Last night, while watching TV, I heard a blip on the news about how woman are being told that we don’t need those nasty ol’ mammograms anymore until we are 50 years old…and even then, only once every two years. My jaw just dropped. I thought it was some ridiculous rogue group that were shooting their mouth off, but no…it’s our government telling us that.

By now I’m sure most have already heard this news, so I guess I’m just writing this to blow off some steam and write my own views on this subject.

Ok…first let’s look at this government task force that has decided women should be the first in line to be thrown under the health care bus in order to save our government and the health insurance companies the costs of caring for us. According to the Chicago Tribune, this is “an influential group” called The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, a government sponsored group whose work is closely followed by doctors and insurance companies.

Now, maybe I’ve been living in a cave, but I’ve never even heard of this group before. Apparently, they consist of four public Health/Preventative Health, two Family Medicine, two Pediatricians, and two Ob/Gyn doctors. Not one Cancer Surgeon, Oncologist, or Radiologist is in this group…not one.

Oh…and it gets better. This government task force also recommends that they don’t have “sufficient” evidence that women over the age of 75 should have mammograms. Yup…no big deal ladies, once you’re old you can just die and get out of the way.

Women do have some advocates who are fighting for us, though. Dr. Daniel Kopans, senior radiologist in the breast imaging division at Massachusetts General Hospital said, “This will be disastrous for women’s health.” Dr. Robert Schmidt, a professor of radiology at the University of Chicago Medical Center said, “It’s arrogant and irresponsible”, “It’s wrong to keep changing recommendations and give conflicting messages to women.

It doesn’t seem to matter to this task force that deaths from breast cancer has dropped 30% since 1990. On Uppity Woman’s blog…which has a great post about this story today, I read in her comment section that a comment on an NPR site, written by a mammogram tech said this:

One in every 6 women now gets breast cancer. From 50-60 your risk quadruples. From 60-70 your risk quintuples. Between 50 and 70 is the most dangerous time to get breast cancer. To decrease mammograms to every two years is a death wish for women in this age demographic. The # 1 cause of breast cancer is diet, the 2nd cause environmental effects and the LAST is hereditary. I have seen as young as 19 years old with double mastectomy to 90 year olds with Breast cancer. Cancer doesn’t care what age you are or what sex you are.

Breast cancer strikes 211,000 U.S. women each year and kills more than 40,000, making it the leading cause of cancer and second-biggest cancer killer (after lung cancer) among women. But I guess if this farce of a task force says women don’t need it…we should all just relax, right?

Now, to get personal. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer when screening found a lump on her breast when she was 70 years old. Her mother was found to have breast cancer when she was 75 years old and had a mastectomy. In my mother’s case, she was able to have a lumpectomy because it was found early enough. After the removal of a couple of her lymph nodes, she was given radiation and chemotherapy. Had my mother not had that mammogram then, she would be dead today. I can’t even imagine what my life would be without her in it. Coincidently, just last week I brought her in for her annual mammogram and she will be seen by her Oncologist next week to go over the results. Since her surgery, she has been on medication that has been shown to help keep women from recurring cancer. This medication is very expensive and it’s no surprise to me that since this health care bill has been going through Congress and now the Senate, there are grumblings from Medicare that they don’t want to pay for this pill anymore. This was never an issue until our government has been pushing this new health care bill.

This so-called government task force is making this recommendation and cherry picking data for one reason only…to help keep costs down for this ridiculous health care bill that’s in the Senate and that Obama is determined to sign. The bill in Congress has already shown that they want to cut Medicare spending and what better way to do that than to not pay for the costs of breast cancer screening for women over the age of 70?

* Report: Bill would reduce senior care – Medicare cuts approved by House may affect access to providers. WP.

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report offers the clearest and most authoritative assessment to date of the effect that Democratic health reform proposals would have on Medicare and Medicaid, the nation’s largest public health programs.

The American College of Radiology, representing professionals who perform mammograms, addressed the fears of those who see the new health care reform as limiting tests and procedures to stem rising health care costs. In an article in the Chicago Tribune this morning, Dr. Carol Lee, chairwoman of the American College of Radiology’s Breast Imaging Commission said; “I just don’t understand what would make the (task force) change their recommendations when there really is no significant change in the data. This has to be about costs.”

Breast cancer can’t be ignored or wished away by a bunch of government bureaucrats. But of course, they can get away with this as long as we stay silent. This isn’t just a women’s issue. Guys, if you have a wife that you dearly love, do you want to take the chance on her missing a diagnosis for breast cancer because your health insurance will decide to only pay for tests on the recommendation of this government task force? Would you want your teen or adult daughter to succumb to breast cancer because she was told that self-examination is useless?

*******************

For more information on the Congressional Health Care bill, Quipster had a great post up yesterday (which is where I found the information on the proposed Medicare and Medicaid cuts).

Below is another great article written on this issue…

Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Radiology Director Responds to New Mammography Screening Recommendations

“Women need a clear message: early detection offers a woman the best chance for a cure, and mammography is essential for early detection of breast cancer. The Seattle Cancer Care Alliance continues to support annual screening mammograms for women beginning at age 40 as does the American Cancer Society. In fact, according to the ACS, 17 percent of breast cancer deaths in 2006 were among women who were diagnosed between ages 40 and 49.

