NPR Morning Edition: Have You No Shame?

I’ve been commenting for years on NPR’s slanted-toward-the-Republicans reporting. The right wing’s contention that it’s part of the liberal media is just a smoke screen.  However, this morning NPR’s Morning Edition hit a new low with its hit piece on what it insists on calling Obamacare, which is the Republican-devised epithet for The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), or Affordable Care Act for short.  Because the job given to NPR by persons or persons unknown is to keep pushing the myth that the ACA is unaffordable and that is why millions of people are risking federal tax fines by gleefully dropping it. If the ACA is unaffordable for millions of people it is due to the concerted efforts of the Republicans, as I show below.

I don’t know who is ultimately responsible for this hit piece. What I do know is that Steve Inkeep’s lead-in is misleading. What I also know is that typically, the written text underneath the audio link to a news story is identical to the audio story.  In this case, the audio version barely resembles the written text. Inskeep intros the story “Millions of Americans have found the Affordable Care Act to be unaffordable.”  Thus the story is framed that the ACA is essentially a failure, especially where lower-middle class individuals are concerned.  Contrast this with the actual written headline to the story: “Obamacare Deploys New Apps, Allies To Persuade The Uninsured”.  Now it’s a story about how the Obama administration is attempting to get more uninsured people the health insurance they lack.

Another difference between the audio and written stories: the audio leads off with sound bites from Dave Egbert of Huron, South Dakota, stating that he and his partner, Rich Davis, dropped Obamacare because it was too expensive. In the written version, Egbert and Davis are buried near the bottom of the story. The audio story says that there are only three insurance plans to choose from.  But the story doesn’t explain why and this is where the slanted reporting comes in.

The fact is that Republican South Dakota governor Dennis Daugaard and the Republican-controlled state legislature refused to expand Medicaid in that state on February 24, 2014. Expanding Medicaid in all states was a primary goal of–what else?—the Affordable Care Act. Just about all—if not all—Republican-controlled states refused to expand Medicaid even though the federal government was picking up the tab for the first few years. So Egbert and Davis should be blaming Governor Daugaard and their state legislature—people they most likely voted for in prior elections—for the lack of affordable healthcare in their state, along with the paucity of health plans to choose from. That’s under the control of your state, gentlemen, not the Feds.

This hit the working poor, like Egbert and Davis, hardest of all. Had state Republicans not blocked this expansion, it is very likely Egbert and Davis among 25,000 other people would have had the affordable healthcare Davis needed at the time. I have no information to back this up but I wonder if both Egbert and Davis are Republicans? What I do know is that NPR contacted Egbert after he posted a comment on its Facebook page.  Whether or not they vetted Egbert and his story is unknown.

Something else I do know is that, right before next year’s elections, South Dakota has now decided to expand Medicaid and has gotten the initial “go ahead” from a health official in the Obama Administration.

So, Messers. Egbert and Davis, and the other 25,000 uninsured inhabitants of South Dakota, it looks like with your South Dakota state government finally embracing Obamacare just before election time, you will get your affordable health insurance. And if it gives you gentlemen any solace, Obamacare started off as Romneycare (an advisor to then-Gov. Romney re-worked it for the Obama administration) which had its genesis with a plan devised by the Koch Brothers own Heritage Foundation as far back as 1989.

So, gentlemen, stop seeing Red over Obamacare. And in next year’s elections, start feeling Blue.

And you, Steve Inskeep and all at NPR Morning Edition, have you no shame? Apparently not.

The GOP Whack-A-Mole Game Continues In Corporate Media World

So, the corporate media is going ga-ga over Marco Rubio’s candidacy based on last night’s “debate” performance. As if regurgitating carefully-scripted and rehearsed one-liners and comments makes one fit to be president. Ted Cruz is in the #2 spot based on this one performance, too.

