The Strix Fix

Reverse Mortgage: Beneficial Home Equity Loan for Seniors? Know the Benefits and Drawbacks.

2011-08-16T13:40:00.000-06:00

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article was originally published on Factoidz. Republished here with permission.

Most of us have seen commercials marketed towards seniors who might be needing some extra help, financially. These commercials advertise reverse mortgages, offering help to those seniors who own their own home and who otherwise might be having difficulty making ends meet.

What is a Reverse Mortgage? A reverse mortgage is a type of home equity loan which is only available to seniors who own their own home. It allows the homeowner to convert a percentage of their home’s equity into cash. The release of the home equity (money given to the homeowner from the loan) can be either one lump sum payment or over multiple payments.

To Qualify for a Reverse Mortgage

The homeowner must be at least 62 years of age.
Own their own home outright, or
Have a low enough mortgage balance that it can be paid off with the proceeds of the loan.
Within the U.S., a reverse mortgage can be the only mortgage on the home. No other mortgages/reverse mortgages can be obtained unless the reverse mortgage has been paid entirely.
The homeowner must live in the home.
Within the U.S., the homeowner must receive consumer information from a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) counselor, which is approved through HUD. This can be free but more often there is a charge of between $100-$125. This is a safeguard to protect the homeowner and his her family. (This applies to the primary reverse mortgage loan).
A pending bankruptcy may slow the process of getting a reverse mortgage.
(There are no minimum income or credit requirements).

Not all home dwellings can qualify for a reverse mortgage. The home must be a single family home or a 1-4 unit complex with one home being occupied by the borrower. Some condos or manufactured homes may also be eligible, though often with special requirements.
How Much will I Get with a Reverse Mortgage? This depends upon several factors:

Your age at the time of the loan. Generally, the older the applicant, the more money he can receive.
The appraised value of the property, including any repairs or existing liens.
Within the U.S., the interest rate will be determined by the U.S. treasury.
How the money is taken. For example, will the borrower get a lump sum or a monthly payment?
A set maximum amount. This can depend upon the reverse mortgage loan product and due to the economy, may be decreasing.

There are 2 Reverse Mortgage Loan Products Available:

FHA - HECM: This is by far the largest reverse mortgage product, making up more than 90% of all reverse mortgage loans. It is also government insured.
Fannie Mae - Homekeeper: It offers different loans for seniors, meant to compete with FHA - HECM.
(Cash Account by Financial Freedom was once a popular Reverse Mortgage product but it was suspended in June, 2008. Many sites still have this listed.)

How do I Get Paid with a Reverse Mortgage? Different programs have different options available depending on your need. The FHA / HECM gives five options:

Tenure - Equal monthly payments for as long as one of the borrowers is alive and occupies the property as a principal residence. This often allows for a lower interest rate and larger borrowed amount.
Term - Equal monthly payments spread out over a fixed number of months.
Line of Credit - Unscheduled payments or installments taken out at the time the borrower chooses until the amount borrowed is depleted.
Modified Tenure - A combination of the Line of Credit along with monthly payments for as long as the borrower resides in the home.
Modified Term - A combination of the Line of Credit along with monthly payments for a fixed number of months as determined by the borrower.

Other programs also may sometimes allow for the loan to be received as one lump sum. This tends to have the highest interest rates along with the smallest amount to be borrowed.
What are the Benefits of a Reverse Mortgage?

Unlike a traditional home equity loan, the borrower cannot lose his home in a foreclosure to the bank for not paying the loan. (However, the borrower can still lose his home if he does not pay property taxes, though this can also happen if he does not have a reverse mortgage.) FHA is looking into ways to help seniors pay their taxes. With regular mortgages, this often happens in escrow.
The banks do not own the home. Rather, they own a lien on the home. The homeowner holds the title.
The loan on the home is not due payable until the borrower no longer occupies the home as a permanent residence. This happens when the borrower either permanently moves out of the home, sells the home or dies.
Depending on the type of loan, the money can be used for most purposes and for most of the borrower’s needs.
With an FHA/HECM reverse mortgage, the mortgage is government (FHA) insured. In addition, with this mortgage, the borrower can never own more than the value of the home nor can he pass on debts from the reverse mortgage to his heirs.
A reverse mortgage is NOT taxable income. The IRS does not consider loan advances to be income. Therefore, the money, in itself, from the loan will not be taxed. (Any interest/dividends you get on this money can be taxed, though).
AARP conducted a survey of those who had taken out reverse mortgages. 93% said that they this had a mostly positive effect on their lives.

Any Drawbacks? Oh yes. These should be considered before taking out a reverse mortgage.

Cost - Getting a reverse mortgage can be very cost prohibitive. These can easily cost more than $15,000 to get into.
Confusion - There is criticism that many seniors may not fully understand their loans. Though again, 93% were happy with their reverse mortgage.
Compound Interest - This one can be a doozy. Remember, the borrower is not making monthly loan payments. Therefore, the interest which accrues is treated as a loan advance. For each month of the loan, the interest is not only calculated on the initial amount borrowed but also on interest already assessed in the loan. For that reason, the longer the borrower has the reverse mortgage, the less equity will be left in the home by the time the borrower moves or dies. There may even be no equity left at that time. (This brings me to my next point).
Inheritance - Though reverse mortgage companies love to say how, once you have moved or died, your estate will repay the loan along with any interest which was accrued, the truth is that there may not be much of an estate left if most or all of your home’s equity was used in the loan. With the compound interest, a senior could easily use up all of the equity even if the initial loan was not terribly high. *** The good news is that, with an FHA - HECM loan, the borrower’s heirs will not have to worry about owing more than the value of the property, nor can the bank come after the heirs for any other debts from the reverse mortgage.
Moving - Many borrowers may assume that they will never leave their home until they die. The truth is that they may need to move, perhaps to an assisted living community or in with relatives, at some point prior to the time that they may have chosen to pay off that reverse mortgage. Anything which is still owed will be due once they move. This means that they will need to make payments or lose their home to foreclosure once they are no longer living there. Whereas this might not matter if they are moving into a nursing home or hospice, it might matter if they are still needing to have good credit, perhaps for another home. The assumption cannot be made that their home’s equity will have increased enough to pay the reverse mortgage upon selling that home. The longer they have the reverse mortgage, the more compund interest will be charged along with the loan.
Forgotten Fees - Most of us pay our property taxes with Escrow from the mortgage, if we have a mortgage. Otherwise, we must remember to pay those taxes once a year lest we lose our home in a tax auction. This can be a high amount, especially if one is not making monthly payments. Many seniors may not adequately figure in this amount when determining the reverse mortgage. With so many people defaulting on their taxes, in part due to the poor economy, the government is starting to crack down. Whereas you cannot lose your home to foreclosure due to the actual reverse mortgage loan, you can lose your home to foreclosure if you do not make your tax and/or insurance payments on time. FHA and Fannie Mae have both been told they need to crack down on this, due to an extreme budget shortfall in reverse mortgages. Most sites, even now, stress how the borrower cannot be foreclosed upon. Obviously, this is not entirely true. Any senior wishing to get a reverse mortgage should ask specifically about money for required insurance and property taxes, lest they lose their home.

If you or someone you know wishes to learn more about a reverse mortgage, a good first step might be to contact HUD about this. They should be able to answer your questions and help you find the right professionals. In addition, it is worth looking into what the overall amount of the loan will be, with interest, 5,10 and 20 years down the road.

When will America Trust Women?

2011-02-25T14:46:00.001-07:00

A billboard in New York City - one of a series of similar billboards popping up across the country, is stating "the most dangerous place for African Americans is inside the womb."

Let's think about this for a moment. As I asked in a comment in the Salon.com article:

If the most dangerous place for African Americans is inside the womb, then how safe do they think African Americans are inside their mother's homes? Or in African American neighborhoods?

Why does this sound like the next step would be to take African American children out of their homes because black women simply cannot be trusted to make sound decisions for their families?

If they cannot trust any woman to make sensible decisions about when or if we will have an abortion, how can we be trusted to make sensible decisions as parents, or in the workforce, or as politicians?

Is the only way we can be trusted is if we are forced to make decisions by those who have neither physical, emotional nor financial interest in our well-being?

This seems to be the trend. As most of us all already aware. Georgia Representative Bobby Franklin introduced House Bill 1, aka the "prenatal murder" bill. This would make any woman who miscarries guilty of the crime of murder, unless she can prove she did not have an abortion and does not know why she miscarried:

2011-2012 Regular Session - HB 1
Crimes and Offenses; prenatal murder unlawful; provide

First Reader Summary
A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend the Official Code of Georgia Annotated so as to provide that prenatal murder shall be unlawful in all events and to remove numerous references to such procedures; to amend Title 16, relating to crimes and offenses, so as to make certain findings of fact; to define certain terms; to provide that any prenatal murder shall be unlawful; to provide a penalty; to repeal certain exceptions to certain offenses; to provide for severability; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

The bill itself goes on to say:

(a) The State of Georgia has the duty to protect all innocent life from the moment of conception until natural death. We know that life begins at conception. After nearly four decades of legal human prenatal murder, it is now abundantly clear that the practice has negatively impacted the people of this state in many ways, including economic, health, physical, psychological, emotional, and medical well-being. These, too, are areas of legitimate concern and duty of this state. The General Assembly therefore makes the following findings of fact:
(1) A fetus is a person for all purposes under the laws of this state from the moment of conception;
(2) The Georgia Constitution, at Article I, Section I, Paragraph II, provides: 'Protection to person and property is the paramount duty of government and shall be impartial and complete. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.' Because a fetus is a person, constitutional protection attaches at the moment of conception. It is therefore the duty of the General Assembly to protect the innocent life that is being taken;
(3) Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), wrote: 'when those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer [to the question of when life begins].'
(4) The General Assembly knows the answer to that difficult question, and that answer is life begins at the moment of conception;
(5) The Supreme Court's inability to determine what is human life cannot legitimately serve to prohibit Georgia from fulfilling its constitutional mandate to protect the lives of its citizens by prosecuting crimes against said person;
(6) The United States Congress has reserved to itself 'all legislative powers herein vested' according to Article I, Section I of the Constitution of the United States;

(snip)

(9) Georgia has, therefore, reserved to itself exclusive jurisdiction over the definition and punishment of murder under Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States;
(10) The United States judiciary only has authority to hear cases or controversies 'arising under this Constitution' and then only if 'affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to controversies between two or more states; between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states; between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects';
(11) The definition and prosecution of murder within Georgia to protect its own prenatal citizens affects neither an ambassador nor other public minister or consul; is not a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; is not a controversy to which the United States shall be a party; is not a controversy between two or more states, nor between the state of Georgia and the citizens of another state; is not a controversy between a citizen of Georgia and a citizen of a different state; is not related to citizens of Georgia claiming 61 lands under grants of different states; and is not a case between Georgia or its citizens and
another state and its citizens;
(12) The United States Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear or decide the case of Roe v. Wade or any other case pertaining to a state's punishment of the crime of prenatal murder;
(13) As it had no jurisdiction to hear the case, certainly the United States Supreme Court lacked the authority to pass, or order all states to strike or refuse to enforce, a law that is outside of its subject matter or federal jurisdiction;
(14) Even if the United States Supreme Court had jurisdiction, its authority is limited to the case or controversy before it, and its opinion extends no further than between the parties to the case or controversy;

So, after deciding that The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over a Georgia law, it then goes on to state that, while miscarriage (spontaneous prenatal death) is not "prenatal murder":

A report of spontaneous fetal death for each spontaneous fetal death which occurs in this state shall be filed with the local registrar of the county in which the delivery occurred within 72 hours after such delivery in accordance with this Code section unless the place of fetal death is unknown, in which case a fetal death certificate shall be filed in the county in which the dead fetus was found within 72 hours after such occurrence.

And

Said title is further amended by revising subsection (a) of Code Section 31-10-28, relating to institutions to keep vital records, as follows:
(a) Every person in charge of an institution shall keep a record of personal data
concerning each person admitted or confined to such institution. This record shall include such information as required for the certificates of birth and death and the reports of spontaneous fetal death and ~~induced termination of pregnancy~~ required by this chapter.
The record shall be made at the time of admission from information provided by the person being admitted or confined but, when it cannot be so obtained, the information shall be obtained from relatives or other persons acquainted with the facts. The name and address of the person providing the information shall be a part of the record."

Said title is further amended by revising subsection (a) of Code Section 31-10-29, relating privileged nature of disclosures, notification of local registrar of institutional deaths and fetal deaths, and notification of the board of voting registrars of adult deaths, as follows:
"(a) Any person having knowledge or facts concerning any birth, death, spontaneous fetal death, marriage, ~~induced termination of pregnancy~~, divorce, dissolution of marriage, or annulment may disclose such facts to the state registrar, and such disclosure shall be absolutely privileged and no cause or action may be brought or maintained against such
person for such disclosure."

(Strikethroughs in the above paragraphs are listed as their part of the bill.)

So, why would a report need to be filed for each and every miscarriage that occurs? Why would "any person having knowledge or facts concerning any birth, death, spontaneous fetal death" be offered privileged disclose of such facts to the state registrar? Unless....?

Having a miscarriage means that the woman may have committed murder and evidence needs to be gathered in order to prove she didn't deliberately have a miscarriage, aka, have an abortion. Guilty until proven innocent. The bill clearly states that doctors who may have committed actions that may have contributed to a miscarriage will have their licenses suspended until proven innocent and that they could be tried for murder.

Women, pay attention. Any of you who have learned that it really wasn't just another late period you had (because you took an early pregnancy test) need to file a record with your state registrar attesting to "spontaneous abortion." If this happens a few times, obviously there is a pattern of murder in your background. Those of you who routinely have irregular, late or missed periods will need to follow this course of logic and take early pregnancy tests after 28 days in order to make certain you aren't pregnant. That way, you can prove that you were only having a late period rather than a "spontaneous abortion" that might actually be proof of a deliberate abortion. Hey, anything to keep those charges of murder from being filed.

Do you think he is going to ask that Sarah Palin be tried for murder? After all, she did admit in her book that she experienced two miscarriages.

Somehow, I'm thinking other wingnuts are going to be given a free pass.

We should also consider that this bill is being introduced by the same wingnut who tried to redefine victims of rape and stalking as "accusers", whereas victims of any other crime were able to keep their "victim" status.

Why ever would a man do such a thing?

Of course, we are all seeing that this is the new trend by the Republican Party. A law under consideration in South Dakota would make it a "justifiable homicide" to kill a person in order to "save the life of the unborn."

Why not just call it what it is, "open season on abortion providers"? We have also seen Republicans in congress and the senate try to redefine rape so that women who are unconscious or otherwise unable to decide whether or not they want sex couldn't actually be "raped." While this was done in an effort to further stop victims of rape from being able to get federally funded abortions, the reality is that it would mean women who were given the date rape drug and raped, or elderly grandmothers who were unconscious and raped in their nursing homes, wouldn't actually be considered to have been raped.

When this became blatantly unpopular, they decided to attack Planned Parenthood and cut off all funding, even though Planned Parenthood cannot legally be given money which pays for abortions unless it's to save the life of the woman or if she was a victim of rape or incest. So, Republicans are really interested in stopping poor women from getting contraception (which would limit the number of abortions), STD screening, flu shots and physicals.

Republicans must really hate us. They certainly don't want us to have any control over our own bodies.

We're supposed to fear Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I'm much more concerned about Al Cracker and the Wingnutoban. Even Saudi Arabia and Iran gives women more leeway about birth control and abortions while accepting that miscarriages do not need to be investigated.

Gabrielle Giffords and Violent Rhetoric: Is Anyone to Blame for the Tuscon Tragedy?

2011-01-12T15:21:00.010-07:00

===================================================

No single snowflake ever thinks it's to blame for the blizzard.

No single hate-mongering preacher ever thinks he's to blame for homophobic hate crimes or gay suicide.

No single speaker of violent rhetoric ever thinks he's to blame for the hundreds of threats given to politicians, or causing the atmosphere in which guns are dropped at a congresswoman's town hall meeting, or encouraging a madman to murder a doctor who provides abortions, or for causing a different madman to try to murder everyone who worked at the offices of the ACLU and the Tides Foundation, or for causing a third madman to fly his plane into an IRS building, or even for the countless death threats given to union members who attend town hall meetings.

After all, who would blame a single snowflake for dangerous white-out conditions or any particular raindrop for the ensuing flood?

Or would a sane society try to lessen the storm?

We will probably never understand what went through Jared Lee Loughner's head when he went on his killing spree, murdering 6 people and injuring another 14 in the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. We may never know what rhetoric he heard or even understood -- though we should also take into consideration that this was a very disturbed young man who thought words and grammar had the power of mind control. We may also consider the sad state of mental health care in this country and the ease in which someone who is mentally ill can buy a semi-automatic weapon and extended cartridges.

Then we will need to get square with the fact that nothing happens in a vacuum. While we can all admit that an insane person can find almost anything to use as an excuse for a violent act, we have still created a climate which allows and encourages these things to occur fairly regularly.

Whether or not Loughner ever saw or acknowledged Sarah Palin's PAC site showing her opponents in the cross-hairs of a rifle, it's a safe bet she wouldn't want to see her own name or the names of her loved ones on such a site as she would understand that it is an implied threat. Jesse Kelly probably didn't want Gabrielle Giffords to be assassinated when he posted his now infamous ad asking to remove Giffords by firing an M16 fully automatic rifle. If the same ad "targeted" him instead of Giffords, do you think he would consider it a threat, veiled or otherwise?

Would you want to see your name or the names of your kids in such an ad? If not, why not? Is it that you feel a normal, well-adjusted person might act violently or is it rather because such an ad might light the fuse of someone who is already deranged? What does this say about discourse in this country?

After Obama took office, threats against him increased by 400% compared to the threats received by George W. Bush. Some of these will doubtless include threats made by white supremacists and other bigots who detest a shift in power toward someone who does not look like they. While this is a factor it does not explain why the increase has been so dramatic, especially as his predecessor started two wars and used the Patriot Act to spy upon Americans.