“We know that digital mammography significantly improves the detection of cancer in young women and in women with dense breast tissue. These well-documented facts are not included in the analyses that led to the change in recommendations. It is important that women receive their mammograms at centers with the ability to provide high quality exams and that all women understand the importance of mammography for the early detection of breast cancer.”

“Failing to identify those women in their 40s with cancer and having them wait until they are screened at age 50 is a disservice. By then breast cancer can be advanced and more difficult to treat.”

UPDATE I: READ HOTAIR WHICH HAS AN EXCELLENT POST WHICH ALSO LISTS THE NAMES AND SPECIALTY OF THOSE ON THE TASK FORCE. THEY NOTE: “Not a single Oncologist in the group,not one!

UPDATE II: Per blogger SFIndie…. Please let your voices be heard! “The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is part of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Agency For Healthcare Research And Quality (check their website). This is the “for more information, contact” person. I’ll be contacting her and letting her know exactly how I feel:”

Therese Miller, Dr.P.H.
Project Coordinator
Center for Primary Care, Prevention, & Clinical Partnerships
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
540 Gaither Road
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: (301) 427-1585
Fax: (301) 427-1597

………………

Editor’s Note: Please also see Pat Racimora’s excellent cartoon and fine commentary, “New Recommendations, Let Health Care Rationing Begin.”

It’s sad that Obama can’t say anything about dissidents when he goes to China. It’s sad that he can’t raise anything. You know, he just has to go there and suck up.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. Geeeeeeeeeeeez. That is so sad.

I’m sure we all agree that Miranda warnings for U.S. citizens are a precious right. (See the original Supreme Court decision and its history: Miranda v. Arizona.) Most everyone, thanks to countless TV shows, is aware of that right. And, also thanks to TV dramas, we’ve all seen instances in which an innocent person accused of a crime inadvertently said something to the police that came back to haunt him/her. Had this person taken advantage of having an attorney present, s/he would have advised the accused to remain silent.

The image shows a cropped portion of Justice William E. Brennan, Jr.’s letter to Chief Justice Earl Warren. (At that same site — “American Treasures of the Library of Congress” — you can view Justice Warren’s handwritten notes on Miranda.)

But should this right be extended to alien terrorists, even on foreign soil? Should Osama bin Laden be Mirandazed?

And who could not shudder when the inept Attorney General Eric Holder fumbled around on that question posed by Senator Lindsey Graham (who is also Col. Lindsey Graham, an Air Force Reservist)?

Or his legally insane assurance that there’s no way KSM can not be convicted??? Uh, then… uh…what is the point of a U.S. trial with all of its precious built-in safeguards for the accused? Every attorney, judge and law professor in the country must have fallen over Wednesday when they heard that unethical — yes, unethical, as well as wholly legally unsound — ass-urance. And it makes a mockery of our heralded system of justice, turning this upcoming trial into a de facto “kangaroo court.” We should all feel aghast that our chief law enforcement officer would advocate such a sham trial.

Not for nothing, but the US has spent a whole ton of our money building “state-of-the-art” courtrooms in Guantanamo. As one might guess, they were built just for the purpose of trying these enemy combatants.

The NPR blog describes the astounding interaction in the following video:

[...] In one of the highlights of Wednesday’s Justice Department oversight hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, attempted to put Holder on the spot with the question: would U.S. officials need to Mirandize Osama bin Ladin if it captured him, including telling the al Qaeda leader that he had the right to remain silent?

Holder essentially said no, not necessarily. It would depend on the tack the U.S. government decided to take after capturing the terrorist leader. Graham clearly wasn’t persuaded by Holder’s answer.

The exchange started with Graham stumping Holder with a question one would have thought the attorney general would have been prepared for: … (transcript follows)

This man is our chief law enforcement officer? This man is also in charge of numerous law enforcement divisions like the FBI? Lord god almighty.

What it this? Hell’s bells. The Hapless Hopeless Holder has a terminal case of liberal lunacy.

And here’s an interesting finding from the blog at The Weekly Standard, “Schumer in 2001: “Ludicrous” to Try 9/11 Plotters in Civilian Courts“:

… the Washington Times unearths a quote from New York Senator Chuck Schumer in which, just a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Schumer mocks the idea that anyone would give the 9/11 plotters the same rights afforded to American citizens charged with pick-pocketing.

There are also those prisoners of war who we have captured and will capture in Afghanistan and other countries who will receive a trial of some sort. It is clear we need to try those suspects in a forum that achieves two primary goals—two goals, I might add, that may not conflict. First, the Government must have the power to use even the most sensitive classified evidence against these suspects without compromising national security in any way, shape, or form. In addition, those who commit acts of war against the United States, particularly those who have no color of citizenship, don’t deserve the same panoply of due process rights that American citizens receive. Should Osama bin Laden be captured alive—and I imagine most Americans hope he won’t be captured alive. But if he is, it is ludicrous to suggest he should be tried in a Federal court on Center Street in Lower Manhattan.