In the real world both are political jokes, of course, but in Corporate Media World they’re suddenly they’re the new favorites over Donald Trump and Ben Carson. That’s based on ONE performance. But to the Washington Post’s credit, it does question whether these latest moles will be able to keep their heads above ground when the voters whack with their ballot mallets next year.

But the GOP presidential clown car has always been more like a game of whack-a-mole,hasn’t it? One head rises, is knocked down, another takes its place until it too is knocked down, etc.

Just goes to show how painfully low the presidential candidate bar is for the GOP and its partisan propagandists in Corporate Media World, NPR included. They love the men wearing the big cowboy hats but totally lacking in cattle.

The Stooge In The House


I will preface this post by reminding people I do not support Hillary Clinton in any way, shape, or form. That being said, I avidly hope that the House of Representatives does vote to impeach her in an election year.


Why? Because for a Republican-controlled House of Representatives to impeach a Democratic presidential candidate would be absurdist political theatre at its best. It would make the Republicans the laughingstock of the the world–even more than they are now. Because it would put into sharp relief how partisan and loony that Party has become that they would reach that far and stoop that low to take someone they view as a danger to their own presidential candidates out of the race.

And it shows how utterly stupid a person and politician Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala) is. It brings out the Curly in me to want to shout “Oh Mo! Oh Mo! Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.”

That’s right, Mo, give your party yet another poke in the eye.

The County Sheriff Who Thinks He’s A United States Supreme Court Justice

Apparently the little town of Roseburg, Oregon is Gun Nut Central with Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin the head Gun Nut.  Just another far right wing lawman who places himself and his far right wing gun nut beliefs above the Constitution and now the safety of the citizens he swore an oath to protect.  He’s no constitutional lawyer or expert so he’s in no position to decide on his own what violates the 2nd Amendment and what doesn’t. He was elected to ENFORCE the law and not to self-adjudicate or even change it. I suppose the majority of gun-caring town citizens agree with him because they keep him in office. We once stayed in Roseburg years ago. Because of this sheriff, who I’m sure has hired deputies who share his non-legal opinions gun control legislation, my family and our tourist dollars will never visit there again.–187165681.html?mobile=y#hanlin_letter

Selling The Social Security Retirement Scam

This article is a primary reason why you don’t read MSN Money for actual money advice. It just serves to perpetuate the cover-up of the greatest ongoing theft in US history: the raid on the Old Age, Survivor And Disability Insurance trust fund. It’s just more of selling the scam.

“It’s widely regarded as the best deal in retirement. Researchers can’t figure out why more Americans aren’t taking it. The deal, of course, is putting off Social Security benefits, which can boost your monthly paycheck by more than three-fourths if you delay until the maximum age of 70.”

What you’ve just read is total bullshit. Is the article writer, Ian Salisbury, by chance a Republican? The best deal in retirement was when full Social Security retirement benefits were payable at age 65. Then came Ronald Reagan who, along with both chambers of Congress and Alan (Mr. Andrea Mitchell) Greenspan, started the mass raid on the OASDI trust fund with the signing into law of the Social Security Amendments of 1983. And the theft just keeps on growing.

Unless Salisbury is a Millennial he and “researchers” should know damn well that most of us in our 60s can’t wait until we’re 70 to draw our SS retirement checks. And we shouldn’t have to. We’re not the ones who, like a federal Dracula, have been feasting on the blood of the Social Security trust fund for 32 years. But this article wants us to be good little Social Security benefits blood donors and wait until we’re all 70 years old to start making our withdrawals from the SS blood bank.

First, with this lousy economy that every Congress and every president since Bill Clinton has saddled us with, I don’t have any savings to tide me over for the next seven years and there are millions of baby boomers riding in my same financial boat.

Secondly, how do any of us know we’ll make it 70? I’m pretty confident about reaching 65, just about as confident of hitting 66 which was at one time where the age for full benefits was pushed back to. But 70? If I am still alive by then what is my life expectancy beyond that? You can bet that the Social Security Administration already has those actuarial tables on file and are updating them as needed.