To understand this sharp increase in threats we must face the fact that criticisms leveled against Obama have meant to alienate, infuriate and frighten a certain demographic. To right-wing fanatics, Obama cannot simply be a black president who has a few differences of opinion. That would make it hard to rally their base, as it would mean having to admit their own racism. As I said in an earlier post, "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" must be made into a foreign-born Muslim terrorist who wants to kill your grandmother and take away your guns, all due to reparations for slavery. As I had stated:

The hate-mongering speeches of right-wing pundits play into these desires by feeding off of a certain demography's fears. They understand that these actions are responses to phobias manufactured for people who feel that their way of life is being threatened. It is designed to create a manipulated response to most help those who are not in power, even if gaining power involves an atmosphere of violence. These are the five reasons people become terrorists, as listed by Dr. Jessica Stern:
Alienation
Humiliation
Demographics
History
Territory

We can apply those five traits to modern American political discourse. Unfortunately, hate builds upon other hates. Once a desired response has been manipulated, a few other hair-brained conspiracy theories will get repeated and accepted, which leads to bigger conspiracies being built with the acceptance that the earlier theories were entirely correct. Hate becomes justified. It enters the national dialog. As it plays upon fears, an increasing number of people will determine that they need to be the heroes who save the country from a democratically-elected president.

Nor are these threats entirely directed at the president. The FBI started investigating threats made against Democratic congressmen after the passage of the health care bill. These threats included Democratic lawmakers who saw their faces in the cross-hairs of a target. Lynchburg Tea Party activist Mike Troxel claimed responsibility for posting the address of the brother of Rep. Tom Perriello, claiming he believed the address belonged to the congressman.

"Just in case any of his friends and neighbors want to drop by and say hi and express their thanks regarding his vote for health care," he wrote. "I personally believe it's so important for representatives to remain fully grounded and to remember exactly what it is their constituents are saying and how they are telling them to vote. Nothing quite does that like a good face-to-face chat. It has a much more personal touch to it."

This act resulted in a propane line getting cut which led to a gas grill at the brother's house.

In New York, a man who threw bricks the a congresswoman's window did so saying he thought it would "prevent civil war." The same congresswoman also received calls which referred to "snipers". Other house members saw pictures of nooses getting faxed to them or envelopes filled with a suspicious white powder.

In the meantime, we can keep insisting that no single thing led to the tragedy in Arizona or we can admit that a certain type of discourse has set the tone which leads to increasingly violent acts.

This isn't about "war rhetoric" being used in political discussions. We need to remember, town hall meetings and debates cannot happen in war zones. Something has changed in American politics which has caused political opponents to be labeled as "enemies of the state" who need to be dealt with by any means possible.

A few days ago, headlines were made in Pakistan when thousands of demonstrators took to the streets demanding that a man be pardoned for murdering a "treasonous" and "immoral" liberal politician, who was trying to undermine their religion by showing tolerance toward a woman of a minority religion. At the same time, American blogs and articles were filled with right-wing vitriol claiming Giffords "got what she deserved" for being a "traitor". Her voting of health care legislation was considered "immoral".

Is this who we want to become? Should America become an armed theocracy where everyone who has an alternate opinion (or religion) is a "traitor" who should get killed? We have heard this line used against everyone from Democratic lawmakers to Julian Assange, all calling for the same treatments normally reserved for the most dangerous terrorists.

I am still calling for cooler heads to prevail.

We can admit that those who have extremely opposing views to our own can still be good, smart people who love their country. We begin by embracing the fact that "intellectual" is not a dirty word and that only the weakest arguments must demonize an opponent. We can peacefully demand that our media stop fanning the flames of hatred by airing violent rhetoric and instead ask for intelligent discourse. Most of all, we can choose to no longer patronize those who sponsor vitriol.

We don't have to let our national discourse get tainted by hate politics. Democracy cannot survive in a climate of fear.

Edited to add: I would encourage anyone reading this to also read this article by Crooks and Liars. I can think of nothing to better explain how words repeated often enough get manipulated results.

Michelle Bachmann: Fiction Made Her a Republican

2010-12-31T14:45:00.002-07:00

Some people change parties due to ideological differences. Others change parties to further their political ambitions. This poor wingnut became a Republican because a work of fiction tripped her fragile little mind.

And that, Your Honor, is when my brain exploded.

Michelle Bachmann is now claiming that she was a liberal until she read Gore Vidal's "Burr", a piece of historical fiction that was written as a memoir by Aaron Burr. Just as with many of Vidal's historical memoirs, "Burr" contains meticulous research by the author, consisting of reading hundreds of documents and basing the story upon the character's actual deeds and words. Many of the historical incidents in the book are verifiable and several parallels exist between Vidal's "Burr" and Aaron Burr's actual memoir, written by Matthew L. Davis.

Still, a well-researched work of fiction is enough to cause Michelle Bachmann to break with her alleged liberal views:

"Until I was reading this snotty novel called 'Burr,' by Gore Vidal, and read how he mocked our Founding Fathers. And as a reasonable, decent, fair-minded person who happened to be a Democrat, I thought, 'You know what? What he's writing about, this mocking of people that I revere, and the country that I love, and that I would lay my life down to defend -- just like every one of you in this room would, and as many of you in this room have when you wore the uniform of this great country -- I knew that that was not representative of my country.

And at that point I put the book down and I laughed. I was riding a train. I looked out the window and I said, 'You know what? I think I must be a Republican. I don't think I'm a Democrat.'"

If you're still reading this, you're a good person - and probably have read more words than Bachmann ever did of the book she is trashing. It's hard to imagine someone taking issue with a fictional work that is largely based on an actual memoir and verifiable events by a complex character in American history.

It's possible she simply didn't understand what she was reading.

It's probable that she invented this story to appeal to her radical Republican followers, who need to hear a story about the redemption of a liberal who became conservative after reading a novel by a gay liberal author.

For the rest of us, it seems absurd that political beliefs could be shaped by historical fiction.

Wikileaks a Terrorist Organization? Time for Cooler heads to Prevail.

2010-11-30T16:27:00.002-07:00

There's a new trend in town. Everyone from the National Review Online to Sarah Palin and GOP congressman Peter King is screaming for Julian Assange's head, insisting that Wikileaks is a "terrorist organization." Palin is even claiming that Assange "has blood on his hands."

Is anyone even asking if this is true? With the last round of Wikileaks disclosures, the Pentagon found absolutely no evidence that anyone's lives were ever endangered. This hasn't stopped Sarah Palin from insisting that Assange should be pursued as though he was an Al Qaeda operative - indicating that he should be assassinated.

It's time for cooler heads to prevail. What we need to do is look at the nature of each classified leak. Was anyone put in danger? If so, that's a crime and should be prosecuted, the way I wish Rove was prosecuted for leaking Valerie Plame's identity. Then again, this may be another example of Wikileaks publishing a bunch of embarrassing but otherwise harmless and relatively useless information.

For one thing, it defies belief that:

Assange got information that actual spies were unable to get, even after they've hacked into our largest computers and sites.
That Assange is only able to get "classified" information from readily accessible people and places, whereas more secretive governments (such as China) have yet to fall prey to Wikileaks disclosures. This indicates to me that the information might not have been all that secret, which brings me to point #3.
That the U.S. referred to material as "classified" when 3 million people had access to it. If 3 million people had access to anything about me, that information would hardly be top secret.
That Assange has any real clue if the information is accurate, let alone useful. There is no real way to tell if his sources are who they claimed to be or if they could back what they were saying. This could allow Assange to be used by any government which wants to plant false information - assuming it hasn't already happened.
That people are treating what is often little more than gossip as something akin to a terrorist act. NO ONE is surprised that certain heads of state dislike other heads of state and might want to cause embarrassment. Tabloid allegations about the Duke of York are not a threat to national security. Geez.
That leaking classified information is in and of itself a terrorist act. By this definition, Deep Throat was the granddaddy of all terrorists.
That the media can become cozy with Wikileaks while getting absolute immunity, even cutting bargains to see who among them can publish the leaks.
That those who insist they are opposed to big government would therefore detest those acts which make government more transparent.

On a final note for Sarah Palin and other wingnuts: I feel a little embarrassed having to explain this to you but "treason" is a crime committed against one's own country. Julian Assange is not an American and Wikileaks is not an American organization. Therefore, he cannot be accused of treason. It's also pretty silly to assume an American court order would have stopped either him or his information from appearing in print or on the web in a multitude of different countries.

I know, reality isn't always good political spin.

In the meantime, you could do us all a favor and try to see North Korea from your house. They are the nuclear power who are about to start a war and pose much more of an immediate threat than the man leaking catty information about heads of state.

Should Wikileaks be Treated as a Terrorist Organizationsurvey software

Birth or Not: A "Pro-Life" Prank Goes Viral

2010-11-19T17:48:00.007-07:00

What happens when a rabid Glenn Beck supporter marries an adamant G.W. Bush fan? Why you get the ultimate "pro-life" prank, of course. Pete and Alisha Arnold of Minnesota wrote on birthornot.com about having experienced two prior miscarriages just in the past year. Now they are asking Internet strangers and trolls to determine whether or not they should keep the baby or abort.

Obviously, someone who has desperately tried to get pregnant and now has a seemingly healthy fetus will let absolute strangers determine the outcome of the pregnancy. The only people falling for it are other "pro-lifers" who cannot grasp that it's a straw man argument. Though they are desperately trying to bait pro-choice liberals, all they have succeeded in doing is making the "pro-life" camp look ridiculous. Any person with Google can tell where the Arnolds' views are on this issue and only the most insanely ignorant people would fall for such a straw man argument against being pro-choice.

I would say that the only thing missing is the reality TV series - but I suspect that will be starting soon now that a new Pete Arnold fan page has appeared on Facebook. (Gotta love the t-shirt. He could teach Sarah Palin a thing or two about getting publicity.)

I am shocked and sickened by what people will do for their 15-minutes of fame. That this couple is willing to use Alisha's fetus as a prop in a publicity stunt speaks volumes about their mental state as well as how little they actually care about the well being of their future child, assuming that she really is pregnant.

The following is my exact comment on their site. It is complete with obvious typos which I should have corrected before submitting. Obviously I typed this quickly on my laptop and it's not my most eloquent piece. Still, I hope they think about what they're doing:

Why are you doing this? It is so clearly a pro-life prank that it boggles my mind that you find it clever. The only logical assumption is that you are trying to bait pro-choicers whom you seem to think want everyone to abort. I could explain to you why that opinion has no basis in reality but you seem to be lacking in critical thinking. 1. Assuming that this is truly a pro-life prank, my sincerest thought is that you seek counseling immediately to determine why you are so desperately seeking the limelight as to use a potential child as a publicity stunt. 2. Assuming that you have no real concerns either way about your pregnancy, my sincerest thought is that you seek counseling immediately to determine why you would allow complete strangers and Internet trolls rather than your own family and doctors to decide the outcome of your pregnancy. 3. If you are planning on having a child who will eventually learn that your cared so little as to allow the Internet to vote on his/her existence, my sincerest thought is that you seek counseling immediately. It is also my greatest hope that you put the child up for adoption. No living being should be used as a publicity stunt. Who would want to be born into a family that cares so little about his/her well being. 4. If you are so passive-aggressive that you need to either blame liberals for aborting, for miscarrying, or for carrying to term a baby whom you clearly don't care about, my sincerest hope is that you seek immediately counseling. I'm adamantly pro-choice. In spite of your best efforts, you have proven that liberals such as I care more about the health and well being of your fetus and the child it may become than you do. Actually, it's liberals such as me who want to make certain that you have the right to health care in order to ensure a healthy baby. Someone who wants to have a child and is carrying a healthy fetus would not behave in such away. No matter what your reasoning, this is a shameful and sickening stunt.

There should be another option in their poll: Put the child up for adoption and get immediate psychiatric help. I'm adding my own poll, toward the bottom of the page.

(The following is an article-response to a comment which was posted anonymously earlier today. You can see the comment in the comment section at the end of this post, past the poll.)

First, allow me to explain how much I appreciate the courage to post anonymously. It shows you have the conviction to stand by your opinion - kind of like secretly sticking your bumper sticker on another person's car.

Now, I want you to imagine the government tells you that you must donate your blood, bone marrow, or part of your body or your own health in order to save another person. Would you do it? Would you blindly accept it or would you say that only you have the right to determine whom or what can affect your well-being and your health?

Why do you make the exception for pregnancy? In order to do so, you must assume that a potential life has more value than an actual living person.

We don't need to imagine the consequences as we are already seeing them - in places such as Poland, the Philippines and most of Latin America, where pregnant women cannot even get life-saving treatments if that treatment might harm the zygote/embryo/fetus. Naturally, the women die and the unborn become never-born. We've seen, in Chile, where women who have miscarried were denied hospitalization unless they admitted to an abortion, at which point they received a mandatory prison sentence. We have even seen, in this country, a woman who was arrested in Iowa after she fell down some stairs while pregnant. Though she called 911 in order to save her fetus (which was not injured) she was still arrested because a nurse felt that she might have had reasons for wanting an abortion. We have also seen a nun get excommunicated in Arizona for daring to save the life of a woman in a first-trimester pregnancy, whom the doctors felt had an almost 100% chance of dying if she did not have the abortion.

I have the most radical thing to tell you, which you doubtless do not understand: Women matter.

Let that sink in for a moment and contemplate what that means.

No woman, NO WOMAN, ever chooses an abortion without some agonizing decisions, which may not exist in your little world. No woman wants surgery performed on her uterus just for fun.

I have personally seen a friend who had to march past the picket lines in order to end a disastrous pregnancy which was, literally, killing her. Her insurance refused to cover it for medical necessity because she hadn't yet had a heart attack. I knew a woman who had an abortion at age 13 after being raped, repeatedly, by her own father and having gotten an STD. She coped by becoming addicted to drugs which surely would have negatively impacted that pregnancy. One in six women are victims of completed rape in this country. They do actually have the right to determine what happens to their own body and who can use that body. If I cannot order you to give bone marrow to save a life, you certainly cannot order a woman to use all of her own body's resources for 9 months in order to make a potential life, especially when this world is full of throw-away kids who are rotting on the streets, orphanages, foster homes and in families which do not want or may even abuse them.

Getting back to the article. What is sickening about this couple is their willingness to turn what should be a personal decision into a publicity stunt. Assuming the fetus becomes a child, how do you think he or she would feel knowing that: A) It's existence was determined by an Internet vote made entirely by strangers; B) Even though it's mother said she had been trying to get pregnant and had a seemingly healthy fetus, she still decided to weigh the option of an abortion in order to seek publicity; C) Even before it was born, it had been degraded into being a prop for two publicity whores.

Realistically, all of those options are pretty sick. She has made other "pro-lifers" seem utterly ridiculous. You cannot claim a moral high ground if you choose to allow a child to become a side-show freak at the mercy of two people who haven't shown the slightest regard for its well-being.

On one final note regarding your query: Science has never determined at what point, if ever, a zygote,embryo or fetus feels pain. Nothing has determined that these are even remotely self-aware. Compare that to an actual woman. Which do you value more and why?

Assuming you are religious, a bigger question would be why God chose to abort at least three of this woman's previous pregnancies, twice in the last year alone. If you believe in "God's Will", the only assumption could be that He really didn't want this couple to become parents.

I hope she chooses adoption with a loving family.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update on 11/24/10: In spite of Pete Arnold's repeated insistence that his site was not a hoax, yesterday he told CNN that it was, in fact, never intended to actually let voters determine whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. In a blatant showing of how badly he needs a dictionary, Pete Arnold said:

"My intent is not to deceive people, but at the same point, I do want people to talk about this. This seemed like a pretty good way to further the discussion, because people don't ever seem to want to talk about it for real if there's no name on it, no Baby Wiggles."

OK, so he doesn't think a hoax is deceptive? Gotcha. He also seems to think that giving the fetus the name "Baby Wiggles" is a way to make it "real." I wonder if any of the prior miscarriages had names? All he has done is prove how little he understands the pro-choice position. As he was still insisting last week that his site was valid and with no agenda, he has also successfully proven that he is a pathological liar who treats both fiction and truth with little respect. To date, he is also insisting that his wife is pro-choice.

According to CNN:

Arnold said that the site has brought the couple about $225 through Google ads but that he's spent $500 on it. On Friday, Arnold had said that the site had made about $40 and that he'd spent $215.

Money well spent on a non-deceptive hoax? Depends on how well he is embraced by the wing nuts.

Haley Barbour: The Most Powerful Republican in Politics?

2010-08-20T17:01:00.006-06:00

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or at least such is the title of an article on Politico, later picked up by Yahoo News and Michael Tomasky on the Guardian UK.

This business with Haley Barbour is fascinating, no small part due to the $1 million FOX "News" gave to the Republican Governor's Association (RGA), of which Haley Barbour is head, following the resignation of Mark Sanford.

It is easy to see his appeal to the Red State mentality.

Regarding the rest of us, well, remember that he dismantled Mississippi's youth tobacco-prevention group, no doubt at least partly due to the money his former lobbying firm took from Big Tobacco, which has been estimated at about $3.8 million. While in office, he vetoed legislation which would increase his state's cigarette tax while eliminating Mississippi’s grocery tax. He only recently allowed for a raise in the cigarette tax, which would be the first time this tax has increased since 1985. It was only considered after Mississippi faced enormous budget shortfalls in a poor economy. At least through 2007, Barbour has been continuing to receive payments from his former lobbying firm.

In spite of his complaining about "Big Government Spending", he was very grateful to government workers for helping his state after Katrina, taking over $15 billion in federal aid. The wife of his nephew picked up over $300 million in contracts from FEMA, mostly for "trailer maintenance." The FBI started investigating in 2007. In addition, he skewered the receiving of those funds to target only wealthy homeowners, waiving a HUD requirement that 70% of those funds go to low and moderate income people.

Apparently, he's one of those Republicans who only thinks government should help only him and his interests, most notably Mississippi's many casinos and wealthy donors. Additional Barbour family members and friends, as well as his old lobbying firm, received hundreds of thousands of dollars in hurricane-related business.