Yesterday, when Holder was asked whether bin Laden would be read Miranda rights if he were captured by U.S. forces, his answer: “that all depends…” Ed Morrissey asks, “What has changed in eight years to transform KSM and his cohorts into people who do ‘deserve the same panoply of due process rights that American citizens receive’?” On that, the Washington Times was unable to get a straight answer from Schumer.

Yeah. Right. It does all depend. On who’s in charge, and who has the C.S. — that plain ol’ C.S. (aka Common Sense) — to make sound judgments.

Larry Johnson has it right in his post, “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Will Destroy Obama .” But not before making a laughing stock of our country for giving this platform to KSM, or before saddling New York City with costs it can ill afford (and no, the city and state do not get fully reimbursed for their costs). Never mind how sensitive information will be handled. It really makes you wonder just what the Obama Administration hopes to gain from this politically? Make no mistake, this is all about politics. If it was about the law, Attorney General Holder would have known the answer to Senator Graham’s questions…

Bronwyn’s Note: Thank you to Reverend Amy and Larry Johnson for their remarkably astute ideas and edits that made this post better. You’re both great editors, and we all benefit from such fine editing.

The Republican charges of “Death Panels” in the first House health care bill (a jumbled mess for the most part) was over-the-top dramatic. But as any reader could easily discern, the tide had shifted from “get a team OK before letting them go” towards “get a team to assess keeping them going.” In any event, this section was abruptly withdrawn and has not reappeared in any obvious way.

I don’t think I am being paranoid when I suggest that the new tactic for rationing health care will be to do it slowly, quietly, in little bits and pieces off to the side, and maybe no one will notice.

Well, a new set of mammogram recommendations has just been issued, and it would appear to be a good example of such a sly attempt.

A government appointed group, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), is no friend to women and the men who love them. It turns out this group is issuing recommendations for screening women for breast cancer that diverge substantially from what is in place now. Here are a few of the lowlights:

No more routine mammograms for women under 50. (Women under 50 do get breast cancer, and with younger women is it often a very aggressive type.)

Mammograms for women in their 50s and 60s are recommended every two years instead of the currently recommended annual exam. (Cancers can do a lot of growing in two years.)

Teaching or encouraging women to do self-exams is no longer recommended. (They say it has no value, but I know two women who were months away from their next exam when they felt something suspicious. For one, the cancer was aggressive and she would have been at Stage 4 before her next exam.)

Screening for women over 74 is not recommended at all. (Whaaaaaat?)

I have several friends who would be dead now were these recommendations to be in force. And the American Cancer Society and many other experts and authorities are outraged by this report.

The USPS Task Force apparently assumes that we all have the intelligence of a bag of hair. For example, why should women over 74 not be screened? Their astounding answer is, “More research is needed before recommendations for or against mammography screening after age 74 can be made.” Huh? That’s like saying, “Don’t have a check-up until you become really sick.” In the meantime, lots of those pesky old women might die, saving many millions of dollars. And this outfit has the balls to call itself The U S Preventive Services Task Force?

Another example: The Task Force contends that having fewer mammograms will cause women less anxiety. True, the procedure is unpleasant, but it takes only a few minutes and then it’s over for a year. And call-backs and false positives do extend the anxiety. But, in the meantime how many more would have to go through the intense anxiety of dealing with breast cancer?

Final example: The Task Force notes that “1,904 women between the ages of 39 and 49 would need to be invited for screening to have one breast cancer death prevented; 1,339 women between the ages of 50 and 59 would need to be invited for screening to prevent one death; and 377 women between the ages of 60 and 69 would need to be invited for screening to prevent one death.” OK, I don’t have a clue what “invited for screening” means, but the wording is clearly meant to make us believe that screening doesn’t save all that many lives. Hold the phone! Is it not possible that they didn’t die because they were screened and were treated successfully? (Five out of the six women with breast cancer that I know well survived and remain cancer free.)

Oh, and by the way, this task force did not include an oncologist.

And we are not talking about a condition that is uncommon. According to the CDC, except for the typically curable and often minor forms of skin cancer, the number one type of cancer in women is breast cancer. For Hispanic women, breast cancer is the number one cause of cancer death. For white, black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native women, it is the second major cause of cancer death. However, overall deaths from breast cancer are low on the list of all causes of death for women, and one just has to suspect that regular mammogram screening has a lot to do with that.

Everyone including members of this renegade task force agree that mammograms save lives—but the Task Force is saying not enough to count. If they can manage to force their recommendations into Health Care Reform (certainly the bottom line is to do that) so that Medicare and private insurance don’t have to pay for the recommendations currently in force, then a lot of insurance and government money could be saved at the expense, of course, of women.

In the meantime, I wonder if PSA tests for detecting prostate cancer will get the same overhaul? ( I wouldn’t hold my breath.)

Holy smokes. Needless to say, there has been a LOT of discussion about this photograph, and why Newsweek would choose to run this particular photo. Taylor Marsh - former Clinton supporter now Obama water carrier - wrote a piece at Huffington Post on this, “What Was Newsweek Thinking?“. Media Matters had a post by Julie Millican, “Newsweek Should Worry More About How To Solve Its Problem With Sexism” (h/t to Bronwyn’s Harbor), though many of the comments would lead one to believe it is find and dandy to be sexist to someone if they are a Republican, and Palin’s an idiot anyway, so what’s the big deal?? (That was SNARK on my part, but sums up the sentiment there.)