I got a much better idea for a better deal in retirement—MY retirement. Close down the pension system for all members of Congress and the president, remove the $118,500 cap for OASDI payroll deductions, and then mandate it that all members of Congress and each president must have enough quarters of earnings paid into the system to draw their retirement benefits when they reach 70. But in this case, I’ll be generous: I’ll allow Congress to lower the age for full benefits back down to 65.

That change alone will pay enough into the fund to keep Social Security solvent for, well, forever. Or at least until all life on earth dies out from global warming or the sun supernovas in 5 billion years and takes the Solar System with it.

But until either of those events happen, I can wait two years to reap the rewards of the best deal in retirement.

When It Comes To Gender, I Refuse To Transition

I’m just about as politically and socially as liberal as they come. I fully support same sex marriage and same sex couples parenting their children. But here’s where I part company with the concept, and it also applies to “transgender” individuals, too.

In Florida, a same sex couple has filed a lawsuit to force Florida to abide by a SCOTUS decision allowing for same sex couples to both be listed on their child’s birth certificate. All well and good and I fully support it. However, one of the married female married partners wants to be listed as “father” on the document. The Florida agencies who control all this refuse to honor this request—and I agree with them. Excuse me? Father denotes a male parent and she certainly ain’t one of those.

The biological father of any child is the male from which the sperm was donated. It’s a biological impossibility for a woman to father a child. A plastic surgeon can tack on a somewhat functional penis and maybe a semblance of testicles but a woman—except in the case of a hermaphrodite—will never have a prostate gland and will never undergo spermatogenesis no matter how many testosterone supplements or injections she’s given. Why? Exactly: no Y chromosome.

By the same token, no matter how much estrogen is pumped into a male, he’s not going to be able to trade in his Y chromosome for another X. Therefore, it’s biologically impossible for a man to conceive and then gestate a fetus inside his, er, womb because he ain’t got one, you see?

But given these changing times of ours, the sample is so simple no wonder Florida and the other states balking at signing off on same sex couples as parents on a birth certificate is this: add another line. Besides “mother of child” and “father of child” add “Parent of child”. There! Problem solved. Because despite what many couples who employed donor dads and surrogate moms to produce their children, it’s vitally important—especially medically—to know who the birth parents are for those children.

Because within that DNA could be potential health and mental issues that could be difficult to solve without knowing the medical history of both birth parents. If the donor dads and surrogate moms don’t want to be listed on the birth certificate, their medical histories need to be known and accessible by at least the birth parents to hand over to whatever physicians or medical providers require it for the sake of the children. But with my idea, even if the Father or Mother lines are left blank, “Parent of child” should more than suffice for getting both partners on legal record for being the legal parents of their common child.

And now for the transsexual thing. As I stated above, mens don’t got X chromosomes and womens don’t got Y chromosomes. They can tack or remove external sexual organs as they wish (or in Bruce/Caitlin Jenner’s case leave all his male junk intact) and further undergo the plastic surgeon’s re-sculpting knife, undergo hormone therapy to grow or lose the boobs, to grow or lose the facial and body hair (undergoing laser hair removal treatments for the latter) and whatever else their bank accounts will afford but bottom line is IT’S ALL EXTERIOR. At this point in history, science can’t (safely?) gene splice chromosomes of the opposite sex into people who want to switch genders at the most fundamental level.

For some reason in the 21st Century we’re supposed to have become enlightened enough so that just because a person says they’re something and either changed their physical appearance or had the required plastic surgery to physically resemble it, we’re supposed to accept them as what they say they are.

Bullshit. Just because the genetically -white Rachel Dolezal claimed to be black doesn’t mean in reality she is black. Just because genetically-female Chastity Bono underwent plastic surgery to claim she’s now the male Chaz Bono doesn’t mean she’s a male. And it certainly means that just because Bruce Jenner underwent the same surgeries doesn’t mean that Caitlin Jenner is female—again especially so since he decided to leave his male sexual organs intact. Trying to have his cake and eat it too? I really don’t want to go there any further than that.