As a lobbyist, he represented the firm indicted in Tom Delay's money laundering scandal. While he was chair of the RNC, he was involved in illegally raising money from oversees sources. He has described himself as a "fat redneck" with "an accent", who also defended Virginia's Confederate History Without Mentioning Slavery Month. He stated that while everyone knew slavery was a bad thing, Gov. McDonnell's proclamation was the equivalent of making "a big deal out of something that doesn't amount to diddly."

When Mississippi contemplated removing the Confederate stars and bars from off of its flag, Barbour chose to wear it on his lapel. This has not stopped MSNBC's Joe Scarborough from stating that Barbour will be smeared by the media for being a racist, simply due to the fact that that Barbour is a Southern governor who has criticized Obama.

I am guessing that, for a Republican, that would make more sense than admitting that excluding slavery from "Confederate History Month" or wearing the Confederate Battle Flag on a lapel might be considered racist actions.

He cut Mississippi's deficit by cutting Medicaid (health care in the nation's poorest state for its poorest citizens). According to Bill Moyers:

When Barbour signed the cuts into law earlier this year, he complained about the state having to pay for "health care for people who can work and take care of themselves and just choose not to." Among those cut were cancer victims, kidney dialysis patients, even the mentally ill… and all of them poor. Frightened recipients turned out at the state capitol in desperation.

Barbour had stated that the problems with Mississippi's budget shortfalls was not because they taxed too little but rather that they spent too much. Under the old Medicaid rules, an elderly or disabled person could not earn more than $12,600 a year. With the new rules which Barbour signed, that amount was dropped to $6,800 a year. In other words, to be considered for Medicaid, an elderly or disabled person must have an income of less than $567 per month.

Mississippi also consistently has the highest rates of infant mortality anywhere within the country. A 2008 report stated that infant mortality peaked in 2005 to 11.4 per thousand births. Among black infants, that rate rose to 17 per 1000, putting professional black women at higher risk of infant mortality than low birth weight children born to white women. Some public health workers blame this on Barbour's cuts to Medicaid and children's health insurance programs. This was done by a man who describes himself as "pro-life".

He pushed for radical tort reform, which both he and former senator Trent Lott promoted until Lott's house was destroyed by Katrina. The hypocrisy award in this case goes to Trent Lott, who decided to make an exception of his anti-tort policies by and sue State Farm for not covering his loss. This was in spite of the fact that Lott did not purchase flood insurance through State Farm but instead purchased it through a federal flood insurance program, which was insufficient to cover the loss on his $400,000 house. Haley Barbour still pushed through what is considered the toughest tort reform laws in the country, making it more difficult for the poor to receive compensation from large corporations, even if they were victims of predatory practices or carelessness.

This was from a governor who stated as recently as June that the oil spill in the Gulf was not a big threat to residents living on the Gulf. He later went on to state that Mississippi was not prepared to deal with the crisis and needed more federal aid. Good thing he still remembers how to get his share of Big Government spending. Hopefully, no one in his state will get the urge to sue BP for their loss of health and incomes.

I suppose I can see why Republicans are thinking that he is everything they would want from a leader. He has repeatedly shown he knows how to protect his own interests and the interests of his family, friends and former employer. He has been the epitome of the "I've got mine" attitude of those who think Washington should only help people like themselves. Still, in spite of the Politico puff piece, he is still only polling in the single digits behind Romney and Huckabee as being on the 2012 ticket.

Why Republicans Need Obama to be a Foreign-Born Muslim

2010-08-19T18:48:00.005-06:00

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(This is my response to Michael Tomasky's Blog on the Guardian UK. I have further expanded upon it since in this post.)

Official Obama Photo

The number of Americans who now believe that Obama is a Muslim has reached 24%, according to a Time Magazine poll. It also states that fully one-third of Americans feel that Muslims should be barred from running for president, while 28% feel that they should not be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court. Only 47% of respondents to this poll feel that Obama is Christian, while an additional 24% declined to answer the question or said that they were unsure.

While so many pundits are playing off the fears of the "Ground Zero mosque", it would also seem as though the "Obama is a foreign/Muslim/terrorist" crowd has achieved a victory. The spin-zone has not had a liberal put any effort into un-spinning packaged lies and media-manufactured phobias. The left, taking its usual no-backbone approach, has decided again that outlandish lies will die down on its own and should not distract from complicated realities.

This has not been the case for some time.

If outlandish lies were answered by bold truths, John Kerry would have won the 2004 election by directly addressing the Swift Boat ads. I seem to remember that it was a Karl Rove tactic to attack an opponent on the very things that opponent thought of as strengths. This tactic clearly works.

Politicians would not tell lies unless there was a public willing to suspend disbelief and accept these lies as absolute truths.

What needs to be addressed is why so many in this country want to believe that Obama is a Muslim, even when they criticized Obama for following a "radical" black Christian leader. This is true in spite of the fact that Obama was raised by his Christian mother and grandparents, having barely known his father. It speaks of the very essence by those who fear an America which no longer looks like they. This manufactured phobia of all things Muslim and of all things non-white (think "white slavery" and the anti-Hispanic establishment) is a response by those who feel that they have lost control over their own lives and power to those who traditionally have been the most disenfranchised and powerless.

This goes beyond those who wish that Obama was a Muslim and a foreigner. This is a manufactured crisis by those who wish to divide the country into two camps by whipping up hysteria against Muslims, blacks, Hispanics and anyone who does not look and pray as they.

The anti-immigration laws of Arizona were not written 20 years ago. It did not happen when crime was bad, illegal immigration was rampant and anyone named Bush was president. Instead, it happened at a time when crime is at record lows, when illegal immigration, especially from Mexico, is at a fraction of where it once was due to an abysmal American economy and when many Hispanics are returning to Mexico to look for work there. Still, Arizona felt the need to write a law which targeted all Hispanics as potential criminals, arresting them for simply failing to prove their innocence. These actions are not coincidental. It was not an accident that Virginia's "Confederate History Month", which decided slavery was "irrelevant", happened one month after Gingrich claimed that Democrats destroyed their party by embracing Civil Rights legislation and one year after a black man with a foreign-sounding name was elected president. The politics of hate: Racism; misogyny; homophobia; Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are always on the front page when any of these groups gain something resembling power - or basic human rights.

The conservatives are good at whipping up a frenzy and having others carry out their dirty work. Unfortunately, this will not stop with simple race-bating. Since Obama was elected, right-wing nutcases shot up the Holocaust Museum (the day after Obama made a speech at Buchenwald), murdered a doctor who provided abortions and flew an airplane into an IRS building in Austin. The last time we saw Americans blatantly killing other Americans was during the previous Democratic administration, when McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City and when other abortion providers were being killed and having their clinics bombed. There have been four other abortion providers who were murdered, all of which happened while Clinton was president.

Such is the pattern of terrorists and propagandists. Their sayings and actions are always a response to some other perceived threat by some other perceived enemy, at a time when they feel that they have lost power or been otherwise dehumanized or made weak. Terrorists almost always see themselves of agents of divine wrath (such as against those of other religions, or whose actions they feel is an insult to their own religion. Liberal politicians and abortion providers both fit this bill, as do most if not all non-Christians).

This is why the right needs Obama to be a Muslim. This is why they want him to be a Muslim. This is also why, in spite of all of the proof, there is a segment which will always insist that Obama was born in Africa. If he was just another American Christian who held different views on how to be a better leader, it would not incite such wrath. This pattern will continue until either Obama has lost power or until someone "acting in the name of God" assassinates him.

Unfortunately, this is not far-fetched.

Look at the numbers of those who brought guns to Obama's speeches. It is an implied threat to anyone who may who has a different American ideal, who does not enforce the status quo

The making of a terrorist is not confined to Islamic circles. It occurred when Andrew Joseph Stack III, deliberately flew his plane into an IRS building in Austin, leaving behind a rant about the government and the IRS, insisting that Americans revolt and that "violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer" (his italics).

The hate-mongering speeches of right-wing pundits play into these desires by feeding off of a certain demography's fears. They understand that these actions are responses to phobias manufactured for people who feel that their way of life is being threatened. It is designed to create a manipulated response to most help those who are not in power, even if gaining power involves an atmosphere of violence. These are the five reasons people become terrorists, as listed by Dr. Jessica Stern:

Alienation
Humiliation
Demographics
History
Territory

We have seen these applied to everything from segregation to religious intolerance to Texas wanting to re-write history books and/or secede. It is meant to play into a mindset and tap a nerve by those who are already on the fringes, who feel that their lives are not in their control, including their right to hate and discriminate. The other, "bad" group doesn't understand or like your values. They will keep you poor and powerless. They will take your money, land or power, which means you are "defending yourself" and entirely correct when you take their money, land or power. They will convert you to their religion, therefore you must convert them or at least not allow them to practice their religion. If they are not like you, they are a perceived threat.

The adherents to the perversion of fear will always see itself as a victim of some imaginary enemy. By doing so, they will commit the very acts they most fear being used against themselves.

Democrats need to firmly address the Politics of Hate and not allow these fires to burn out of control. Too much is at risk.

Cinsault & Mourvedre, Red Wine Grapes for a Beautiful Bouquet.

2010-08-04T21:30:00.001-06:00

I originally published this on Factoidz.com. Republished here with permission.

When I go to a liquor store and ask for a Cinsault or Mourvedre blend, I often find I receive blank stares - especially if I am asking about a wine which blends the two. In the U.S., I would guess that these are two grapes which barely receive any much-deserved recognition. This is unfortunate, as these are both ancient grape varietals which are used in among the more esteemed wines.

What is Cinsault? Cinsault (pronounced san-soh), also sometimes referred to as Hermitage, is a red wine grape with a high level of tolerance for heat and drought conditions, though otherwise is not resistant to disease. For these reasons, Cinsault is a popular grape for wines coming from North Africa and the Middle East. Wines which hail from the former French colonies of Algeria and Morocco rely heavily on Cinsault, often blending it with Grenache and Carignan. If you are familiar with the Lebanese wines, in particular, if you are part of the "cult" of Chateau Musar, you are doubtless familiar with Cinsault. Lebanon has among the oldest traditions of growing wine, dating back some 6,000 years with the Phoenicians. The Cinsault grape was brought to Lebanon from parts of Algeria in about 1857.

Cinsault, often alongside Mourvedre, are added to wines such as Grenache in order to help lend softeness to the Bouquet. Cinsault is considered a Rhone varietal, which means that it hails from the Rhone region of southern France. In other regions, such as South Africa, Cinsault is frequently added to Cabernet Sauvignon. At this time, the Cinsault grape is the most highly planted grape varietal in South Africa. South Africa is one of the few countries which will make single-varietal Cinsault wine. Chateau Musar, in Lebanon, is another. They will use a single varietal Cinsault grape for their Rose. Their red wines will often find Cinsault grapes blended with Cabernet Sauvignon and Carignan. Qupe is another winery dedicated to producing handcrafted Rhone varietals, with a strong interest in Cinsault. Still, within the United States, Cinsault plantings are minimal, though drier conditions in parts of California and New Mexico are seeing some renewed interest in this grape by several of their local wineries.

Wines made from the Cinsault grape often have a great perfume with notes of fresh strawberry while being low on tannins. It is often used to help brighten the fruit aspects of the wine in which these blended.

What is Mourvedre? Mourvedre is a red wine grape varietal which is often used to make strong, dark red wines and roses, It was a cultivated wine variety which originally came from Spain. The grape was probably brought into Catalonia by the Phoenicians around 500 B.C.E. It had been almost decimated by a phylloxera epidemic but has enjoyed a renewed success after WWII.

Mourvedre may be the second most widely planted grape in Spain, following Grenache. However, until recently is was assumed that the Mourvedre grape was identical to Monastrell. There is still confusion in this regard, due to some DNA testing which may have been misread resulting in a report which has indicated that these two grapes are not the same. In Spain, it is assumed that the Mourvedre grape is mostly what was planted along the Mediterranean coast. Information on these two grapes, especially in that region, is still rather patchy.

The Mourvedre grape is long to ripen. This makes it a desirable grape for planting in areas which are prone to late Spring frosts. It thrives in heat and can be planted in windy climates but is rather drought-sensitive. It also benefits from being planted alongside a large body of water (such as the Mediterranean).

Mourvedre’s more appealing qualities are that they tend to produce meaty wines with considerable tannins and dark, rich colors. Notes of jammy blackberry and different spices such as clove, cinnamon, black pepper and thyme are immediately noticeable upon the palate. It has finishes of wood, toast and smoke. For these reasons, Mourvedre can be used in a single-varietal wine but also is popular for blending with Grenache, Syrah/Shiraz, Cabernet and sometimes Cinsault - though usually in combinations with Grenache and/or Syrah. Beginning in 2005, Perrin Reserve, a Cotes du Rhone, became a blend of Grenache, Syrah, Mourvedre and Cinsault. Prior vintages did not often use the Cinsault grape.

If you are looking to try a Cinsault or Mourvedre blend, ask in a liquor store which specializes in fine wines. If they are unable to make any suggestions, I would first search the area which focuses on wines of the Middle East and North Africa, such as Lebanon, Israel and Algeria. If their selection is limited (which is often the case) search in the Grenache and Syrah blends of Spain and France, or look into some South African wines. Australian wines do use these blends but they may be difficult to find, especially with so much focus being on the big-name wineries of that region. As a last resort, try ordering online, though good prices and a large selection often give way to huge shipping prices.

If you enjoyed this article, you might also appreciate:

Underlying Causes and Treatments for Stomach Bloating

2010-07-30T10:46:00.000-06:00

(I had originally published this as a Factoidz article to answer a question a woman had regarding bloating, dizziness and confusion. It has been republished here with permission.)

Any person who has dealt with bloating in the mid-section will know how difficult and sometimes painful this condition can be. It can make daily functions uncomfortable and clothes seem to never fit right. Unfortunately, there are many reasons which cause bloating in the belly. These can range from water retention, indigestion (dyspepsia), various digestive disorders, food allergies and yeast infections (candidiasis). In order to discover what is affecting you, we may need to do a little trial and error and see what works best

Candida: I’m going to start by focusing on yeast because this is a common disorder and it would fit the bill for many of the symptoms you have described, including the feeling of being “dizzy and nauseated”. If you are also prone to yeast infections, inability to concentrate, general flu-like aches or headaches, this would seem to be the cause (or could be caused by problems of the middle ear. See below). Many often notice that their tongues seem to have a white coating, regardless of how often one cleans the teeth and gums. One study suggested that up to 75% of the population has problems with candida and is unaware of it.

Yeast, besides being a common irritant many women suffer from periodically, can affect both men and women and is naturally found in our digestive tracts. Men who report frequent problems with any of the above symptoms as well as jock itch or athlete’s foot probably also have a candida infection. The more severe cases can leave people complaining of feeling drunk, lightheaded and of being “dizzy and nauseated.” Many people who are more prone to this have diets rich in breads, cheeses, beer and wine. If you are treating candida, a good first step is to remove these foods, at least temporarily, from your diet.

The good news is that yeast is easy to treat. Besides avoiding those certain foods listed above, other dietary changes should be extremely beneficial, such as:

Acidophilus: This is a friendly strain of bacteria found in your gastrointestinal (GI) tract - a probiotic organism. It helps to increase digestive enzymes which can help prevent gas and bloating even if you have no underlying problems of yeast. In addition, acidophilus tends to be yeast’s worst enemy. Have you ever noticed that you tend to get yeast infections during or shortly after having been on a round of antibiotics? This is because those antibiotics kill both good bacteria (probiotics) and bad. This allows for yeast to grow unhampered and is often why doctors will tell you to eat yogurt in between antibiotic dosages. You can either take acidophilus supplements or learn to eat yogurt. If the infection is bad, I would buy an acidophilus powder and sprinkle it onto the yogurt for a double-dosage.
Yogurt: This naturally tends to contains acidophilus. To make certain the yogurt you have truly has acidophilus, be certain you read on the label the little marker which states that it has live organisms. If you’ve seen Jamie Lee Curtis on TV, you know about the benefits of a certain brand of yogurt. That will also help most types of digestive problems and bloating though I would still take an acidophilus supplement so you know you are loading up on both.
Good Belly: This is a brand name for a juice which is loaded with probiotics and is both dairy-free and soy-free. I have recently discovered this brand at my health food store. I feel it is among the best probiotic brands around, having helped me not only with yeast infections but also the chronic digestive disorders I was having after a series of several antibiotics.

Yeast’s Last Stand: No kidding. When a yeast infection is being cured and those little buggers are dying off, you may initially feel that the symptoms have become even worse - especially the feeling of being “drunk”. This should not be an excuse to stop taking supplements or killing the yeast. If you can, try to stay home for a couple of days and get lots of rest. When curing a feminine yeast infection, I have found that I also have a heavier discharge with I’m going heavy on the acidophilus.

Water Retention: Another factor which can cause bloating is due to water retention. Some of the causes for this can also lead to the symptoms you have described. One reason why I want to discuss water retention is because it can also be an underlying factor of Meniere's Disease, which can cause extreme vertigo, nausea and confusion. This can often be found in people who have other problems with bloating and excess fluid. Treatments can include going on a diuretic and cutting back on sodium.

High Sodium: If you have a diet which is higher in sodium, water retention can be the cause. I personally notice that after gorging on chips and salsa, my face appears fuller and I cannot wear my rings. Cutting back on sodium while drinking more fluids (especially water) can help in this regard.

Low Potassium: This doesn’t get nearly enough attention, though problems with low potassium can run the gamut from having some mild symptoms to life threatening. If you have muscular aches, LEG CRAMPS, headaches, irregular heartbeat and water retention (including bloating and swollen feet/ankles) this could easily be a factor. I have had poor luck with potassium pills if for no other reason than the ones in the store contain so little potassium. I would either start munching 1-2 bananas every day or find coconut water.