Sarah Palin weighed in on the photo, too:

Palin denounced it—and us—to her million-strong Facebook following last night. “The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this ‘news’ magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant,” she wrote on her fan page, adding, “The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now.” She also told ABC’s Barbara Walters that she found the cover “a wee bit degrading.” Others, like CBN’s David Brody, said our cover was a new low: “biased and sexist at the same time.”

Well, yes. Out of all the photographs available out there, why choose one from RUNNER’S WORLD?? This was the excuse, I mean, reason, given by the editor:

Today, NEWSWEEK’s Editor Jon Meacham has responded to critics. “We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do,” Meacham said. “We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard.”

Well, if what they were trying to say was that they are a bunch of sexist patronizing sanctimonious assholes, they succeeded!

They could have chosen, oh, say, this one:

(September 3, 2008 - Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images North America)

Or how about this one:

(October 31, 2008 - Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images North America)

It took me less than a minute to find them. I would think Newsweek could take that long to find another image - if they had wanted to, that is. But they chose that one for a reason, and that reason is SEXISM.

Speaking of the photograph, it seems the photographer who took it, Brian Adams, engaged in a bit of premature, um, opportunism. He had a contract, you see, that did not allow him to sell this image until August of 2010. Oops!! Don’t you just hate when that happens? Anyway, kinda makes you wonder just how Newsweek got it, and it wasn’t from Runner’s World.

And then there’s the HEADLINE: “How Do You Handle a Problem Like Sarah? She’s Bad News For The GOP - And Everyone Else, Too.” Um, well, golly gee - that kind of sets the tone from the get-go, doesn’t it? I don’t even think one needs to read the damned thing to get where they are going with this.

It makes me wonder where they are getting their information. You may know that Governor Palin was on Oprah earlier this week. I don’t know about you, but I was wondering, just out of curiosity, what the ratings were going to be for that show. Care to hazard a guess? If you went by the headline above, you’d guess not very high. And you would be very wrong. Oprah’s show had the highest rating it has had in over TWO YEARS. Dang, that Palin is just TERRIBLE for EVERYBODY!!!! Never mind all of those cheering crowds turning out for her book tour - Palin is just terrible for them! And the GOP! And the WORLD!!!! Ahem.

Again, I disagree with a lot of her policies, but I do appreciate her honest, down to earth bearing - those are characteristics sorely missing among politicians today. Does she possess brilliance on a par with Hillary Clinton? No, I don’t know anyone in politics who is on Clinton’s level. She is heads and shoulders above (which is, no doubt, why they drug her down and stomped all over her). Apparently, though, those of us who consider ourselves to be liberal cannot like Sarah Palin at all in any way for any reason whatsoever without being chastised, criticized, demeaned, and belittled. Because we couldn’t POSSIBLY have been marching for Equal Rights for someone like SARAH PALIN, who, by her own admission on Oprah says her relationship to her husband is one based on EQUALITY. Surely, SHE doesn’t count, which has been the recurring theme about her by so-called liberals and “feminists.” Apparently, only Democrats are worthy of having equal rights according to a lot of these folks - many of whom were not marching, or fighting, or accompanying women to Planned Parenthood for abortions like a number of us did (including myself), but they can, with incredible sexism and elitism, denounce Palin for being an “idiot” and unworthy of respect (”she hasn’t done anything to deserve respect” was one comment I saw at Media Matters), despite all she accomplished for Alaska. Yet, Obama with his paper thin resume, and his throwing women under the bus, backing up, running over them again, and again, and again, somehow does deserve their respect. Wow.

Speaking of Obama, shockingly, in a recent Quinnipiac Poll, though Obama has now dipped below 50% approval, women approve of him by 52 - 37% while men disapprove of Obama by 47 - 44%. Why do women still support him after all of the ways he has dismissed women and our issues?

As for Sarah Palin, I am amazed by the amount of animosity directed at her by men, but women, too. And it amazes me how quickly people are willing to believe whatever rumor or half-truth comes down the pike about her. It is sad, really, but it also undermines their arguments against her, so there’s that.

Taking the two together is a sad, sad commentary on where we are. The bottom line, as we saw so clearly this past election season, is that sexism is most definitely alive and well in the United States, spurred on by our media, and our politicians. There is too little comeuppance for those who engage in sexism on a national level, like the cover of Newsweek above. I am glad that some women are speaking up as noted, but too many people are willing to engage in massive amounts of sexist commentary against Palin simply because she is a Republican and a conservative. Their hypocrisy apparently knows no bounds.

Sexism is sexism. We must be willing to apply the same standard across the board and political spectrum. Until then, we will continue to see national publications like “News”week engage in blatant sexism toward a former governor and former Vice Presidential candidate with too little outcry. And we will continue to see so-called liberals engage in blatant woman-bashing under the guise of “politics.” That is an excuse used by cowards and misogynists, and must not be excused any more by anyone. Call it by name: Sexism.

