those plucky Jews who survived against all odds and made democracy and the desert bloom in a climate hostile to both liberty and greenery, Israel has become the target of creeping delegitimization.

It's amazing to me that when a country has to repeatedly defend itself against overwhelming odds it winds up becoming demonized. I will accede some of her actions have had a deleterious effect. It is the actions of a paranoid and fearful society surrounded by openly hostile regimes.

The denigration comes in two guises. The first, the soft version, blames Israel first and most for whatever ails the Middle East, and for having corrupted U.S. foreign policy. It is the standard fare of editorials around the world, not to mention the sheer venom oozing from the pages of the Arab-Islamic press. The more recent hard version zeroes in on Israel's very existence. According to this dispensation, it is Israel as such, and not its behavior, that lies at the root of troubles in the Middle East. Hence the statocidal conclusion that Israel's birth, midwifed by both the United States and the Soviet Union in 1948, was a grievous mistake, grandiose and worthy as it may have been at the time.

[...]

Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argues that what is happening between Israelis and Palestinians is a tremendous obstacle to democratization because it inflames all the worst, most regressive aspects of Arab nationalism and Arab culture. In other words, the conflict drives the pathology, and not the other way around which is like the streetfighter explaining to the police: It all started when this guy hit back.

The problem with this root-cause argument is threefold: It blurs, if not reverses, cause and effect. It ignores a myriad of conflicts unrelated to Israel. And it absolves the Arabs of culpability, shifting the blame to you know whom.

Pathology . . .that says it all. The Arab world can cry all they want about Palestine, but it is a 'strawman' aguemnt. According to the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "early in the 20th century a list of no less than fifty languages" that "it is therefore no easy task to write concisely ... on the ethnology of Palestine."

Now to the hard version. Ever so subtly, a more baleful tone slips into this narrative: Israel is not merely an unruly neighbor but an unwelcome intruder. Still timidly uttered outside the Arab world, this version's proponents in the West bestride the stage as truth-sayers who dare to defy taboo. Thus, the British writer A.N. Wilson declares that he has reluctantly come to the conclusion that Israel, through its own actions, has proven it does not have the right to exist. And, following Sept. 11, 2001, Brazilian scholar Jose Arthur Giannotti said: Let us agree that the history of the Middle East would be entirely different without the State of Israel, which opened a wound between Islam and the West. Can you get rid of Muslim terrorism without getting rid of this wound which is the source of the frustration of potential terrorists?

So let us assume that Israel is an anachronism and a historical mistake without which the Arab-Islamic world stretching from Algeria to Egypt, from Syria to Pakistan, would be a far happier place, above all because the original sin, the stablishment of Israel, never would have been committed. Then let's move from the past to the present, pretending that we could wave a mighty magic wand, and poof, Israel disappears from the map.

What's amazing about this pipe dream? It's if this ever happened the Arabs would still blame all their problems on ghost of Israel.

Civilization of Clashes

Let us start the what-if procession in 1948, when Israel was born in war. Would stillbirth have nipped the Palestinian problem in the bud? Not quite. Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon marched on Haifa and Tel Aviv not to liberate Palestine, but to grab it. The invasion was a textbook competitive power play by neighboring states intent on acquiring territory for themselves. If they had been victorious, a Palestinian state would not have emerged, and there still would have been plenty of refugees. (Recall that half the population of Kuwait fled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's liberation of that country in 1990.) Indeed, assuming that Palestinian nationalism had awakened when it did in the late 1960s and 1970s, the Palestinians might now be dispatching suicide bombers to Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere.

There is much, much more. Joffe goes through the five levels of conflict inherent in the Middle East which have nothing to do with Israel. Just remember the term...Pathology...it is the true definition of the Arabs of today.

Don't Change Social Security!!

Wow, according to this quiz by the Healthspan Calculator, I'm expected to hang around until just shy of 70. So, all bets are off!!! Don't touch the eligibility for Social Security!! In fact, move it down some. After all I want to reap what I've sown.

Thanks Kate, you've harshed my buzz . . .

Partisan Pundity for 2004

Q and O refers to Lying in Ponds to bring us the Partisan Pundity for 2004. I can't argue with either site when they award Ann Coulter and Paul Krugman for being the partisan hacks that they are.