Coconut water - (not to be mistaken with coconut milk or juice).You can find this at many health food stores such as Whole Foods. It contains more potassium than a banana and more electrolytes than sports drinks yet without all of the sugar and calories. The only problem is that it is cost prohibitive, usually running at about $1.50 to $2.00 per serving though sometimes you can buy this in larger bulk containers. I am a strong advocate of coconut water and have written an article just about this as I feel it is a life saver. It can either come plain or mixed with other juices. If you financially are able, I would start off drinking 1-2 servings of this a day for a week to see if you have fewer symptoms or just overall feel better, though I would still focus on yogurt/acidophilus as I feel that it is the most likely immediate cause of your bloating. It may also be you have more than one thing going on and it would therefore be worth your while to try both methods.

Food Allergies: Food allergies are unfortunately a more difficult thing to determine. The only thing I can recommend in this regard, should the earlier methods fail, is to start a medical journal about what foods you eat, when you eat it and how you feel later. (Actually, you should have a medical journal anyway as it will help you decide if the other methods help treat your problems as well.) Some common culprits can include dairy, nuts and processed foods. You may also initially remove these things from your diet to see if you have an allergy and if the symptoms diminish. Still, the journal is a good thing to have for many reasons as there can always be more than one underlying factor for your problems.

Digestive Disorder: If all else fails, you need to see a doctor. You may have some internal blockage or other medical concern which only a doctor can diagnose and treat. If you started that journal, be certain to take this with you, especially as your doctor may initially want to diagnose a yeast infection or water retention and might not realize that what all you have done in those regards or in terms of food allergies.

I hope this information is of some assistance.

Good luck to you.

If you liked this article, you might also appreciate:

Coconut Water: Nature's Sports Drink

Constipation, "Decreased Bowel Motility" and Hyponatremia

Alternatives for Hysterectomy: Endometrial Ablation - HTA, Thermachoice and Novasure

Alternatives for Hysterectomy: Endometrial Ablation - HTA, Thermachoice and Novasure.

2010-07-28T23:43:00.007-06:00

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I originally published this site on Factoidz.com. It has been republished here with permission.

If you are a woman who has suffered from endometriosis or severely heavy menstrual bleeding, also known as menorrhagia, there is a good chance that you have been told that your only option is a hysterectomy. For many decades, it is true that this was the only option. Many women have tried to control their symptoms with some form of hormonal contraception, or if they suffer from endometriosis, they may have had a laparoscopy. Unfortunately, for many women, their symptoms only return. In addition, hormonal contraception can carry certain risks, especially if the woman smokes or as she ages. Progesterone-only methods often cause breakthrough bleeding, which may be the very thing the patient is trying to control. At the same time, stroke and deep vein thrombosis may be caused by contraceptives containing estrogen. However, within about the last decade, several medical breakthroughs have given new treatment options for women who suffer from these conditions.

First, what is Menorrhagia? Menorrhagia is another term for an unusually heavy and/or prolonged menstrual period. Specifically, it refers to losing 5 1/2 tablespoons or more of blood during the menstrual cycle. The Mayo Clinic states that signs and symptoms of Menorrhagia may include:

Menstrual flow that soaks through one or more sanitary pads or tampons every hour for several consecutive hours.
The need to use double sanitary protection to control your menstrual flow.
The need to change sanitary protection during the night.
Menstrual periods lasting longer than seven days.
Menstrual flow that includes large blood clots.
Heavy menstrual flow that interferes with your regular lifestyle.
Tiredness, fatigue or shortness of breath (symptoms of anemia)

Some women develop Menorrhagia during the onset of puberty, many of whom have it last their entire reproductive lives. Others develop this as they approach menopause. In either case, their symptoms may be pain free or excessively painful. Women with this condition might also have additional health concerns, which might or might not be the underlying cause of the symptoms, such as endometriosis or fibroids.

What is Endometrial Ablation? Quite simply, endometrial ablation is a medical procedure which is used to remove (ablate) the endometrial lining of the uterus. (An ablation means the removal of material from the surface of the object by means of vaporization, chipping or some other erosive process.) This procedure is normally done in an outpatient setting, either in a doctor's office or hospital. Patients who might wish to become pregnant at a later date should not have an endometrial ablation as this could result in a high-risk pregnancy. Though the majority of women become infertile after this procedure, it is still encouraged that women use some form of birth control just for this reason. Overall, approximately 90% of women who have an endometrial ablation have reduced menstrual bleeding. Of those, approximately 45% will stop having periods altogether. Some women may initially have periods after the procedure, only for those periods to completely stop within a few months. Other women may have no periods at all for several years but may notice them returning at a much later time. Approximately 22% of women who have had this procedure will eventually chose to have a hysterectomy. Patients who have an IUD must have these removed prior to undergoing a uterine ablation. Women must also have a normal pap smear and uterine biopsy prior to having this procedure. With most forms of uterine ablations, a D and C is done immediately prior in order to both thin the lining of the uterus and often to check for uterine cancer. In cases where a D and C is not performed (such as most in-office procedures), a hormonal medication may be given to help thin the endometrial lining.

With any endometrial ablation, sex, tampons, tub baths and anything involving insertion of anything into the vagina should be avoided for a set amount of time, usually about two weeks or longer as needed. As with most procedures, a heavy discharge or flow similar to a period may last 1-2 weeks. The discharge may have an unpleasant odor and may continue even for several weeks following the procedure, even if there is no blood.

How is is an Endometrial Ablation Different from a D and C? A D and C, which stands for Dilation and Curettage, is a procedure which is designed to scrape and collect the tissue inside the uterus. The dilation is the widening of the cervix in order to allow instruments into the uterus. The cuttrage involves the scraping of the walls inside the uterus. This can be done for many medical reasons, including to determine the cause of abnormal uterine bleeding, an attempt to treat heavy menstrual bleeding, a treatment for incomplete miscarriages and occasionally as a first trimester abortion. However, the procedure is not a lasting treatment of menorrhagia. As it only scrapes off the lining of the uterus, this endometrial lining often returns. For the treatment of menorrhagia, a D and C may only lighten the flow for 1-2 cycles. Often this procedure is repeated and the heavy flow will eventually return.

What are the Different Types of Endometrial Ablation? Overall, there are many different and competing endometrial ablation procedures. The three of which I will be focusing are:

HTA System
Thermachoice
Novasure

HTA stands for Hydro ThermAblator System. This treatment relies on the circulation of heated saline, which fills the uterine cavity, in order to destroy the endometrial lining. This is an outpatient procedure in which the patient's cervix will be dilated and a small, telescopic device will be inserted into the uterus so that the physician may see the inside of the uterus. From there, a saline solution at room temperature will be used to flush and gently clean the uterus. The saline solution will gradually be heated to 90 degrees C (194 degrees F) and circulated within the uterus for ten minutes until the lining of the uterus is destroyed. Once this procedure is completed, the uterus is then rinsed with room temperature saline in order to cool both the uterus and the probe.

What to expect from the HTA: This procedure is usually done in a hospital setting though some physicians may choose to do this in their office. This can be done under general anesthesia, sedatives along with pain medications or a local anesthesia should the patient decide to be awake during the procedure. The physician may also choose to give the patient some pain medications for after the procedure. For the two weeks following the HTA, the uterus will be sloughing off this tissue, similar to having a period. Most women are able to return to normal daily actives the following day, though (as with any surgical procedure) an increase of bed rest and a restraint from doing heavily laborious activities may be beneficial for 1-2 weeks, depending upon how the patient is feeling.

The Benefits of HTA include:

The ability to treat women with an abnormally shaped uterus.
A 98% success rate following at a three-year followup.
53% of women reporting a complete stop of their menstrual flows (amenorrhoea).
94% of patients reported having either a normal menstral flow, a reduced menstrual flow or no menstrual flow.

What is Thermachoice? Thermachoice is a procedure where a soft, flexible balloon made of a silicone material (rather than latex as many women have allergic reactions) is attached to a catheter and inserted past the vagina and cervix into the uterus. The balloon is then filled with fluid and gently heated and gently circulated within the uterus for eight minutes in order to treat the uterus. Once the catheter and balloon are removed, there is nothing remaining inside the uterus. The treated endometrial tissue will shed, similar to a period, over the next 7-10 days.

Benefits of Thermachoice Include:

There is a 96% rate of success among women who have undergone this procedure.
95% of women treated will return to normal levels of menstrual bleeding or lower.
89% of patients have a reduction of menstrual cramping.

What is Novasure? Novasure is an outpatient procedure using radio frequency to remove the endometrial lining of the uterus. During the procedure, once the cervix is dilated, a slender wand with a triangular mesh will be inserted into the uterus where it expands to the dimensions of the uterine cavity. At this point, radio frequency energy is then activated. It will immediately shut off when it senses that the treatment has been completed. This only lasts about 90 seconds. As with the other procedures, the lining will slough away for about the next 1-2 weeks.

What are the Benefits of Novasure?

97% of women say that they would recommend Novasure to other women.
More than 90% reported a much lighter menstrual flow, with many women who have had their periods stop completely.
45% of women reported a reduction in symptoms of PMS.
64% reduction of women reporting pain.
68% of women reporting a reduction in anxiety.
71% reduction of women reporting a lack of self confidence.
An almost 400% reduction of women who were reporting lack of energy.

In full disclosure: I am among the women who have undergone a Novasure procedure, approximately two months prior to writing this article.

OK, so what are the Risks of Endometrial Ablation? Though rare, any form of endometrial ablation will have certain risks. These include but are not limited to:

Perforation of the uterus.
Burns to the uterus beyond the endometrial lining.
Bowl burns

There are additional risks associated with HTA and Thermachoice, due to the chance that heated fluid may escape beyond the uterine cavity and flow into other parts of the body, including the fallopian tubes.

As with any surgical procedure, there is also the risk of pulmonary edema or embolism, reactions to the anesthesia or other medications. Though extremely rare, death from general anesthesia occurs in about 1 in every 250,000 people, though this is most common in those with other, serious underlying medical conditions.

How do I know which Procedure is Right for Me? It would seem as though there are as many sites promoting their method over other methods as there are different methods of endometrial ablation. Do your research, remembering that many sites will hype their own procedures without being objective. Most important, ask your doctor. If you have an OBGYN whom you trust, ask her which procedure she would recommend and which doctor she feels would be the best, assuming she does not perform endometrial ablations.

Many women prefer a doctor who will perform these procedures in office, both for the convenience and when cost is a factor. However, as there are certain risks (which I mentioned above), it might be a good idea to find a doctor who will do this as an outpatient procedure in a local hospital. It could be beneficial to have other surgeons and emergency equipment on hand should you be the rare case where there is a serious complication. I found a doctor who was recommended to me by the other doctors and nurses at my primary care facility, most of whom used her for their own OBGYN care. That was a strong factor regarding how I chose my doctor and procedure. Another thing to consider is that biopsies and D and Cs can also be performed under the anesthesia while at a hospital, both reducing pain and often eliminating the need for hormonal therapy prior to the procedure.

Remember, this is your body and your health. Ask questions and be certain to discuss your own medical history, including what medications and supplements you might take. Voice your concerns should any arise.

Good luck to you.

If you liked this article, you might also appreciate:

Constipation, "Decreased Bowel Motility" and Hyponatremia: Medical Treatments and Natural Remedies.

When it's Not Just a Rash (Part 1): Herpes Zoster, VZV and Chicken Pox

Natural Remedies: The Multiple Medical Benefits of Milk Thistle.

This Week in Crazy: The Republican Party of Iowa's Platform (Part 1).

2010-07-27T21:19:00.016-06:00

=========================================================================

(I initially crafted this response to an editorial in the Guardian's Comment is Free section, in Michael Tomasky's blog. As I have continued to expand upon it, I thought it deserved its own entry in my blog. This is regarding the Republican Party of Iowa's new 12,000 word platform, of which they are insisting that any GOP candidate must agree with 80% of that platform.)

For a while there I was thinking of starting a site entitled "This Week in Crazy".

Unfortunately, so long as there are Republicans, there will never be enough hours in the day for me to keep it up to date. I wouldn't be able to even have the time to adequately discuss the RPI Platform. So, here are a few aspects of the platform which I feel like tackling, right now:

6. The only sound basis for sound government and just human relations is “Natural Law”.

So, what do you mean by "Natural Law"? Do you mean "Natural Law" as defined by Thomas Aquinas (a man who defended slavery and prostitution)? What about "Islamic Natural Law"? There's also a "Liberal Natural Law". As "Natural Law" is considered the opposite of "Positive Law" (which is man-made), which man-made laws would you like to see overturned? You gave a long quote from Cicero about "treason from within" but what you appear to be calling "treason", another man might call a "compassionate government" - especially as you seem to make exceptions for yourselves as it pertains to your own well being.

Cicero also stated that "Natural Law" derives its origins from God. Problem is, he meant the God worshiped in ancient Rome from 106-43 B.C. The Christian God of the New Testament might take some umbrage over this. You might also have a hard time getting New Testament God to work things out with Old Testament God. They tend not to always see eye-to-eye. Personally, I think Old Testament God needs a few anger management courses but don't tell him I said that.

9. The individual works hard for what is his/hers. Therefore, the individual will determine with whom he/she will share it, not the government. No more legal plunder. Legal plunder is defined as using the law to take from one person what belongs to them, and giving it to others to whom it does not belong. It is plunder if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what that citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Sure, I'll be perfectly ducky taking back my money going to your farm subsidies. What do you call the CRP? I call it you taking my money in order for you not to actually farm. The rest of us have to do real work in order to pay for this program. I'll take my refund ASAP. I'm also going to go out on a limb and decide that this isn't one of the things which make you cry "treason". Are Social Security and Medicare other examples of "legal plunder"? It certainly fits your definition as it "benefits one citizen at the expense of another". I'm certainly guessing that Medicaid is something which you would like to see stopped. Most government programs could fit your definition, including programs for roads which most of us will never drive and emergency services for which we do not pay cash at the time of the emergency. Many of us will never, ever, need to call the fire department. Where does supporting the infrastructure fit into your definition? As I've read further down your platform, it's obvious that the only infrastructure you like is the infrastructure which you will personally use.

11. Law is to be restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties and all properties. (Including the yet to be born.)

Oh my. When rights are given to the unborn by people such as yourselves, you tend to think that it trumps all rights of the woman, who tends to get reduced into being a walking/talking baby incubator. For those who thought that the Catholic Hospitals in the U.S. had hit an extreme for excommunicating a nun who dared to save a life by allowing an abortion, that's peanuts compared to what's happened in Iowa. There, a pregnant woman was recently arrested for accidentally falling down some stairs, in spite of the fact that she called 911 in order to save the fetus and did not miscarry. Apparently Iowa prefers that women always assume that they are pregnant and never, ever, do any activity which might harm the potential child they might or might not be carrying. That's the reality behind the laws which give the "unborn" the same rights as the living. Just ask any woman in the Philippines or most of Central America. Heck, we've got 2 million people in prison. Those new prisons being built have got to be for someone. They don't pay for themselves.

I'm also thinking that you're not interested in protecting the "rights of the unborn" by actually helping pregnant women in need. That would fit under your "treason" category as it "benefits one citizen at the expense of another." Which brings up a confusing point: Wouldn't protecting the "rights of the unborn" be an example of this as it benefits the unborn at the expense of the pregnant woman, who may not have the physical, mental or financial resources to bring another child into the world?

If you are among the countless women who discovered, via use of early detection pregnancy tests, that those really weren't just "late periods" you had, you might want to leave Iowa, pronto. Otherwise, you might get charged with "feticide" and end up in jail right alongside pregnant women who fall.

18. Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.

You might want to send that memo to the slaves, or to blacks, or to gays, or to Jews, or to women. Local self-government tends to be the largest culprit in denying rights to the unwanted minority. Usually this is done in the name of morality, though what is moral and just to one is often immoral and unjust to another. In your case, you feel a "strong local self-government" should overturn any rights given to gays and those who are transgendered. So much for "preserving human freedom." I think you meant to say, "Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom of those who are most like us." Bit of a difference there.

19. Our founding fathers were very clear in their writings that the United States of America was to be a Republic and not a Democracy (a government of the law and not of the masses). We as Republicans believe that we should “Restore the Republic”. Therefore, Progressivism, Collectivism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism and or any other form of ideology contrary to our founding fathers’ concept of a republic should be resisted, rejected and considered as an enemy.

Um, you do know that John Adams was the first president to sign into law a system where taxpayer money was set aside in order to fund the health care of a needed group of citizens? In July of 1798, Congress passed "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen", which was designed to protect the Merchant Marines, who were not serving at time of war, nor were they yet under the jurisdiction of the Navy. It also created America's first payroll tax. No kidding. Apparently our Founding Fathers would have been too liberal for the Republican Party of Iowa.

What you call "Progressivism" "Collectivism" and "Socialism" were tenants of the Founding Fathers, whose Preamble to the Constitution of the United States clearly states that they will "promote the general welfare." (Eek, Socialism!) That doesn't just mean the welfare for farmers who need subsidies, nor simply the welfare of those who look, act, dress and pray the same as you. They also specifically stated, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States". In the First Amendment, they said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The very things which the Founding Fathers wrote into law would be considered "Socialist" by your standards. You might also want to catch up on reading some of the works of Thomas Paine. Considered "The Father of the American Revolution" and a Founding Father, he was an advocate of Freethinking, which is precisely the opposite of what you are insisting when you say you want "Judeo-Christian values".

I have barely even scraped the surface of your introduction and yet there is still so much more which needs to be addressed. Pretty much, most things in your sections 4, 5 ,6 and up appear to be the love child of the Aryan Nation and every Wingnut conspiracy theory / fantasy. I felt I should have been reading this in The Onion. I imagine the day will soon come when they will have a spot-on parody.

3.24 We call for the elimination of the Federal agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Seriously?

I mean, at what point did "F*** the safety of American workers" become the rallying cry of the Republican Party? Was it after an easily preventable explosion at a mine in West Virginia killed 29 people? Maybe it was after an explosion on an oil rig owned by B.P. killed eleven people and cost the jobs of thousands more for an unforeseen amount of time? Really, I don't know how you even said this with a straight face. You might want to explain this to the families of those who were killed because profit trumped the lives and safety of countless people.