“News”week, you owe Governor Palin, and all women, an apology. We’re waiting…

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein

Wait a second. Blankfein admits that Goldman participated in activities that led to the crisis? Get Lloyd back in here and ask him for specifics.

In an attempt to probe as to Goldman’s culpability, I inquired:

What do you think Blankfein was referring to when he stated that Goldman “participated in things that were clearly wrong”? I’ll get the ball rolling with a few possibilities:

1. Manipulated the equity markets via computer programs connected with high frequency trading.

2. Ran over Tim Geithner in the settlement of open positions with AIG.

3. Facilitated insider trading on behalf of hedge funds.

4. Intentionally misled lesser prioritized clients via trading huddles.

5. Abused privileged information provided by former Goldman execs now in government positions.

6. All of the above.

7. Other . . . please share your opinions.

Yesterday we learn the answer is most likely choice # 2. It appears that Lloyd Blankfein would like forgiveness for the aggressive posture it took with Uncle Sam in the process of settling its exposure with AIG. Recall that Blankfein has repeatedly asserted that whether AIG went down or not was not meaningful to Goldman Sachs because Goldman had secured collateral from AIG to cover its exposure.

Does Lloyd regret making those strong and bold assertions? Is he apologizing for these statements? Why would he apologize? Did he intentionally misrepresent Goldman’s position? Did he lie? The Wall Street Journal provides compelling evidence that he did just that. The WSJ writes, Report Rebuts Goldman Claim on AIG:

For more than a year, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. has maintained that it wouldn’t have suffered material losses had the government allowed one of its major trading partners, American International Group Inc., to collapse.

A government report throws cold water on that claim.

Goldman was among the largest beneficiaries of a decision by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to bail out insurer AIG in September 2008 at the height of the financial crisis. The Fed agreed to pay Goldman and 15 other banks, in full, for $62 billion of insurance contracts they had with AIG to protect against price drops of mortgage securities they held.

The report, issued this week by the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, comes amid controversy over whether the government unfairly helped out big banks in its bailout of AIG. The government auditor’s report broadly found that the New York Fed left itself little room in negotiating with the banks for a better deal for taxpayers.

Goldman’s trading position with AIG centered on $22.1 billion of such insurance the firm had purchased from AIG. In a separate series of trades, Goldman itself had sold protection against losses on the same securities to other trading firms.

The problem for Goldman: If AIG collapsed and markets continued to swoon, Goldman would have had to make payments to the other trading firms and been unable to collect on protection it had bought from AIG.

While spokesmen for Goldman may try to spin Blankfein’s previous statements of Goldman being hedged against an AIG default, it does not take a brain surgeon to tie Blankfein’s apology on Tuesday to the recently released WSJ story. Professional courtesy in the financial industry compels journalists to share articles, especially negative coverage, with selected parties prior to its release. Do not think for a second that Blankfein was not aware of the WSJ article. While some within the industry may look at Blankfein’s statements about Goldman being protected from an AIG default as some semblance of harmless obfuscation, from where I come, we call it lying.

Goldman took the American taxpayer to the hoop in the process. When does Blankfein want to make proper restitution? Keep your apology. Give the taxpayer their money back. Get Geithner in here as well, as he facilitated this transfer and allowed the lie to perpetuate.

If Blankfein lied about this situation, the question begs as to what other lies or half-truths he has spoken.

What do you think?

LD

And this is a late night open post …

This hilarity was created by The Onion, and posted at ThePolitico.com.

This boy, though only 10, is well, amazing. He outshines millions of adults in this country, that’s for sure. The article makes that point clear:

Will Phillips isn’t like other boys his age.

For one thing, he’s smart. Scary smart. A student in the West Fork School District in Washington County, he skipped a grade this year, going directly from the third to the fifth. When his family goes for a drive, discussions are much more apt to be about Teddy Roosevelt and terraforming Mars than they are about Spongebob Squarepants and what’s playing on Radio Disney.

It was during one of those drives that the discussion turned to the pledge of allegiance and what it means. Laura Phillips is Will’s mother. “Yes, my son is 10,” she said. “But he’s probably more aware of the meaning of the pledge than a lot of adults. He’s not just doing it rote recitation. We raised him to be aware of what’s right, what’s wrong, and what’s fair.”

Will’s family has a number of gay friends. In recent years, Laura Phillips said, they’ve been trying to be a straight ally to the gay community, going to the pride parades and standing up for the rights of their gay and lesbian neighbors. They’ve been especially dismayed by the effort to take away the rights of homosexuals – the right to marry, and the right to adopt. Given that, Will immediately saw a problem with the pledge of allegiance.

“I’ve always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer,” Will said. “I really don’t feel that there’s currently liberty and justice for all.”

Out of the mouths of babes - or a child, in this case. Preach it, Will.

I love how deliberate this child is in his considerations. Again, would that many adults were capable of such rational thought:

After asking his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, Will decided to do something. On Monday, Oct. 5, when the other kids in his class stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance, he remained sitting down. The class had a substitute teacher that week, a retired educator from the district, who knew Will’s mother and grandmother. Though the substitute tried to make him stand up, he respectfully refused. He did it again the next day, and the next day. Each day, the substitute got a little more cross with him. On Thursday, it finally came to a head. The teacher, Will said, told him that she knew his mother and grandmother, and they would want him to stand and say the pledge.