For Ann Coulter:

Ann Coulter easily won her second consecutive partisanship title, mostly because of her relentlessly one-sided criticism of the Democratic Party. Her ratio of 70 negative references to Democrats for every positive reference (1058 to 15) is unprecedented in the three years of Lying in Ponds statistics. Ms. Coulter was simultaneously the most positive pundit toward George W. Bush and the most negative toward John Kerry. In addition to extreme partisanship, Ms. Coulter stands out because of her array of nasty personal attacks -- she referred to various Democratic presidential candidates as a "pacifist scaredy-cat", "crazier than a March hare", a "two-faced weasel", a "coward", a "cad and a gigolo", a "low-born poseur", a "poodle to rich women", and "boobs". In addition to partisanship and incivility, Ms. Coulter is a master of deceptive and irrational rhetoric.

For Paul Krugman:

Paul Krugman completed another year as a New York Times columnist, making it five full years of punditry without once finding a reason to write a column consisting mostly of substantive criticsm of any Democrat on any topic or substantive praise of any Republican on any topic. Although Mr. Krugman's utterly predictable criticism of Republicans is unsurpassed, his high ranking also depends on a careful protection of Democrats. He expressed a strong preference for Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, but once John Kerry took the lead in the race for the Democratic nomination, Mr. Krugman turned on a dime and was more favorable toward Mr. Kerry than any of our 33 pundits. He has carefully avoided any mention of Democratic scandals, adding disgraced former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey to a long list of names which must not be mentioned -- Marc Rich, Al Sharpton, Robert Torricelli, etc. Back in March, I wrote a five part series exploring various aspects of Paul Krugman's amazing record of extreme partisanship.

These two belong together in a padded cell. They are ones who poison the waters of discourse. The shame, the shame...

Iraq Civil War?

Iraq the Model has an entry on the possibilities of a Civil War in Iraq after the elections.

...The theory of the civil war doesn't match any of the facts on the ground and it's based on visions of people who have never lived among Iraqis and have no real-if any-experience in the region.

[ ... ]

Most of such theories are based on the assumption that the Sunni will not approve the outcome of the elections if the She'at got the majority of votes and that this disapproval would take the form of a widespread insurgency in all the areas inhabited by a Sunni majority and then the She'at would be forced to fight to defend their existence and the whole country gets into an endless circle of violence.The above theory looks strong and points out a possibility that can not be ignored (in the eyes of the theorists). I don't call this over-pessimism but I attribute it to a lack of clear vision and to looking at the case from one angle.

[ ... ]

During the past 18 months, the She'a and the Kurds had the majority (about 80%)of seats in the interim government with most of the decision making positions in their hands but that didn't lead to a civil war and I want to remind you here that the voices that are expecting the boycott and the civil war to happen are the same voices that expected the eruption of an uprising when the government decided to attack the terrorists in Najaf and Fallujah but we saw in both cases that only the terrorists who started the war remained fighting in the cities while the people, the citizens of the cities whether Sunni or She'at didn't show any support to the terrorists and left them to fight alone. So why would we now expect the Sunni to join the terrorists in a widespread insurgency?

I think this has touched on some valid points that seems to be glossed over for the negativity by the MSM. I have no doubt the danger the election poses for those who want to participate in the Sunni Triangle. Intimidation is a powerful tool in Iraq today. I can't image the every day folks just trying to survive to make a better country. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't; except this is for real and for keeps. But until the locals stand up and turn in the 'insurgents', their expoitation of the soft targets will continue even after the election.

I do not agree with the opinion that if the Sunni's boycott the vote, it election is invalid. Nor do I agree the Election should be postponed. The Sunni are given the opportunity to vote. If they choose not to vote, that is their choice. They are a minority with a history of oppressing the masses. Now they want to take their votes and go home...Let them.

Domestic Partnerships

Thanks to Daou Report for this.

One of the egregious examples of the second class treatment of same-sex partnerships will be battled in the New York State of Appeals Court. Lambda Legal will be arguing for the surviving partner of a flight attendant that died on board American Airlines Flight 587.

The couple had been together for 21 years, had set up elaborate financial agreements to care for each other, and had been among the first to register as domestic partners in New York State when the option became available in 1994. In 2003 the plaintiff was denied benefits because he failed to produce a marriage certificate.

This is why marriage should be separated from Church and State. If the many church organizations want to deny some people the ability to have a partnership within their organization, fine let `em. But the State should dis-associate itself from the supposed 'moral' dilemma by treating partnership as a legal agreement.

If you get married with the Justice of the Peace, it is completely non-sectarian and should have all the benefits under the law. It's not going to impact little Timmy or little Debbie any more if we have same-sex marriages, oops, partnerships than the inter-racial marriages now logical and legal in our land.

Geez, people . . . get over it!!! What are you suppressing???