Really?

4.15 We demand abolishment of the Iowa Core Curriculum/Education guidelines.

and:

4.16 We support the elimination of the Iowa Department of Education and of the U.S. Department of Education.

So, educational standards and guidelines as well as the departments which oversee these should be eliminated. Judging by your platform, I would have assumed that this had already been the case. My bad.

5.06 We oppose the use of the Environmental Protection Agency or any other regulatory body to dictate the type of energy that will be produced and used. Energy production should be based on practical economics

OK, I suppose "F*** the environment" makes an excellent soundbite right after "F*** the safety of American workers." Oh, and so sorry about those toxins leaching into your drinking water, the shrimp which comes in unleaded, plus and supreme, or the asbestos contamination at a high school track in Libby, Montana, which was caused when W.R. Grace and Co. "donated" the material to pave a high school track, hoping to bury a paper trail. After all, who needs the environment anyway? It always gets ruined.

5.12 We call for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Energy.

"F*** energy"? Who needs the advancement of energy technology? We're fine as we are.

5.15 We oppose a public financed rail system in Iowa or any other state.

And while we're at it, "f*** trains." Actually, you could shorten all of this into "F*** the infrastructure and all its aspects." Except for roads and rivers. We like them roads and rivers:

5.16 We call for an equitable distribution of road-use funds between rural counties and towns and the large metropolitan areas of the State, particularly Polk County and Des Moines. Formulas used for distribution of state and federal highway funding should be modified to assure such an equitable distribution.

5.17 We urge that all motor fuel taxes and motor vehicle registration fees be used to maintain both the rural and urban infrastructure of roads, streets, and bridges. We oppose any transfer of State Road Use Funds for uses other than building and maintaining roads and bridges.

5.18 We believe that the locks on the Mississippi river should be modernized and lengthened to be more efficient, with the use of taxes derived from fuel tax used by river vehicles.

So, taxes taken from one to give to another is bad. Educational standards are bad. Public rail is bad. OSHA and the EPA are both very bad but Boy Howdy it's a good idea to get tax money to fund and maintain roads between rural counties and towns, streets, bridges and to modernize locks on the ole Mississippi. Oh, but property owners rights including rights to destroys wetlands, sloughs, lakes and natural ponds trump all other rights, including the protection of flora and fauna (and natural ponds, lakes, etc.) (5.19)

I've still barely touched your platform and won't even get into categories 6, 7 and up during this post. Maybe later. After a Sangria or three.

Here's a prelude of what's to come in the next installment:

7.06 We oppose any effort to implement Islamic Shariah law in this country.

Though I must admit I am absolutely heartbroken that HB666: The Gay Rights, Feminist and Sharia Law Act, must now be gutted in its entirety, I applaud the sheer genius of the RPI to determine that those of us who support feminists and the rights of gays are also secretly supporting an Islamic Law which is often used to violently curtail the rights of feminists and gays. Obviously, we are secular only when it comes to Christians who wish to impose their doctrine on the unwilling masses. We're ducky when it's done by Muslims. Your wisdom astounds me.

Wow. Just, wow. Pity there isn't a label stating that this is fiction.

Meritage Wine: America's Bordeaux-Styled Blend

2010-07-27T12:18:00.001-06:00

==================================================================================

I originally published this article on Factoidz.com. Republished here with permission.

A common complaint I often hear from those wishing to find a good wine is that it is hard to find a quality Bordeaux, especially at an affordable price. As a better Bordeaux can easily run several hundred dollars per bottle (and sometimes several hundred dollars per half bottle), I sympathize. However, what many do not understand is that quality wines made from noble Bordeaux grape varietals are being created right here in the United States. They are known as Meritage wines and they are not getting the recognition they deserve in terms of sales.

What is Meritage Wine? Meritage wines are, quite simply, red or white American wines blended in the tradition of quality Bordeaux wines and made from noble Bordeaux grape varietals.

Varietal wines make up the majority of wines, named after whichever grape makes up at least 75% of that wine. However, there are many vintners who believe that the 75% varietal requirement does not, necessarily, result in the highest quality wine. As the generic term "Table Wine" often has connotations of lower quality blended wine, it was determined that a new category of wine should be established - one which represented the high quality wines famous in the Bordeaux region of France.

In 1988, a group of vintners decided to form the Meritage Association in order to identify quality American wines blended in this tradition. As these wines cannot call themselves "Bordeaux" without infringing upon the Bordeaux region’s legally protected designation of origin, an international contest was held in order to achieve a propriety name for these wines. More than 6,000 entries were received. The name "Meritage" was chosen, which combines the words "merit" and "heritage" while rhyming with "heritage". In order to produce wines with "Meritage" on the label, the winery must be a member of the The Meritage Association. By 2003, there were more than 100 members of this association, including their first international participants. In 2009, The Meritage Association changed its name to The Meritage Alliance. By August of that year, its numbers swelled to over 250 members.

A Red Meritage Wine is made up from at least two of the following grapes, with no one grape accounting for more than 90% of the blend:

* Cabernet Sauvignon
* Merlot
* Cabernet Franc
* Malbec
* Petit Verdot
* St. Macaire
* Gros Verdot
* Carmenère.

Usually, Cabernet Sauvignon or Merlot make up the dominant grape of a Meritage wine, with smaller percentages of Cabernet Franc, Petit Verdot and Malbec. St. Macaire, Gros Verdot and Carmenere are much more rare and are not often included in a Meritage.

A White Meritage Wine must contain at least two of the following principal white Bordeaux Grapes:

* Sauvignon Blanc
* Sémillon
* Muscadelle de Bordelais

Although it is not part of the Meritage licensing agreement, the Meritage Alliance recommends that wineries only put the label "Meritage" on their best blends and limit production to 25,000 cases.

What Can I Expect from a Meritage? You can expect a quality Meritage to taste much as a Bordeaux as they are blended with the same grape varietals, allowing for some differences due to variations in soil and climate from different regions. A Meritage should have a rich, full aroma. Depending on the blend, it should taste of dark fruit (such as blackberry, plum and black cherry), chocolate, different spices and sometimes a tobacco finish.

Meritage wine should be served at the same "room temperature" as Bordeaux wine, which is 61-63 degrees Fahrenheit.

*** Please remember that cellar temperatures in France during the 19th Century were much colder than modern room temperatures in the United States. Resist the urge to serve red wines too warm and white wines too cold. This is a common mistake, even among many restaurants, which hampers the ability to truly appreciate fine wines.

Some Meritage Wines Which I Appreciate: If you are looking to try your first Meritage wine, or are wanting to share a quality Meritage wine with your guests, I have a couple or recommendations:

Estancia Reserve Meritage: Liquor Stores with even a moderate selection of wine frequently have the Estancia Reserve Meritage. If this is your first time drinking a Meritage, this makes an excellent wine with which to start. It is extremely versatile, pairing well with steak, game meats and pheasant. Noticeable on the palate is plum followed by dark chocolate and a rich, zesty finish. It does not have the strong smoky, tobacco finish some find off-putting with certain Meritage wines. If you can find a 2005 bottle of Estancia Reserve Meritage, GET IT. 2005 was an excellent year for American wine. The 2005 Estancia Reserve Meritage is beautifully full-bodied and tastes older than it is. It would make an excellent library wine. If you are unable to find a 2005, the 2006 is also superb. More recent vintages are still high quality. Prices can range anywhere from $18-$30 per bottle, depending on the store or if you purchase it on-line. Remember that lower on-line prices often lead to high shipping charges.
Guenoc Langtry Meritage: This is actually my favorite Meritage wine, with the 2005 vintage being, by far, their best vintage. Larger percentages of Petit Verdot, compared to earlier vintages, means that rich, dark fruits become immediately noticeable upon the palate. This is followed by complexities of dark chocolate, licorice and spice with what I consider to be a smoky, tobacco finish. The tannins are strong, rich and very complex. Though these are traits which I admire in a Meritage, those very traits are not desired by everyone. For this reason, I would suggest the Estancia to someone who is first trying a Meritage, rather than the Langtry. This is a wine which pairs well with lighter meats, such as pork, veal and perhaps even chicken. It can still accompany a steak, depending on how the steak is prepared in regards to the amount of seasoning. Overly peppery, spicy foods could overwhelm this wine. Pricing could run easily from about $18 to the mid $20 range. Again, if ordering on-line, factor shipping costs which might be high. If the 2005 is unavailable, the 2006 is also good. I have yet to find available a more recent vintage. Whereas the 2005 Guenoc Langtry Meritage would make an excellent library wine, I would not purchase nor store an earlier vintage. These tend to be less complex and were not reviewed as well. The varietal percentages beginning in 2005 are more what people come to expect from a quality Meritage.

If you have enjoyed this article, you might also appreciate:
T op 5 California Zins for Under $20

Wine Tasting 101: Fruitiness Does Not Equal Sweetness

Health Benefits of Red Wine: Reality vs. Hype

Constipation, "Decreased Bowel Motility" & Hyponatremia

2010-07-23T18:15:00.004-06:00

_________________________________________________________________________________

(This article is written in response to a question asked in another of my Factoidz articles, "Food and Natural Remedies that Help Relieve Constipation".

This is the question:

"Is There Any Treatment For Chronic Constipation That Is Unrelieved By Laxatives?
I have suffered with constipation since I was a child. I drink plenty of fluid, in fact, I was drinking so much water that I developed hyponatremia. I am a vegetarian and eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables. I did have a colonoscopy and was diagnosed with \" severe decreased bowel motility\". At the time, the doctor ordered cholchicine to cause diarrhea. I never tried it, I was fearful of the side effects. Are there any new medications or treatment options. This is a horrible way to live. Thank you."

I would like to address the question as well as further discuss constipation as well as Hyponatremia, Decreased Bowel Motility and different medical options and treatments).

First, what is Hyponatremia? Hyponatremia is a condition in which the body has an electrolyte disturbance causing severely low levels of sodium in the body’s natural fluids, especially in comparison to the amounts of fluid consumed. The result of which is that the body fails to eliminate excess fluid.

There may be many different causes for Hyponatremia, including drinking an excess of water (such as if one suffers from Polydipsia, often as a result of diabetes) as well as other underling medical conditions, including but not limited to different forms of cancer, congestive heart failure and hormonal imbalances such as SIADH.

Symptoms of Hyponatremia may include nausea, severe weakness, muscle cramps, memory loss, irritability, confusion, fainting, seizures, coma and in severe cases, death. Those who are most likely to get Hyponatremia often include athletes, especially long distance and marathon runners, who may be drinking too much water without replacing the lost sodium. (1) The elderly and those who are mentally ill might also suffer from the disease as they may be unable to adequately understand and respond to their thirst. The common misconception that people should drink at least ten glasses of water a day may also play a role, as this is often unsafe for many people.

There are three primary ways in which Hyponatremia is caused:

Hypervolemic Hyponatremia - Often the result of heart, kidney or liver failure, this occurs when excess water dilutes the amount of sodium concentration.
Hypovolemic Hyponatremia - This is when both water and sodium levels are low. Athletes are more in danger of Hypovolemic Hyponatremia if they may drink more water without replacing sodium or other electrolytes.
Euvolemic Hyponatremia - This occurs when fluid levels are normal but it is combined with abnormally low levels of sodium. This is often the result of certain medications, cancer or chronic illnesses.

In Chronic hyponatremia, sodium levels tend to decrease gradually over several days or weeks. Symptoms of Chronic hyponatremia tend to be mild or moderate, sometimes with few if any symptoms.

With Acute hyponatremia, sodium levels drop suddenly and can lead to coma and death.

Treatment for Hyponatremia may be as simple as cutting down on water intake, especially if no other underlying medical conditions are discovered. For others, switching to healthy sports drinks (including but not limited to coconut water) can be beneficial as these will contain electrolytes, thus helping to maintain a balance between fluids and sodium. Certain pharmaceuticals, such as Vasopressin Receptor Antagonists, may also be used, especially if the patient has congestive heart failure or cirrhosis of the liver. In addition, these have also been shown to help the regulation of plasma osmolarity and blood pressure. Studies showing the effects of Vasopressin-Receptor Antagonists on heart patients have been positive.

Decreased Bowel Motility is another, fancier term for severe constipation. It is defined as having fewer than one bowel movement per week. Contrary to what many believe, there is absolutely no evidence that toxins accumulate in the colons of those who are chronically constipated, nor does this increase the risk of cancer.

That being said, constipation (especially severe constipation) can cause extreme discomfort, including discomfort during sex. It can also lead to bloating, hemorrhoids and be a miserable symptom of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). Some people alternate between episodes of constipation and diarrhea. In addition, it may lead to a bowel obstruction. It is imperative to determine if the severe constipation is part of an ongoing chronic problem or a sudden, acute condition. In the case of the latter, it is important to see a doctor immediately as it could be due to a serious illness, such as a tumor in the colon or certain cancers.

Severe constipation can be caused by many factors: These include but are not limited to hormonal imbalances, hypothyroidism, dehydration, lack of fiber, lack of exercise, certain medications as well as the problems listed above. Often a simple increase in physical activity can ease constipation, such as increased walking and less sitting. Diets which include more fiber, including whole grain breads and fiber supplements may also be beneficial, as can taking more magnesium. It is important to remember that small lifestyle changes, such as allowing more time to walk/climb stairs and eat a healthier diet can make a huge difference in relieving constipation.

*** Answering the Question *** (This is a direct response to the reader though it offers some important advice for anyone who is in a similar situation).

I am going to be blunt. Your doctor prescribed Colchicine for a reason. It sounds as though you were doing the usual, healthy things to relieve your severe constipation and it did not work. In your case, you even ended up with Hyponatremia, I’m assuming because you were making yourself to drink more water in order to help force a bowel movement. As I stated above, Hyponatremia can be serious and even fatal. This is not something you want to take lightly. Something in your body is not working as it should and your doctor is trying to help. Yes, Colchicine does have certain side effects. Drinking too much water also has side effects, as you have learned, as do many "natural remedies". Most of the side effects for Colchicine are rather mild, including some gastrointestinal upset, anemia and possibly neutropenia, which is a decrease in a certain type of white blood cell. The severity of the neutropenia is in direct correlation to the possibility of infection, including severe infection. Still, most people on Colchicine do not have these side effects. Most of the more severe problems with Colchicine is due to an overdose of the drug. It would be beneficial to have routine blood work done in order to make certain that you are not having these problems. Colchicine is a "toxic natural product" derived from plants, so it should most certainly be taken with caution and under the supervision of a doctor. This is not something I say lightly. Still, it is also being investigated as an anti-cancer drug. I doubt your doctor would have recommended this if other options were working for you. It might also benefit you to look into taking milk thistle in order to better assist your liver function and eliminate toxins from your body.

Regarding Prune Juice: For most people, prune juice is an excellent natural way to relieve constipation. In addition, it is loaded with antioxidants and is an excellent source of potassium, which is often used in addition to other treatments for managing Hyponatremia. For those people who are not eating enough fruits and vegetables, prune juice can be an excellent choice for adding these nutrients to the diet. However, it has been shown to be ineffective (less effective than saline laxatives) for helping those with severe constipation. In addition, larger amounts of prune juice can cause electrolyte imbalances and even kidney problems. This is the last thing you would want if you are already having problems with Hyponatremia. You might also want to ask yourself what you think prune juice will do for you that all of the other fruits and vegetables which you are eating are unable to do for you. Again, you are saying that you have a healthy diet and are still constipated. Clearly,a dietary change of adding another fruit or fruit juice to your diet is not going to work magic. As you have had the problems with Hyponatremia, I would not recommend prune juice for you as it may make this condition worse. In other words, take that advice with a grain of salt - literally in your case.

On a final note: Anyone who is familiar with my writing understands that I am a strong advocate for natural health and natural remedies. I have had severe side effects from some medications. I strive to stay abreast of the latest Commission E findings. However, I am not an MD, nor are any of your other respondents of which I am aware. By all means, get a second opinion, especially from a Gastroenterologist as they specialize in the problems which you are having. If you are hearing the same advice and being prescribed the same medications, please listen. One thing which I cannot stress enough is that you should voice any concerns you have to your doctor. He/she may be able to prescribe a different medication or better explain to you why your medication was chosen. Your doctors are not in the business to cause you harm. If natural diets and remedies were working for you, you would not have had the problems of which you write.

(1) Anatomica, the Complete Medical Reference. Albertine, Kurt H. P 376

All sources are referenced or linked to above.

The Multiple Medical Benefits of Milk Thistle

2010-05-28T09:33:00.001-06:00

=======================================================================
With so many natural remedies which are promoted one day and ignored the next, it can be difficult knowing which ones are tried and true remedies that withstand the test of time.

One such remedy has been used for thousands of years to treat the same conditions for which it is used today. Milk thistle, so named due to the fact that its leaves have white splashes and for the milky sap it produces, is one natural herbal remedy that has been shown to be both safe and effective.

Its seeds have been used to treat chronic liver problems and remove toxins from the liver. Its active ingredient, silymarin, is one of the strongest liver protectors known. In studies, it has been shown to help treat cirrhosis, hepatitis as well as help repair damage done by toxic chemicals. When damage to the liver has occurred, silymarin has been shown to help speed a production of proteins which help heal it. Silymarin also binds to the membranes of the liver cells, which can prevent damage from taking place.*

In addition to the well-known benefits of milk thistle for aiding the liver, it has been shown to have many additional uses as well. As an antioxidant, studies show that the silymarin is ten times more potent than Vitamin E. Milk thistle is a natural bitter herb, which means that it can aid in digestion, especially digestion of fats, if it is consumed before a meal. Bitter herbs naturally assist digestion by preparing the digestive tract to start producing the hormone gastrin, which in turn starts the production of gastric acid and bile as well as other secretions which help with digestion. Additional studies show that milk thistle, in conjunction with other therapies, can saves the lives of people who have been poisoned by consuming Amanita (death cap) mushrooms. Milk thistle has also been shown to lower both blood pressure and cholesterol.