“She got a lot more angry and raised her voice and brought my mom and my grandma up,” Will said. “I was fuming and was too furious to really pay attention to what she was saying. After a few minutes, I said, ‘With all due respect, ma’am, you can go jump off a bridge.’ ”

Ahahahahahahaha. I love that, “with all due respect…” It seems he had been showing her more respect than she was showing him. This was the quintessential “teachable moment,” and this teacher wildly missed the mark.

Well, you know what happened next, as will happen when a child backtalks a teacher (at least in Arkansas):

Will was sent to the office, where he was given an assignment to look up information about the flag and what it represents. Meanwhile, the principal called his mother.

“She said we have to talk about Will, because he told a sub to jump off a bridge,” Laura Phillips said. “My first response was: Why? He’s not just going to say this because he doesn’t want to do his math work.”

Eventually, Phillips said, the principal told her that the altercation was over Will’s refusal to stand for the pledge of allegiance, and admitted that it was Will’s right not to stand. Given that, Laura Phillips asked the principal when they could expect an apology from the teacher. “She said, ‘Well I don’t think that’s necessary at this point,’ ” Phillips said.

And why not? In this case, this teacher was wrong, as the principal acknowledged. The issue was one of justice and liberty, again, a great teaching moment for these children. The discussion could have been quite enlightening, but no:

After Phillips put a post on the instant-blogging site twitter.com about the incident, several of her friends got angry and alerted the news media. Meanwhile, Will Phillips still refuses to stand during the pledge of allegiance. Though many of his friends at school have told him they support his decision, those who don’t have been unkind, and louder.

“They [the kids who don't support him] are much more crazy, and out of control and vocal about it than supporters are.”

Given that his protest is over the rights of gays and lesbians, the taunts have taken a predictable bent. “In the lunchroom and in the hallway, they’ve been making comments and doing pranks, and calling me gay,” he said. “It’s always the same people, walking up and calling me a gaywad.”

Unfortunately, we we could see that coming, especially from Fifth graders, and other school age children who routinely say, “Oh, that’s so gay.” What am I talking, some teachers do it, too (unfortunately). Still, this young man has some backbone:

Even so, Will said that he can’t foresee anything in the near future that will make him stand for the pledge. To help him deal with the peer pressure, his parents have printed off posts in his support on blogs and websites. “We’ve told him that people here might not support you, but we’ve shown him there are people all over that support you,” Phillips said. “It’s really frustrating to him that people are being so immature.”

At the end of our interview, I ask young Will a question that might be a civics test nightmare for your average 10-year-old. Will’s answer, though, is good enough — simple enough, true enough — to give me a little rush of goose pimples. What does being an American mean?

“Freedom of speech,” Will says, without even stopping to think. “The freedom to disagree. That’s what I think pretty much being an American represents.”

Somewhere, Thomas Jefferson smiles.

Okay who wants Will to run for president in 35 years??? Yeah, me too.

No doubt Thomas Jefferson IS smiling at this wonderful young boy, and I am thankful for parents like the Phillips. We could sure use more like them. We DEFINITELY could use more young people like Will. What a thoughtful, grounded, boy he is. I hope for his sake, for our sake, he will be able to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance before he goes off to college…

Isn’t that great?? Well, it would be if it was actually true. But it is not. For instance, did you know that Puerto Rico has 99 districts? Nope, me, either. Because they don’t. They have 1 (one). How about Arizona? Heck, they’ve got at least 38 (thirty-eight), right? Oh, wait, no they don’t - they have 8 (eight). The alleged “recovered jobs” bragged about by Biden and how our stimulus money is being spent don’t quite match up. I know, big surprise (almost as much as the following report being on ABCNews):

Wow that’s some “state of the art system” you got going on there, Joe. And I am SOOOOO sure that all of the problems are the result of people not knowing in which district they live. Oh, sure. Because it is so difficult to access that information. I mean, really, you might need to make a PHONE CALL or something. Or look it up on “the internets,” if it isn’t in the area in which you live. Because then, you could just take a little look-see at your voter registration card! Gosh, I am just stunned that they would not be getting these numbers right!

Speaking of jobs, check out these headlines:

This is exactly why so many of us are concerned about the Government running our health care system. Can you say fraud? If they cannot even get this right, how are they going to adequately address issues of life and death?? I don’t think even an abacus could help out there …

Retail sales rebounded strongly this month posing a 1.4% gain. Good news, right? In an attempt to provide a degree of sanity to what has become an extremely volatile report, let’s break this report down a little bit further.

Recall that our automotive sales have bounced around tremendously over the course of the last three months due to the Cash for Clunkers program. Auto sales soared in August given Uncle Sam’s handout. Once Uncle Sam shut that spigot off, auto sales dropped like a stone in September. In October, auto sales had a respectable bounce. All this said, there is no respected economist who doubts that the Cash for Clunkers program pulled demand forward. In the process, it has skewed the overall retail sales readings. What is the American consumer doing away from the auto sector? Let’s navigate.