But let’s take this whole thing to its logical absurdist extension. What’s to stop me from having plastic surgery in which I have my legs shortened so that I stand 3 feet tall, have all my body hair removed, sculpt and plane my face and body down with the appropriate injections to look decades younger, have surgical reassignment surgery, have my eyes surgically slanted than they already are, have my skin color chemically tinted, all so that this 63-year-old white male of eastern European Jewish descent can pass himself off as a 3-year-old female Chinese child? Why not? If I say I’m something and I look like that something I AM that something, right? Not by a long shot.

Enough of this nonsense. We are the genders we are because our DNA has predetermined what we are. Science cannot yet gene splice specific sex chromosomes into human fetuses that I’m aware of. Besides, if they could, it’s the parents choosing the gender of the unborn child and not the child itself after it’s born. You could take a Ford chassis, rip out the guts and convert it into a Chevy but it would still be built on a Ford chassis. By the same token, you can take the external man off the man and you can take the external woman off the women, but you can’t take the man out of the man or the woman out of the woman. A female will never be “Dad” and a male will never be “Mom”. It’s genetic. And genetics has nothing to do with being politically or socially liberal.

The First Debate Question I Would Ask Hillary Clinton

Hillary Bern

“Mrs. Clinton, you claim you’re strong enough to lead the most power country in the world, strong enough to stand up to foreign leaders and terrorists. Then my question is why haven’t you been strong enough to stop your husband from cheating on you?”

I contend this is a valid question. If Clinton is elected president, do you think someone like Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping or even Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany would respect a woman who has allowed her husband to be a serial philanderer for decades? Her inability or refusal to control Bill and what’s inside of his pants zipper has be regarded as a core weakness; in more so if she’s in agreement with his extramarital catting around.

So, I can see many females bristling upon what you perceive is a sexist statement. Bullshit. If the roles were reversed and Hillary had been the philandering president and Bill the besieged First Man now running for president I’d say the same exact thing about him.

OK, some of you may respond that whatever Hillary let Bill get away with wouldn’t detract from the fact that as president she would be commander-in-chief of the most powerful military force in the world. Honestly, I would hope to hell that if it came down to that, Hillary’s response to Putin’s further military incursions into Ukraine wouldn’t be “I may be a wronged woman but my gun is bigger than yours.”

Whether Hillary has suffered silently and stoically through his multiple affairs for the sake of their political careers (and Chelsea, of course…) or because Hillary never had a problem with it is their own business, of course. But not after Hillary decided to fulfill her lifelong ambition–again–and run for president. Then I want to know why she allowed herself to be publicly humiliated by the exposure of Bill’s many mistresses and playthings. Strong, confident women stand by their man only up to a point. But in politics when running for president the perception is being divorced is worse than standing by a cheating spouse, again and again and again. Did they stay together to provide Chelsea with a stable family household? I have no idea. But my feeling is that some possibly prenuptial agreement was made to give Bill the complete freedom to follow his penis wherever it would lead him as long as it was kept private. After it all became public after he was president, what could Hillary do?

But these are questions I demand to know the answer to if Hillary wants my primary and general election votes next year. All I want to know if their marriage was more of a business partnership than a marriage. Hillary Clinton is a warmonger; you can see that from her Senate voting record. So I want to know how she thinks she can stare down the likes of Vladmir Putin, Kim Jong-un, Bashar Hafez al-Assad, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and such if she can’t say “No means no, Bill. You can’t have other women and stay married to me.”

Then, I’d like to know from Bill why he married a woman who obviously doesn’t fulfill his sexual needs? Why did he agree to say a marriage vow promising to stay true to his bride only to repeatedly break it. Then why did he marry Hillary?

I may not have a right to those answers from Bill but, as a voter, I certainly have a right to ask those kinds of questions to and receive answers from a presidential candidate who is asking for my vote.