The roots of milk thistle are natural astringent. In parts of Asia, this has been used as a treatment for hemorrhoids. In the West, milk thistle is becoming a more common ingredient in natural supplements which assist in hemorrhoid care. This may be in part because milk thistle can prevent constipation due to aiding in digestion.

For cancer care, the silybin in silymarin has been shown to help prevent the toxicity of chemotherapy. In addition, in vitro studies have shown that the silybin may inhibit cancer cell growth or even block tumors from starting or continuing to grow.

There have been a few side effects associated with milk thistle. Although these are uncommon, they may include: upset stomach, diarrhea, bloating, itching and headache (often in people with allergies to milk thistle). Though it has been shown to help people suffering from type 2 diabetes from developing insulin resistance, it can lower blood sugar levels and may interact with certain medications. Milk thistle may interact with oral contraceptives and might also cause some sexual dysfunction. People with allergies toward plants in the same family as milk thistle, such as ragweed or daisy, should never take milk thistle. Still, these side effects are rare and Germany’s Commission E has stated its overall safety.

It is important when taking milk thistle to understand the different forms in which it can be bought. Milk thistle capsules are readily found in most health food stores and are usually standardized to contain 70-80% silymarin. Many herbalists recommend taking it in extract from. As milk thistle’s silymarin does not dissolve in water, some experts state that taking milk thistle teas are useless. In tincture form, the alcohol would make needing to take a great deal to receive any of milk thistle’s benefits.

* For additional sources, please see The Woman’s Book of Healing Herbs by Sari Harrar and Sara Altshul O’Donell. Pages 66, 207, 253, 444

Save a Life, Get Excommunicated.

2010-05-27T21:03:00.002-06:00

This story begins late last year when a 27-year-old mother of four arrived critically ill with pulmonary hypertension at a hospital in Phoenix. She was eleven weeks pregnant, had "right heart failure" and was told that if she continued her pregnancy, her chances of mortality was "close to 100%". The patient was too gravely ill to be moved to an operating room much less another hospital. After consulting the patient, her family, her doctors and even the hospital ethics committee, it was determined that she would undergo a first trimester abortion in order to save her life.

Problem was, she was in a Catholic hospital.

A Catholic nun, Sister Margaret McBride, had been a longtime administrator at St. Joseph's Hospital and had been vice president of mission integration at the hospital. She was on call at the hospital's ethics committee when the surgery took place. She was part of a group, including the patient and the physicians, who decided upon the abortion to save the patient's life. Her career as a nun came to an abrupt end when Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix Diocese, indicated the nun was "automatically excommunicated" because of this action.

No other alternatives?

This is the most serious action the Catholic Church can take, refusing to excommunicate even pedophile priests, who are often protected by their bishops and transferred to different parishes. The most infamous parish priests, including Father John Geoghan, were defrocked but never excommunicated.

Rev. Thomas Doyle, a canon lawyer, said that Bishop Olmsted, "clearly had other alternatives than to declare her excommunicated." Doyle stated that the Bishop could have chosen to show some mercy and admitted that she faced an agonizing choice. He added that this case shows a "gross inequity" in how the church handles scandal. Doyle went on to say that no pedophile priests have ever been excommunicated. Instead, they have the protection of their bishops and it has taken years to defrock them, if ever.

"In the case of priests who are credibly accused and known to be guilty of sexually abusing children, they are in a sense let off the hook," Doyle says.

Concerns Over Catholic Hospitals

This situation extends well beyond American Catholics. Between one fifth and one third of all hospital beds within this country are administered by the Catholic Church. Catholic hospitals receive public funding to provide health care to the larger community yet they are not required to offer treatments which conflict with their religious teachings.

"We always must remember that when a difficult medical situation involves a pregnant woman, there are two patients in need of treatment and care; not merely one. The unborn child's life is just as sacred as the mother's life, and neither life can be preferred over the other," the bishop wrote.

Olmsted went on to say:

"An unborn child is not a disease...While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."

Of course, this was not a choice between the life of the mother and the life of her fetus. The fetus would not have been viable outside of the womb during the first trimester. If the mother had died, the fetus would have died as well. Not to mention, if this patient had died, four children would no longer have a mother. Bishop Olmsted also stated that if a Catholic "formally cooperates" in an abortion, he or she is automatically excommunicated.

J ames J. Walter, professor of bioethics at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, a Catholic university, was asked if the Church prefers that both the mother and child die rather than sacrifice the one to save the other. His response was that the "hope" would be that both would survive.

Is it time for the Catholic Church to stop providing health care?

In a country where Catholic hospitals make up approximately one third of all medical services, that is no easy question.

Should they quit receiving public funding in order to provide these services, while still maintaining the right to impose their religious doctrine on the general public? That question might be a bit easier. Our First Amendment usually prevents taxpayer money going toward religious services while religious organizations are exempt from taxes. Even religious institutions with noted political agendas, such as Focus on the Family, are tax-exempt. They will not receive public funding unless they provide community services, within certain structural guidelines and without religious coercion. Certainly a medical institution which forces a woman to remain pregnant in spite of almost certain death due to its religious dogma would be considered "religious coercion," especially if the woman in physically unable to travel to another hospital.

In the case of the Catholic Church, this is hardly the only dogma it forces upon women. The Catholic Church has refused to address "marital rape", instead stating that while violence is wrong, there is no such thing as "marital rape" because the wife must respect the "marital rights" of her husband and be submissive to him.

Not only might a woman be raped by her husband, the Catholic Church refuses to allow her to partake in any form of birth control. As stated by Pope Paul VI in 1968:

Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.

So not only may a woman be forced into sex with her husband, she can also be forced into pregnancy.
Not only can she be forced into pregnancy, she may not have an abortion even if both she and her baby would otherwise die.

This is the Catholic Church's "Pro-life" stance.

But is this really the organization we want to trump all other rights, including the rights of the woman, her family and the advice of physicians, regardless of the religious leanings of the patients? If you live in an area which is only served by a Catholic hospital, the choice will not be yours to make.

Beauty Blunders: The Biggest Mistakes Women Make

2010-05-27T15:48:00.003-06:00

My list of biggest beauty blunders:

Over playing both eyes and lips: Wearing too much color on both the eyes and the lips tends to diminish the effect of both. Decide which is your best feature and use the most color on that feature. If you feel your eyes have it, go for the colors which most flatter your eyes and draw attention to them. Use more eyeliner should you prefer. For your lips, though, go with more neutral or toned-down colors and glosses. If you feel your lips speak volumes, go for brighter colors and lip liners to flatter them but tone down your eyes. A little blush on the eyelids, a gentle eyeliner and mascara will work wonders. The wonderful thing is that others will notice both your eyes and your lips when you are using this rule. Wearing too much shadow and lipstick causes people to get lost in your makeup, not your beauty. Note: If you are younger and have longer, darker hair, this doesn’t apply to you as much - yet. If you are a bit older, have shorter or lighter hair, this rule should be your mantra.

Overwhelming eye color: When choosing the right shade for your eyes, find colors which compliment them, not colors which match them (except perhaps as an accent color). If you have lovely blue eyes, wearing blue eye shadow, eye liner and mascara can overwhelm them. Perhaps find one matching shade as an accent color but find other complimentary colors as your dominant shades. You want people to notice your lovely eyes, not your lovely eye shadow.

Wearing too much concealer: Absolutely wear concealer to hide blemishes or dark circles. However, there are some women who will conceal their entire face. Not only does this look horribly fake, it’s quite lovely to allow some of your own skin to show through the makeup. It presents a more natural and radiant you.

Showing your roots: If you color your hair, at some point your roots are going to show. The more dramatic the difference between root color and hair color, the sooner this is going to become noticeable. Therefore, if you’re going to use a color much different from what you have naturally (and most of us do at some point), just accept the fact that you will need to be coloring your hair frequently. When roots are allowed to show, it can make the hair look dirty or give you an overall slovenly appearance which makeup tends not to diminish. Your hair is the frame for your face. Wear it well. If you feel you cannot afford the time or money to color your hair frequently, try going with highlights instead of an overall color. This will allow it to still look fresh and natural as it grows.

Knowing your undertones: That shade of blush may look lovely in the container but that doesn’t mean it will look lovely on your cheeks. Know your skin’s undertones and find shades which compliment them. If you have warmer undertones, you might not be able to wear raspberry or rose blush as well as someone with cooler undertones. What looks pink on them might turn to orange on you. Find those shades with golden accents in order to look your best. Women with cooler undertones can go more with roses, plums and burgundies.

Never use both cleavage and legs: You may be proud of your chest and proud of your shapely legs but choose which one you want to show if you wish to look both sexy and classy. Unless you’re in a swimsuit, wearing cleavage while showing more leg tends to cause people to think “cheap” rather than “classy”. If you think your legs can run circles around the competition, wear a shorter skirt with a higher collared blouse or sweater. If you think your chest is where it’s at, wear cleavage with a longer skirt or pants. Of course, make certain you are in a place where either is appropriate. In the business world, I would keep skirts below the knee and no cleavage. It’s bad form to cause your clients to wonder what sort of business you are in or have others guessing how you got that promotion.

Too much jewelry: We all love bling, myself included but wearing too much jewelry or the wrong type of jewelry tends to diminish the overall package and looks more like showing off rather than showing class. There’s an old adage: Elegance is putting on the jewelry you want to wear, then removing two pieces. This is true. Wear not more than one ring per hand and then make certain any rings (or other jewelry) are appropriate for the occasion. Cocktail jewelry and diamond jewelry, other than wedding and anniversary sets, should only be worn in the evening. Pearls and other smaller and less flashy jewelry can be worn in the day. Vibrant, Bohemian or fun and funky jewelry can be fun to wear during the day so long as it’s in a vibrant, Bohemian, or fun and atmosphere. This tends not to be the office or most professional environments.

Keep it elegant. Your appearance is often the first impression you leave someone. We might not be able to make ourselves younger, taller or thinner but we can appear as though we want to put the best first forward and have excellent taste.

(Republished from my original Factoidz article.)

Your Ad Here

Natural Foods and Remedies that Help Prevent and Fight Anemia

2010-05-27T13:34:00.001-06:00

=================================================================================

Let me begin by stressing that you should see a doctor if you have any reason to suspect that you are anemic and listen to his/her advice. There can be other more serious medical conditions which may appear as anemia which won’t get diagnosed without proper lab work. In addition, speaking as someone with an auto-immune disorder, if you have issues with chronic anemia it could also be that there is an underlying medical problem which needs to be addressed.

Having said that, if you feel confident that you have anemia and are unable to see a doctor at this time, there are different types of anemia which should be discussed in order to understand what changes to your diet or supplemental intake would best help you.

Two of the most common types of anemia are iron-deficiency and pernicious anemia (sometimes referred to as B-deficiency anemia). Iron deficiency anemia is fairly common in growing children and in 20% of all women in their childbearing years. Blood loss for women during their menstrual cycles, especially if they have heavier cycles, is frequently the cause. People who have had issues with parasitic infections frequently develop this type of anemia as well. I most recently developed it when I had a bleeding ulcer.

Usually the treatment for iron-deficiency anemia involves an iron supplement. As higher doses of iron can cause harm to the digestive tract, new research is showing that smaller amounts of iron can work beautifully. It has been shown that ascorbic acid helps with the absorption of iron and some studies have shown that taking an ascorbic acid supplement with added iron can work rather well. There are many foods which naturally contain iron. These include: Liver; beans; tofu; lean red meats and seafood; certain vegetables such as broccoli, asparagus and brussel sprouts. I feel that making these part of your regular diet can help prevent anemia though if you already have anemia, you might want to look at an iron supplement as mentioned above to help reverse it.

Pernicious anemia is caused by low levels of vitamin B-12 and is common in vegetarians, especially vegans, as they tend not to eat meats or dairy products. People over age 60 are also more prone to this type of anemia as are people with certain auto-immune disorders. Naturally, having a diet which is rich in B-12 (red meats and dairy in particular) can help prevent this type of anemia, especially as the liver can store B-12 for up to 5 years. B-12 supplements (including B-stress vitamins) can also help reverse this condition. Should you have pernicious anemia and you are not a vegetarian or over age 60, I would strongly suggest talking to your doctor about testing for underlying medical issues. My own auto-immune disorder and being prone to this anemia are why I am no longer a vegetarian.

Supplements can work wonders but are never a substitution for a good diet. Still, it may be beneficial to add a good supplement to your diet if for whatever reason you are still having some of these health issues. Often, a multi-vitamin may be all you need. Depending on your lifestyle and health, a vitamin B supplement may also be in order. I found with my own health issues that I had very good luck taking a pre-natal vitamin for a few months as it had the types of vitamins in the amounts I needed. Having said that, not all multi-vitamins (or pre-natals) are created equal. It is important to remember that many vitamins and minerals need other vitamins and minerals in order to be absorbed into the body. In addition, capsules and caplets often don’t get absorbed as well as, say, liquids or powders mixed in liquids. Just because a capsule contains a certain amount of a vitamin or mineral doesn’t mean that amount is what will be absorbed in the body. This is another reason why a proper diet is the most beneficial.

Good luck in your quest and I hope this information has helped.

(I originally published this article on Factoidz.)

Camellia Oil: A Multi-Purpose Oil With Many Health & Beauty Benefits

2010-05-26T15:56:00.001-06:00

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this country, there is a little known oil with many known health benefits, beauty benefits and can even be used as a lubricant for hand tools. You may not necessarily be able to easily find it here but in the Far East it has been used for centuries.

This is camellia oil, also known as tea seed oil. For culinary uses, camellia oil has a light flavor, is rich in Vitamins A and B while having no cholesterol. Unlike other cooking oils, it is rich in mono-unsaturated fatty acids which can be used for heart health as well as helping with high blood pressure and appears to have some natural anti-oxidant capabilities. It’s subtle flavor means that it can easily be used with most dishes or even a salad dressing while also being easily infused with other herbs.

As a beauty product, one can find many products out of Japan and China which use Camellia Oil in soaps, hair and skin products or by itself. When used alone it soothes dry, chapped skin beautifully. It can be used as a hot oil treatment for dry, damaged and brittle hair. It works well when rubbed into nails and cuticles to keep them looking great as well. It also makes an excellent bath or shower oil. I will sometimes mix a little camellia oil with a pinch of water while in the shower to use as a hair treatment, especially on split ends. As it is very lightweight with almost no scent, try infusing it with rosemary if you want a morning pick-me-up in the shower or with lavender as a relaxing soak at the end of the day. This is even one of the few oils I would use for massage as it goes into the skin beautifully and has almost no scent unless it has been infused.

As a lubricant for hand tools, camellia oil prevents corrosion and doesn’t affect glues. Samurai have supposedly used this on their swords for centuries.

Considering camellia oil is sold throughout the world and through many different companies, it is important to research the particular brand of camellia oil before you buy it. Make certain it is certified organic as you would not want chemicals and pesticides in your food or on your body. For culinary purposes in particular, please make certain the brand has that as a stated use. Still, as far a health and beauty products are concerned, camellia oil has for more proven benefits than emu oil and is infinitely safer than baby oil or other mineral oils.

(Republished here from my original Factoidz article.)

Emu Oil: Certain Benefits but doesn't Equal the Hype

2010-05-26T15:42:00.002-06:00

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you’re a fan of Oprah or enjoy reading beauty blogs, chances are you have heard of emu oil. It has been touted as a treatment for rosacea, thinning hair, arthritis, wrinkles, scars and as an overall moisturizer.

As is often the case, though, the hype has been coming out a lot faster than actual scientific research and the early research is showing that emu oil often has not been living up to the claims made by those who sell it.

What is Emu Oil? Emu oil comes from the fatty tissues of Australia’s native bird. Aborigines have been using it for thousands of years, originally as a treatment for wounds simply by wrapping the emu’s fat supplies around damaged skin and allowing the oils to get absorbed into it.

Truthfully, emu oil does offer some benefits for the skin: It contains both oleic and linoleic acid; It makes a superb moisturizer as it does get absorbed very thoroughly into the skin; It also has both anti-bacterial and anti-inflammatory properties which may be why the Aborigines used it on wounds. In this regard, emu oil can offer some relief to sufferers of rosacea. Those who have used this as a stand-alone product over several months have reported that their rosacea tends to burn less and seems less dry and flaky. Others have also noted that they seem to have a slight reduction of inflammation in their skin.

I have spent months using emu oil as a moisturizer. Again, in this regard, it does seem to do quite well. I have used it on dry, flaking and chapped lips and had seen almost immediate improvement. With regular use, it also appears that my lips appear a bit fuller. At the same time, this can be said for almost anything which keeps lips moist over time and I have had better luck in that regard with other over-the-counter lip moisturizers. I sometimes get slight scaling under the eyes which emu oil helps to alleviate. Apart from that, I have found little use for it as a treatment for arthritis, wrinkles or any of the other things emu oil has been said to help or cure.

Independent, scientific studies have not found that it can back up the claims for treating wrinkles or for the overall improvement of skin quality or texture. Some emu oil advertisements have claimed that it can clear up fine lines and wrinkles immediately after use as it plumps the lines. Having a few very fine lines which are noticeable only in direct sunlight, I have found absolutely no improvement on those fine lines even after months of use. Sadly, this again seems to be a case of hype versus reality.

Overall, there are some benefits to emu oil which I feel should not be overlooked. I use it as a moisturizer for severely dry skin and would consider using it on a minor cut or irritation, or even as a massage oil. As emu oil is added to other cosmetics, it is certainly possible that having it in addition to other ingredients may have some definite cosmetic value. It is certainly much safer than baby oil or other mineral oils., though without the many proven benefits of camellia oil. As a standalone product, though, it seems best to go with the research rather than the claims of the advertisers, especially as the cost can run higher than many other, more thoroughly researched products. On-line, emu oil often runs $15-$20.

Thank you.