Retail sales ex-autos posted a 1.0% increase in August, a .5% increase in September, and a .2% increase in October. That trend line does not look all that positive to me. Against that backdrop, holiday sales for retailers remain a major concern.

The retail concern combined with issues within housing and labor present major hurdles for our economy, but apparently not our markets. What gives? Our equity markets seemingly discount all bearish news and rally higher on any hint of positive news. Is this rational behavior? I am no psychologist or psychiatrist, but it strikes me that our markets are entering into a dynamic not commonly seen but not to be discounted. What is it? Welcome to a blowoff. What is a blowoff?

This large and dramatic price movement is generally seen at the peak of a market or stock. The idea behind the bearishness of a blowoff is that it signals the activity of the most irrational and overly exuberant market participants, who, wanting to take part in the rally, momentarily push up the already-overvalued stock.

What is likely to happen in a blowoff? Expect an increase in the number of solicitations from brokers and financial planners to get into the market. Expect stories of quick and easy money to flourish. Expect day trading ads to become prevalent once again. A blowoff can occur over a protracted period.

What is one to do? Keep your head. In fact, is there ever a time when one should lose his head? Of course not.

The virtues of discipline, patience, thrift, focus, and family never go out of style although they do not necessarily align well with those who would solicit active trading and investing based on positive price action in the markets.

Thoughts, comments always appreciated.

LD

Remember back in April when Obama traveled to the G-20 and bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia? If not, here it is:

Actually, that doesn’t look as much like a bow as it does a genuflect. Not, true, says Obama’s Spokes Weasel, Robert Gibbs. Oh, no - it is just because Obama is tall, and “bending over.” I am not kidding you - that’s what he claimed. So, don’t believe what you actually SAW, just believe Spokes Weasel that it’s not what it looked like it was.

Well, it would seem Obama learned nothing from that experience when he traveled to Japan and met the Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko of Japan:

Sigh. I know it is customary to bow in Japan, but this is a bit over the top for anyone, much less a US president, or another world leader. You will notice that, while the Emperor or Empress bows in return, it is slight, almost imperceptible. Nice to see that SOME people understand decorum and protocol, even if Obama doesn’t. They were modeling the appropriate level for him, and he missed it. I might add, Obama doesn’t bow just once, he does it over and over and over again (though not as low) like a frikkin’ bobblehead. His hosts, however, are not recirpocating.

Wow. So much for the President of the United States bowing to no one. What an amateur. Respect is one thing. Subordination is another. This appears to be a case of the latter, IMHO.

Yep, the second bow heard around the world. Oh, and the topic of discussion? Green tea ice cream. I’m not making this up, people, that’s what Obama discussed with the Emperor and Empress.

Perhaps Obama could take a few lessons from Secretary of State Clinton on how one meets with other world leaders, particularly in Japan, as this video from February, 2000 demonstrates (pay special attention around the 5:10 mark when the Empress and Clinton greet each other):

You’ll notice Clinton did not bow to the Empress. Though I have to say, the looks exchanged between the two women were quite lovely. They seem to really like each other (and who doesn’t like our Hillary??). Other than that, not a bow in sight. Oh, sure, she nodded her head a few times in recognition when someone bowed to her, but a real bow? Uh, yeah, NO. Didn’t see a one.

Once again, our Amateur in Chief is on display for all the world to see, and believe you me, they all saw it, too. Seriously, he needs to get some real protocol officers instead of asking one of his frat boys from their video games (”No, really, dude - I’m pretty sure they bow to each other in Japan. At least that’s what my Samurai warriors just did to each other on my X Box…”).

How I wish I could say I was surprised at Obama’s breach of protocol after his “teachable moment” in April with the King of Saudi Arabia. But when you have a president who gives a “shout out” and CALLS it a “shout out” after finding out about a devastating attack on one of our military bases before even acknowledging the attack, this is just par for the course. It just leaves me shaking my head…

No Doubts.

………..

Reprinted from the blog for my syndicated radio show.

The White House counsel was done in by a scurrilous leaks campaign. So much for the Obama team’s pledge to be transparent, forthright and accountable for their actions.

Gregory Craig, White House counsel to President Obama and national security advisor to Obama during the presidential campaign, resigned his post this past Friday. But when rumors broke Thursday of his imminent departure, Craig had not written his farewell note and may not have planned to leave – yet.

Since the summer, word had been leaking that Greg Craig’s days were numbered and that Obama campaign legal counsel Bob Bauer would be moving in to take Craig’s spot.

But the situation seemed similar to the leaks about National Security Adviser Jim Jones’ supposedly tenuous hold on his job—which were either untrue, or turned around by Jones’ performance. The leaks about Craig also seemed unfounded—especially in light of direct statements from the White House that the statements were untrue and that he was not departing.

Some observers are now calling this incident the Obama team’s first assassination by leak.

• Lloyd Grove: The Boys Obama Throws Under the Bus

Such intrigue and innuendo stand in sharp contrast to the internal vow of key stakeholders in Barack Obama’s campaign, as reported in David Plouffe’s insider account Audacity to Win—whom he says vowed not to allow “@#%holes” and leaks and the blame game to disrupt any aspect of their campaign.

When problems arose or mistakes were made, the president and his team were forthright and dealt with each other directly and confessed their sins, when they committed them, to the public.

Obama himself set a tone of a “No Drama Obama” campaign and worked hard to keep the campaign’s machinations on the high road and not in the political gutter.

What just happened to Gregory Craig should not have happened in Obama Land. It’s something from what Dick Cheney would have called “The Dark Side”–where insinuation and character assassination were leaked to undermine a foe. Think of the manner in which Scooter Libby and Karl Rove promulgated the revelation that Bush administration thorn Joe Wilson was married to a CIA covert operative.

I spoke to Gregory Craig in the summer when the first leaks began to break. While he suspected they were driven by someone in the White House who was frustrated with the slow progress on shuttering GITMO, Craig did not know who was out to get him. He had no idea.

But the sustained nature of the leaks and—and the fact that they ultimately proved to be true—indicates something quite disappointing for anyone who had hoped that the Obama White House would operate more transparently and honestly than the Bush team had.

In fact, leaks are becoming standard fare by key players in the Obama administration. Someone, most likely on the military/intel side of the president’s national security bureaucracy, leaked Afghanistan Commanding General Stanley McChrystal’s report to Bob Woodward. Recently, other political players infuriated U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry by leaking his eleventh-hour contrarian view on a U.S. force surge to the press.

But it’s quite hard to maintain the kind of Obama-esque upbeat tone of transparency and forthrightness and punish staff for leaking when the president himself is standing by and doing nothing as his closest advisors undermine one of their own.

NPR’s Nina Totenberg puts the finger on White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. “There doesn’t seem to be much doubt that these leaks came at least indirectly from Rahm Emanuel,” she reported. “What is the cause of the friction? It’s very hard to say. Was it Rahm not wanting to have another power center? Was it their personalities? Was it Rahm seeing the GITMO stuff as a distraction from the president’s agenda?”

If the leaks were, in fact, made with President Obama’s encouragement, they could have come from any number of others deep inside the team – including David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, or Denis McDonough. It almost doesn’t matter who among these insiders might have done the leaking. None of them would have engaged in such an effort to dislodge Greg Craig unless the president had lost faith in his counsel.

But that begs the question: Why didn’t the president himself have a direct discussion with his counsel? Why didn’t Rahm Emanuel, as the president’s Cromwell, put it straight to the GITMO-burdened White House lawyer? Obama might have been uncomfortable with dislodging a friend and someone who had been so valuable and close during the campaign. As for Emanuel, it may be that he excels in and enjoys political intrigue more than being upfront.

Whatever the reason for pushing Craig out—be it his failure to put the dynamics in place to shut down the Guantanamo detention center in the first year of the Obama presidency, or something much more substantial than this—the White House counsel was on the outs with Obama, and few had the backbone to put it to him directly.
Now that the White House has opened the door to the political tradecraft of leaks, others on the Obama team may feel empowered to deploy these indirect assaults in their own battles against internal foes. Given the “team of rivals” Obama has assembled in nearly every policy arena, the coming policy wars in and around the White House will be fascinating to watch.

But what we just saw in Greg Craig’s firing was not “change we can believe in.” It was a sign that the dark side has taken hold at the White House.

And now, a word about the ads we’ve posted recently, with a MUST-SEE UPDATE ADVERTISEMENT!!! –>>>

The Barack & Michelle Obama Paper Doll & Cut-Out Book (Paper Dolls)

Last year, for one month — thanks to all of you who purchased your holiday presents through NoQuarter’s links — we actually came out even in covering the expenses of the blog.

December 2008 was good to us because enough of you purchased your gifts via Amazon. Every other month, we don’t come close to paying the expenses of running this blog, and Larry Johnson picks up most of the costs.

There have been several of you who’ve donated directly to our blog, and we are so very grateful to you. That’s the kindest gesture possible, and it means a lot to Larry.

Since it’s the time when most of you will be purchasing gifts, we so hope that you’ll link to Amazon through one of our ads. Yes, you can click on ANY of the ads, and our blog’s ID will stay with you as long as you don’t close the browser window. If you do exit, and return, we’d be grateful if you took the one extra step of opening our blog and clicking again on any of our Amazon ads.

And, if you have gift ideas that you think we should advertise, we’d love to know about these products.

Thank you — ALL OF YOU — for your wonderful support.

P.S. Just to give you an idea of all of the great writing published here at NoQuarter, check out all of the stories we’ve done that respond to the search terms, “Obama Messiah.” You’ll find some great reads.

Here’s one gem by Larry Johnson: “TNR Fellates Obama.”

And if you dig further, you will find even more great classics by all the NoQuarter writers, including:

• “O, Come Let Us Adore Him” by Rev. Amy on November 11, 2008
• “Hey Frank. Barack is Drowning Black Folk?,” Larry Johnson, March 22, 2009
• “Barack’s Teleprompter Special Olympics,” Larry Johnson, March 20, 2009
• “The Choice (But I’ve Been Touched) - A Long Overdue Update, July 2008
• “Palin’s Message to Women Bears Repeating,” Ani, October 2008
• and many, many more