Baby Oil & Mineral Oil : What Every Parent Should Know

2010-05-26T15:28:00.004-06:00

One might think that items made specifically for use on a baby would be safe for the baby. Unfortunately, some parents are learning that this is often not the case, even among trusted brands which have been used in the nursery for decades.

One such item of which you should be wary is baby oil. Infants have suffered permanent brain damage and even died after inhaling this. In one horrible instance, an 18 month old boy took 28 days to die from slow asphyxiation. A 1991 case involved a family which sued Johnson and Johnson after their 15-month-old suffered irreversible brain damage from inhaling baby oil. The earlier report shows that roughly five children die a year in the US specifically from inhaling baby oil, twenty die from inhaling household oils.

How does this happen? Baby oil, as well as many beauty products and sunscreens, contains mineral oil. This is a petroleum ingredient made from crude oil. Mineral oil contains hydrocarbons, which are not only damaging to the stomach but can be extremely dangerous to the lungs, causing them to stop working.

Within the United States, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission made child-resistant packaging mandatory on all oily products which contain hydrocarbons (this has not been made into law in many other countries). If you feel you have to use baby oil, please make certain that the cap is closed correctly and is stored away from where a small child could reach it.

Better still, don’t use baby oil or other mineral oils. It might be a good idea to question if something which can be so hazardous when inhaled should be used around small children. I admit I feel anxious when I read about using baby oil as a scalp massage on infants for this reason. In addition, baby oil has been blamed for causing several other health risks, including: Acne; Premature aging of skin and other skin disorders; Impeding normal cell development and possibly causing vitamin deficiency. Other reports state that mineral oil contains neurotoxins and is a known carcinogen. There are other oils which have been shown to be very beneficial for the skin which I have discussed here on this site, including emu oil and especially camellia oil, which can even be used for cooking and has been shown to have many health benefits.

If something so potentially damaging can so easily be exchanged for something much safer and possibly much more beneficial, perhaps that makes a more sensible choice?

(Republished from my original Factoidz article).

When it's not just a Rash (Part 1): Herpes Zoster, VZV & Chicken Pox

2010-05-26T14:52:00.002-06:00

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many people think of chicken pox being an illness of the very young - a right of passage for school age children. Within this country and in industrialized nations, this would have been the case until 1995 when the varicella vaccine (chicken pox vaccine) was approved within the United States. Whereas in developing countries, chicken pox is frequently considered a severe illness among the elderly.

What is chicken pox? Chicken pox is caused by varicella zoster virus (VZV), also known as herpes zoster, zoster virus, varicella virus and human herpes virus type 3 (HHV-3). The term "herpes zoster" is often used when the virus has reactivated and become shingles.

Chicken pox is an extremely contagious disease which can be spread through the air by coughing or sneezing, or by direct contact with the fluids from the rash. Though it is not usually considered a fatal illness, it is now believed to cause about one third of all stroke cases in children. Adults make up 75% - 80% of all fatalities from chicken pox and the complications from chicken pox are more severe in adults. Fatalities are more common in adults who live in poorer countries who may not have access to medical care, as well as pregnant women and adults with compromised immune systems. These complications are often the result of pneumonia, hepatitis or encephalitis. One study showed that 10% of pregnant women with chicken pox get pneumonia, the severity of which increases the further along in gestation. Ninety percent of cases of varicella pneumonia occur in the adult population. In adults, there is some evidence to suggest that males have symptoms which are more severe than females. Chicken pox has also been observed in other primates. It is one of the 25 viruses in the family Herpesviridae and one of at least eight forms of herpes which has been known to infect humans frequently.

Symptoms of chicken pox: Symptoms of chicken pox often start before the appearance of the actual rash and can be infectious from one to five days before the rash appears. It can remain contagious until the blisters have scabbed, which may not occur for another five to ten days from the onset of the rash. Chicken pox usually develops 14 t0 16 days after contact with someone who is infected, though it can occur anytime between 10 and 21 days.

Early symptoms may include: Fatigue; Sore throat; Temperature between 100-104 degrees Fahrenheit; Headache; Loss of apatite. The characteristic red and swollen bumps or blisters normally start 1-2 days after the onset of these symptoms, though it may sometimes take a few days longer.

Treatment of chicken pox: There is some evidence that taking an anti-viral drug, such as Aciclovir, within 24 hours of the rash onset may decrease symptoms by one day. However, it has not been shown to decrease the incidence of complications in children. Topical lotions and creams such as calamine lotion or other lotions containing zinc oxide are often frequently used to help relieve the itching from the rash, though again there have been no formal studies showing its effectiveness. Baths in oatmeal, or with a small amount of vinegar are sometimes recommended in order to help relieve itching, which may be beneficial as scratching can cause a secondary infection. Aspirin should never be given to children due to risk of Reye’s Syndrome.

When to get immediate medical attention: As adults often have more severe complications from chicken pox, they should consider seeing a doctor as soon as chicken pox is suspected. Anyone with a compromised immune system, the elderly, infants and women who are pregnant should seek immediate medical attention. Pregnant women are also in danger of passing antibodies via the placenta to the fetus. If infection occurs during the first 28 weeks of gestation, the risk of fetal varicella syndrome (also known as congenital varicella syndrome) greatly increases. This can lead to serious physical abnormalities, including underdeveloped digits and bladder malformation as well as other, serious complications. In addition, anyone who has developed a severe rash inside their mouth or has difficulty swallowing, breathing or is having severe pain and/or stiffness in the head and neck should get immediate medical help, as these can be symptoms of severe complications.

The good news is that most children get chicken pox without ever having severe complications. New vaccines can almost eliminate any chance of children ever getting chicken pocks in the first place. Adults who have previously had chicken pox or have been vaccinated need not worry about catching chicken pox again. However, the zoster virus which causes chicken pox never goes away once someone has been infected. Anyone who has had chicken pox may later come down with shingles, the risk doubling for those over 60.
Please look for my next article in this installment regarding shingles.

(All sources are linked to in the above article.)

Beware of Rent to Own Home Scams

2010-05-25T19:52:00.001-06:00

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With foreclosures at an all-time high and a poor economy, many people are looking into rent-to-own programs for their own piece of that American dream.

Unfortunately, many if not most of these programs are simply another way of suckering people who have already been knocked down to the bottom rungs and appear to be nothing more than another predatory practice.

I have looked into about a couple dozen rent-to-own programs, both for myself and for my friends and in two different states. Every one I have seen makes a request for a sizable down payment along with a higher amount of rent, of which a partial amount is applied toward the purchase price of the home. Usually one of the selling points of doing this is that the price of the home is locked in and cannot go up while you are living there. From this point, you normally have 1-2 years to clean up your credit and apply for a mortgage on the home.

Here are the catches which they won’t automatically tell you unless you ask and read the (very) fine print, assuming there is even fine print to be read:

The assumption is made that the value of the house will go up in those 1-2 years. What you should have noticed is that, should the economy start to decline, the value of the home will usually go down. Not only may you not want a home which has deteriorated in price, you will probably not be able to get a mortgage on that asking price. If the person from whom you are buying the home still owes more than the new value of that property, he may not be able to come down on the asking price.

Which brings me to point #2: The rent-to-own agreement is between the landlord and you; The banks may not be involved at all. If the landlord has financial difficulties and ends up in foreclosure on “your” new home, your only option is to appeal to the bank (good luck on that) or to try and sue the landlord. If he is broke or files for bankruptcy, your chances of getting anything are pretty dismal. Just as the news has been filled with stories of renters who have been surprise-evicted because their landlords foreclosed on the properties they were renting, this can (and supposedly has) happened to those doing rent-to-own. In this case, insult is added to injury as you would have put down a large down-payment and would have also been spending more on rent toward that purchase price.

Which brings me to point #3: Though your rent will be higher as X amount of dollars of that rent is applied toward the down payment of the property, what I have personally seen in virtually every case is that the overall rent amount, less the down payment, is still higher than what you would otherwise be spending. As an example: Say you are spending $1400 a month on a rent-to-own property. $300 of that goes toward the down payment, which leaves the remaining $1100 as your rent price. However, houses similar to yours in that neighborhood normally rent for $800-$900 a month. You are being over-charged in that rent amount simply because you are wanting to own that home.

Which brings me to point #4. Assume you have made your payments on time for those 1-2 years but cannot get a mortgage - perhaps because you were unable to improve your credit, your salary declined or for any other number of reasons. All of the contracts I have seen have clauses stating that your original down payment will not be returned to you, nor will you receive the extra money you have been spending in rent toward the purchase price of that home. I have seen the same homes get re-listed as rent-to-own time and time again, simply due to this reason. I can assure you that these landlords are perfectly happy making a profitable income from both their renters down-payment and in those extra rental fees. This shouldn’t be legal but it appears to be - at least in the last two states in which I have lived.

Now for a little common sense regarding this whole thing: If you must get your credit in decent shape in order for you to take out a mortgage on that rent-to-own, why not spend that down payment money fixing your credit before you look into buying a home. That way, you can actually get the home of your dreams rather than pick through whatever is being offered as a rent-to-own - and inherit whatever problems that home may already possess. With all of the foreclosures and what are referred to as “fire sales” on new homes, you could probably get a better deal on a better home. Not to mention, with good credit you could qualify for some excellent rates, perhaps even without a down payment. FHA has some excellent mortgages for first-time buyers as well. In a poor economy, sellers are more than willing to work within the FHA guidelines.

Regarding fixing your credit, you are able to dispute items which appear on your credit if you feel it is unfair. Some credit bureaus even allow you to do this online. On a personal note, I have also found that I can make arrangements with creditors to pay the entire amount due, including their penalties and fees, if they are willing to completely remove the negative mark from my credit report. If you make such an arrangement, please be certain to get it in writing on company letterhead before you send them a check. Realistically, your creditors may whine but they would rather get the money than have you file for bankruptcy. That threat does wonders for many creditors. For that matter, I have known people who have been able to get decent mortgages after filing for bankruptcy if they have been shown to maintain good credit after their bankruptcy was discharged.

Final word of advice: This isn’t to say that every single rent-to-own option is a scam. You may have a friend or someone whom you know who is willing to sell you a house as a rent-to-own and be more than willing to work with you. Still, horror stories abound. In all honesty, I looked at about 2 dozen rent-to-owns, both from individuals and from companies. There wasn’t one which appeared honest and had fair policies in their fine print. I would check out http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-2-2005-82927.asp as a start or do a google search for this if you need more evidence. I would avoid LLCs (Limited Liability Corporations) just for that reason as you may have little if any financial recourse should they not be honest. LLCs protect the owners of these companies from having any personal liability should their company be sued.

Good luck and I appreciate the feedback.

(This article has been republished from one which I originally wrote on Factoidz.)

Identity Theft: It Rarely Involves Credit

2010-05-25T17:13:00.003-06:00

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I could never be a victim of identity theft. My credit’s too poor.”

“Anyone is welcome to my identity. Maybe they could improve my credit.”

These are things I hear on a daily basis regarding identity theft. You probably have thought or heard the same thing yourself. After all, everyone who has heard the singing guys in the pirate hats know that identity theft and credit theft are the same thing?

We should be so lucky.

The FTC has shown that only 23% of identity theft cases involve credit card fraud and the majority of cases never involve credit at all. Most thieves are not looking at affecting your credit as that is one of the easier things to catch and protect yourself from.

The most common types of identity theft involve theft for tax purposes, immigration purposes and medical. What’s even more important, if an identity thief gets in trouble while using your identity, you could be the one sitting in jail for his crime. It’s already happened to others in this country and continues to make the news.

Consumer Reports has stated 1 in 6 people have already been victims of identity theft - more than the number of people who have had their cars stolen. Even if you monitor your credit and have “identity theft protection” from a financial institution, usually it only covers credit-related issues or issues related to that institution. A bank will probably do little if anything if you are arrested for another’s crime or are having your wages garnished by the IRS. Unfortunately, even if you are excellent at personally protecting your identity, you still have no control over how others treat your sensitive information. Though you may be able to protect your credit, there is little actual protection you have for the more damaging forms if identity theft - the cases which can leave you without health insurance, have you arrested or in trouble with the IRS. In these cases, the best thing you can do is to monitor your entire identity to see if there are things attached to you which should not be yours.

1. Run a background report on yourself. Do you see yourself listed at addresses or with phone numbers which were never yours? It could be an innocent error or it could mean that another person has already started using your identity. An identity thief is not going to alert you that your identity has been stolen by having his mail or messages sent to your address or your phone number.

2. Run a criminal background check on yourself. It’s not uncommon for someone with a name which is the same or similar to yours to have some trouble with the law. The more common your name, the more likely it is to appear somewhere on a criminal report. However, most criminal reports, including some of the ones which are free, will also have the age and/or birthday of the criminal on that report. If that information matches your information, you may want to file a police report and get the help of a lawyer. The FTC also has some useful information regarding identity theft.

3. Continue to monitor your credit. Even if your credit is God-awful, there are things which a criminal can do which will still negatively impact it and may prevent you from getting utilities or other necessities in your name. Many utility companies do not run an initial credit report when you apply for service. However, if a bill goes un-paid, it will end up on your credit. If this is with a company which also serves your area, that un-paid bill can keep you from using them for your service. Also, in terms of identity theft for medical purposes, that un-paid bill could be from someone who has hampered your ability to keep or get health insurance. Those who steal your identity in order to obtain hospital treatment or to apply for health insurance tend to do so because they have some serious illness. This particular form if ID thievery is especially damaging because another’s health information will become part of your record. This means your blood type can be changed, you can be treated for an illness you don’t have while your own medical information gets erased. If someone has an especially serious illness, your health insurance could get cancelled and you might not be able to get other insurance. Not to mention, due to the nature of privacy laws, it can be extremely difficult to remove another’s wrong information from your records. Reader’s Digest had an excellent article a few years back about this very thing.

4. Have some legal plan. As I stated in an earlier article, when worst comes to worst (or if you are afraid worse things might happen), it helps to have an attorney you can reach 24/7. Many people who are victims of identity theft spend several thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars and more trying to rectify the situation. That doesn’t even include the time spent away from work or family. For a low monthly fee, someone else will do the work for you and may keep you out of prison or trouble with the IRS.

Many of us spend money on something which may keep our cars from being stolen or our houses from being broken into. Yet, a crime which is infinitely more serious and costs more to fix, which can leave the victim in jail, without health insurance or in trouble with the IRS is often not taken as a serious issue. If you protect your belongings, why not protect yourself?

(I had orignially published this report on Factoidz.com)

Edited to add:

To answer I question I received on Reddit involving how to run a background / criminal check: Some of the sites you see advertised such as Been Verified, Intelius or US Search is a good start. I'm especially fond of Been Verified. They are or at least were offering a trial period to see if you like them. ID Watchdog is a service which begins by running a list of known addresses (I once worked for them). This is also a good place to start.

Please make a point to check out your previous addresses on these sites. If an addresses listed is not a place where you have lived, it could mean that someone is getting started taking your identity - especially if it's a recent address change. If there's an error which took place 10 or more years ago, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

This Ain't Your Grandpa's Prohibition

2010-04-20T13:17:00.003-06:00

-----------------------------------
(Strix note: I first wrote this post on Open Salon in March 2009. I was shocked to discover that I hadn't

also included in on my own site. As I am wanting to continue this work with additional updates on the
War on Drugs, I thought I would re-post my article here. I no longer write on Open Salon).

Nervous relatives of those who have been kidnapped keep quiet about what they might know. Photos of beheaded men get sent to cell phones as a not-so-subtle warning regarding what would happen to those who talk.

This isn’t war-torn Iraq.

It’s Columbus, New Mexico.

Stories of the thousands of dead just across the border aren’t just a talking point by pundits or a filler story in the evening news for those who live in this part of the country. The violence in Ciudad Juarez, which has left almost 1400 people dead within the past year, has spread its way 70 miles west to tiny Palomas, Mexico. This border town which lies just three miles south of Columbus has already seen more than 40 people shot to death. Countless more (no one is sure of the exact number) have been kidnapped. Palomas, which was once a growing town of 7000, has seen its population drop by a third due to the escalating drug violence with many of those residents having fled to Columbus. Even the Palomas police chief fled across the border seeking political asylum.

In spite of the current economic woes, Columbus had a top year regarding real estate sales in 2008. Many of these sales are quite simply due to the number of baby-boomer retirees seeking a quiet and inexpensive place live. When this town without even one stoplight starts seeing a marked increase in the number of Cadillac Escalades and cars with thousand-dollar chrome rims being driven on its streets, though, residents tend to nod in agreement that the possibility of drug lords seeking sanctuary in Columbus are no longer a hypothetical question. They feel that they may safely assume that where these criminals go, the violence will soon follow. Though actual drug crime remains rare here and the drug connections must stay extremely underground, those Columbus residents who have had relatives kidnapped across the border don’t tend to feel quite as safe.

Columbus, quite simply, makes an attractive place for those living outside the law. It no longer has its own police force and must rely on Sheriff’s deputies sent from Deming, nearly half-an-hour away.

What many right-wing pundits simply don’t understand, these border towns have been and will probably always be linked - culturally and politically. Though recent innovations with border fences and patrols have slowed illegal immigration to a tenth of what it was two years ago, the reality is that hundreds of children born in the United States to Mexican parents cross the border every day in order to attend school in Columbus. Palomas has no hospital of its own. The Columbus ambulance service receives about one call daily from the border, usually involving heart attacks and pregnancies, though increasingly due to gun shot wounds. Criminally, these areas are linked as well. Drug tunnels have been found in Arizona, a famous one being in an abandoned residence in Nogales linking it to Mexico. It isn’t hard to fathom that such tunnels could also be in existence within New Mexico or any other border state.

It took centuries of genocides against the native peoples of America and Mexico to reduce those populations to the tiniest fraction of what they once were. In the late 1990s, reports began to emerge of Indians again being slaughtered in Baja California, Mexico, this time due to one of their leaders refusing to allow tribal lands for drug cultivation. In September, 1998, entire families of Pai-Pai Indians from this region, along with their neighbors, were dragged from their homes in a coastal area to which they had migrated and were shot to death. All of this within 60 miles of California’s border. There have been additional reports of Mexican Indians being forced at gunpoint to plant marijuana on their communal lands and of countless others being massacred in order to hide evidence of such crimes.

August, 2008, there was a different kind of drug-related news making the papers within Mexico: For one week, there were 167 murders due to drug-related violence. Of those murdered: 24 were police officers; 21 were decapitated; 30 showed signs of torture. An additional 12 headless bodies were found in Yucatan, another 4 decapitated corpses were found in Tijuana. Earlier in Tijuana, human remains were placed in barrels of acid outside of a seafood restaurant. In December, 12 decapitated bodies, many of them soldiers, were found along a major boulevard in Chilpancingo, the capitol of the southern state of Guerrero. These bodies were spread along the length of the boulevard, among which was a sign which stated, “for every one of mine that you kill, I will kill 10.” Nine heads were found in a bag nearby, many of them gagged with tape.

The year 2008 would see more than 5,300 people killed in drug-violence within Mexico. That’s more than double the number from the year before - and more than the total number of Americans killed in Iraq since the war started. Propaganda banners from these drug cartels now fill cities which were once considered safe. It’s not uncommon to find YouTube videos of drug-related executions, reminiscent of Al Qaeda. The former U.S. drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, was in Mexico not long ago, and this is what he found:

The outgunned Mexican law enforcement authorities face armed criminal attacks from platoon-sized units employing night vision goggles, electronic intercept collection, encrypted communications, fairly sophisticated information operations, sea-going submersibles, helicopters and modern transport aviation, automatic weapons, RPG’s, Anti-Tank 66 mm rockets, mines and booby traps, heavy machine guns, 50 [caliber] sniper rifles, massive use of military hand grenades, and the most modern models of 40mm grenade machine guns.

Of the 70 journalists reported killed in 2008, 5 were in Mexico, making it the 5th deadliest country to be a journalist that year. More than 500 police officers have been killed in Mexico since its president began its own drug offensive two years ago.

It might sound as though Mexico cannot afford to continue it’s war on drugs. This may be true in more ways than one: It’s estimated that Mexico’s drug-trafficking constitutes a $50 billion a year business. In 2001, a Mexican official leaked that this business alone makes up for about 63% of Mexico’s economy.

Marijuana alone is considered by far to be the largest cash crop within the United States, reaching 35.8 billion dollars within the 2003-2005 time frame. It is the top cash crop in 12 states, including California and is among the top 3 cash crops in 30 states.

Within our own country, we have the highest rate of illicit drug use than anywhere else in the world, according to the World Health Organization. Though the DEA on its site called “Speak Out Against Legalizing Drugs” states that 95% of Americans don’t use drugs, the WHO reported that approximately 16% of American adults have tried cocaine - more than 4 times higher than any other country in the world (in stark contrast, the Netherlands reported usage at under 2%). Approximately 42% of people have tried marijuana, again more than twice the number of those who have tried it in the Netherlands, where it is legal. It should also be noted that the DEA’s budget for 2008 was $2.4 billion.

No matter how we spin those facts, the billions of dollars used in both the U.S. and Mexico to prevent drug trafficking is a fraction of the billions more this illegal enterprise earns. Our own insatiable appetite for these drugs has in no way been defeated by the fact that it remains illegal. Instead, that illegality along with the market here for drugs is what has driven the prices high to the point that to many it’s worth the cost of massacring thousands of people. The out of control violence in Mexico only started once their own president started a War on Drugs. This is destabilizing our southern neighbor to the point where many are expecting it to break out into civil war. It’s absurd to think that this would be the one time Mexico’s problems do not impact this side of the border. This untaxed, illegal enterprise worth hundreds of billions of dollars is destabilizing our own country as well.

How long before the people in Columbus and Nogales are receiving more than threatening cell phone images regarding what will happen to them when they talk? Do we need scores of beheaded soldiers and policemen lining our own streets before we can finally act like adults and admit that This Ain’t Our Grandpa’s Prohibition?

When the corruption reaches the point where our own journalists are being killed for reporting on it, where our own soldiers and police officers are being slaughtered fighting it and countless other officials are profiting from it, it’s too late to assume this is a hypothetical question.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to thank Freedomisgreen for his own article about police in Michigan firing on an unarmed teen during a drug raid:

http://open.salon.com/blog/freedomisgreen/2009/03/14/student_shot_by_police_calls_for_peace

This inspired me to go ahead and finish writing this post rather than let it sit.

=============================================

For additional reading, these were many of the sources I used:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/12/22/2008-12-22_12_decapitated_bodies__some_identified_a.html

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/international/Aug-08/Wave-of-Police-Officers-Killed-in-Mexico-s-Ongoing-Drug-War.html

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/SantaFeNorthernNM/Drug-War-at-Their-Doorstep

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bordertown19-2009feb19,0,7443711.story?page=2

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4684

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34221/story.htm

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/mexico/baja.htm

http://www.wan-press.org/pfreedom/jkilled.php?id=3189

http://cannabisnews.com/news/24/thread24057.shtml

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/05so.htm

http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/cashcrops.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mexicorsquos-war-on-drugs-journey-into-a-lawless-land-839465.html

Tool of the Week Award: Huckabee Bashes Gays...... Again.

2010-04-13T19:10:00.004-06:00

Editorial

If I could give a Tool of the Week award, it would have to go to Mike Huckabee.

Not that he has ever been a huge fan of gay rights but he has really made some waves by comparing gay marriage to incest and polygamy, shortly after comparing gay adoption to a "science experiment".

No kidding.

Last week, Huckabee told the College of New Jersey's student publication, the Perspective, why he supported an Arkansas law which would prevent same-sex couples from adopting:

"I think this is not about trying to create statements for people who want to change the basic fundamental definitions of family."

"Children are not puppies," he continued. "This is not a time to see if we can experiment and find out, how does this work?"

"Children are not puppies." This, from a man whose son tortured and killed a stray dog. Seems ironic to me. Someone should have explained to him that gays tend to treat children far better than his own family treats pets.

But I digress.

Regarding same-sex marriage, Huckabee told the Perspective that not all groups deserve to be accomodated if their lifestyle is outside of what he considers "the ideal."

"That would be like saying, well there's there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?"

Whose ideal is he referring? There was a time when couples of mixed race could not marry. That he lives in a part of the country where cousins frequently married (think Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his 13-year-old third cousin, who still believed in Santa Claus, while he was not yet divorced from his first wife), why does allowing consenting, non-related adults get married cause such a hissy fit by a former and potential presidential candidate?

Huckabee stated that it is not his intention to tell others how to live but that it is up to gay activisits to prove that gay marriage can be successful:

"I don't have to prove that marriage is a man and a woman in a relationship for life," he said. "They have to prove that two men can have an equally definable relationship called marriage, and somehow that that can mean the same thing."

Of course, he did not specify how gays can "prove" that two men can have "an equally definable relationship called marriage" if they are not allowed to marry in the first place.

In 1992, he stated that it was crucial that the country not "legitimize immorality." He has gone on to state that AIDS patients should be isolated from the general public, saying it was necessary to confine "carriers of this plague."

Nor is his grasp of history, or his bible, any better than his compassion for gays. He once said in an interview:

"Marriage has historically never meant anything other than a man and a woman. It has never meant two men, two women, a man and his pet, or a man and a whole herd of pets."

Of course, both modern times and ancient history, as well as the bible, are full polygamous marriages. Someone should read to him from his own bible, as Abraham, David, Solomon and others had multiple wives. That person should also point out that Mormons as well as many modern societies in the Middle East and Africa have polygamy as the norm. The "norm" of marriage between one man and one woman is another Huckabee fantasy.

However, saying that a monogamous marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex is somehow the moral equivalent to either polygamy or bestiality, though, is a Huckabee perversion. Unlike polygamy, gay marriage is not about owning others as property while striving to produce many children rather than an actual investment towards the health and well being of each individual child. People are not animals. Comparing the love and commitment of two consenting adults to having sex with animals is sick.
In the meantime, I wonder how many other marriages don't fit his "ideal" or if he would like others to vote on whether he and his family can marry?

Edited to add: I don't do editorials very often but if I had a goat to be got, Huckabee's comments would be getting it. Just couldn't stay silent about this.

Obama Partners with Russia, Mexico, Others, Achieves Global Nuclear Safeguards

2010-04-13T17:28:00.001-06:00

At the Nuclear Security Summit, Obama has managed to arrange new protocols and secure pledges which would help eliminate the risk of nuclear terrorism.

Coming on the heels of a new treaty with Russia which would reduce both countries nuclear arsenals by half, Obama has praised Russia's commitment to shut down its final plutonium reactor, stating, "this important step forward continues to demonstrate Russia's leadership on nuclear security issues, and will add momentum to our shared global effort."

Concerns about the threat of Al Qaeda achieving nuclear weapons was a motivating factor throughout the summit. As Obama stated during his opening address:

"Two decades after the end of the Cold War, we face a cruel irony of history -- the risk of a nuclear confrontation between nations has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up."

"So today is an opportunity not simply to talk, but to act. Not simply to make pledges, but to make real progress for the security of our people,"

In addition to the concessions made by Russia, Mexico has agreed to work with both the U.S. and Canada in conjunction with the International Atomic Energy Agency to convert Mexico's research reactor from highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium fuel. This would eliminate all highly enriched uranium in Mexico. The higher grade is used for making nuclear bombs. Mexican President Felipe Calderon said that the agreement helps to reduce the risk of nuclear materials ending up in the hands of terrorists.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper also announced Monday his country's plan to return highly enriched Uranium from the Chalk River Laboratories in Ontario to U.S. facilities which can convert this into a form of Uranium which would be unsuitable for making weapons. The Ukraine has also announced it would get rid of its highly enriched Uranium within the next two years.

Obama was able to secure a crucial pledge from Chinese President Hu Jintao to help craft new U.N. sanctions against Iran, though they gave no specific account regarding what actions they might take in response to Obama's requests. Iran, which did not attend the summit, is China's third largest supplier of crude oil.

Also absent from the meeting was North Korea, which was not invited to the summit. Obama has specified that he wishes to halt North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Obama has made this clear when he announced to Pyongyang that South Korea would hold the next Nuclear Security Summit in 2012.

Polish President, Top Officials Killed in Crash

2010-04-10T11:32:00.008-06:00

Polish President Lech Kaczynski as well as his wife and some of his country's top military and civilian leaders were killed Saturday as their plane attempted a landing in thick fog in western Russia, killing all 97 aboard. They were to be attending events marking the 70th anniversary of the Katyn Massacre by Soviet Secret Police in 1940.

Lech Kackynski and his wife, Maria

Those killed in the crash include the army chief of staff, the navy chief commander, heads of the air and land divisions as well as the national bank president, army chaplain, deputy foreign minister and many other Polish officials. Though the crash is under investigation, it has decimated the ranks of the Polish government and military, further complicating already strained relations between Poland and Russia. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has personally assumed all responsibility of the investigation.

The Kaytn Massacre, sometimes known as the Kaytn Forest Massacre, involves a mass murder of approximately 22,000 Polish prisoners of war by the Soviet Secret Police, NKVD. The victims included Polish military officers as well as intellectuals, police officers and other public servants. This was based on a proposal to execute all members of the Polish Officer Corps and was signed by all Politburo members, including Joseph Stalin. About 8,000 of those killed were Polish officers captured during the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland. Others included Jewish, Ukranian and Georgian intellectuals of Polish citizenship.

In a twist of irony, Nazi Germany was the first to announce the existence of mass graves in the Kaytn Forest, in 1943. This, in turn, led to the end of diplomatic relations between Moscow and the London-based Polish government in exile. The Soviet Union continued to deny the massacre until 1990, when it admitted to the massacre and the following cover-up. Though the Russian Federation and acknowledged Soviet responsibility, they have refused to classify this massacre as a war crime, thus preventing prosecution of the surviving perpetrators. The Russian government has also refused to consider this an act of Stalinist repression, which would have led to formal rehabilitation of the victims.

It was the 70th anniversary of this massacre which Polish President Lech Kaczynki and many Polish heads of state were traveling when their plane crashed in dense fog, killing all on board. Such is the tragic end to a dynamic Polish leader and U.S. ally who spent his life combating communism and improving Polish relations with their Jewish communities.

Kaczynki first reached national attention as a child movie star, working alongside his twin brother, in 1962. During the 1970s and 1980s, both brothers were anti-communist activists who later served as advisers to Solidarity leader Lech Walesa. Kaczynski would later serve as Poland's justice minister from 2000-2001. His tough approach against crime helped his popularity, leading to being both mayor of Warsaw and later, president.

Tough his popularity waxed and waned, at one point receiving criticism for refusing to allow a gay rights parade through Warsaw's streets while mayor as well as for being fervently anti-Communist, as president he strove to improve relations with the Poland's Jewish communities. In 2008, he became the first Polish leader to attend religious services at a synagogue in Poland. He maintained a firm friendship with his countries Jews, who have recently started to flourish after being almost completely wiped out from both the Holocaust and decades of Soviet repercussions.

He and his wife were among the 97 killed in the crash. They are survived by his twin brother, a daughter and two granddaughters.

Teach Sex Ed, Go to Jail

2010-04-08T11:25:00.009-06:00

-----------------------------------------------

Prosecutor Warns that Following Law

Contributes to Delinquency of Minors

Or so that is what an overzealous, conservative prosecutor in Wisconsin is saying, warning that following the law and teaching a new curriculum could lead to criminal charges against instructors for contributing to the deliquency of minors.

Juneau County District Attorney Scott Southworth stated that the new law "promotes the sexualization - and sexual assault - of our children." He wrote five school districts on March 24th, asking them to suspend their curriculum and transfer anatomy courses to science classes.

(photo from flickr)

"Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender," he wrote. "It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks."

"A victim or an offender."

When the new law was signed by Governor Jim Doyle (D) in March, no Republican in either the assembly nor the senate voted for it. It mandated that if sex education is taught in schools, it will have to teach about contraception, their side effects and sexually transmitted diseases. It therefore bans abstinence-only education. The West Allis-West Milwaukee School District will have to end an abstinence-only program it offers. It is unknown how many other school districts would have to alter their curriculum.

"It is very important in my mind that the teaching be done consistent with these standards (in the new law) - that it be based on accurate information, that it be medically correct, that it be age appropriate, and that we not have political ideology make the decision on what is taught to our young people, but rather scientific facts and good, basic knowledge," Doyle said.

"Medically correct" and "age appropriate."

The law also allows parents to remove their children from sex ed classes, just as they could before. The law also allows for schools to decline to teach any sex ed though they would have to notify parents of that decision. Still, Southworth complained that it essentially forces school districts to "instruct children on sex-for-pleasure." In his letter, he stated, "this, in turn, will lead to more child sexual assaults."

A Republican detractor of the bill said that he was troubled by a provision which prevents teachers from showing any bias against students who are sexually active. Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) stated, "This almost certainly requires school districts to teach in a way that would be offensive to Christian parents."

Rep. Kelda Helen Roys (D-Madison), who was among the writers on the new law said Southworth's letter was "irresponsible".

Southworth's letter stated:

"If a teacher instructs any student aged 16 or younger how to utilize contraceptives under circumstances where the teacher knows the child is engaging in sexual activity with another child - or even where the 'natural and probable consequences' of the teacher's instruction is to cause that child to engage in sexual intercourse with a child - that teacher can be charged under this statute" of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

In his letter, he continued to worry that teachers would have to teach about homosexuality, transgender and transsexual people, or be prevented from saying "that sexual promiscuity is even wrong". He went on to state, "If I'd wanted to be ideological, I would have said in the letter you shouldn't have sex before marriage because that's the Christian perspective. I'm an evangelical."

Still, it is doubtful that Southworth's tactics would actually lead to the prosecution of a teacher for instructing a sex ed class when it follows state law. Walter J. Dickey, a law professor at UW-Madison who specializes in criminal law, says that successfully prosecuting a teacher would be unlikely as a judge would find little merit in the case and give "enormous deference to the recent legislative action".

This just in: Governor Doyle has stated publicly that no teacher who teaches sex ed will be prosecuted. "No matter what the views of one particular district attorney are," those who follow the state law need not worry about potential prosecution.

Yes, Virginia, it is About Racism

2010-04-07T12:13:00.023-06:00

Racist Politics Again Rears its Ugly Head

in Latest Move by Governor of Virginia

(This is a further elaboration to a response I wrote for Michael Tomasky's blog in the Guardian UK. It is under the user name RenaissanceLady.)

Earlier this month, the Republican governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, issued a proclamation declaring April 2010 as "Confederate History Month". Notably missing from the proclamation was any mention of slavery. In a response, McDonnell stated Tuesday that this move was designed to promote tourism in the state, as 2011 will mark the 150th anniversary of the Civil War and April 17th is the date which Virginia seceded from the union. The governor said he did not include any reference to slavery because:

"there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia."

Ah, yes, apparently slavery played no "significant" part in the Confederacy. That the Constitution of the Confederacy is remarkably similar to the Constitution of the United States,
except when it comes to the issue of slavery, is just another of those coincidences which in absolutely no way shows the desire to protect slave holders (or so McDonnell and his supporters would have us believe):

Article IV Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Article IV Sec. 2. (3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Article IV Sec. 3 (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

This is reality. For all of the talk of "state's rights", the right they were adamant to protect was the right to own, transport and keep slaves. Apparently Texas is not the only state which prefers to rewrite history and it is the latest example of racist politics being embraced by Republican Lawmakers.

"They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the
Democratic Party for 40 years with the enactment of civil rights legislation
in the 1960s."

That little doosie was spoken just last month by Newt Gingrich, in response to the Democrats passing sweeping health care legislation.

Does the tone sound familiar? It should. This is hardly the first time racist statements have been made by a Republican, especially in comparison to health care reformation:

"Some people are thinking -- some people speculating that all of this -- the cap-and-trade legislation, health care reform, is nothing more than reparations in disguise, that it is a way of transferring the nation's wealth to its quote-unquote, "rightful owners"; that they're smart enough to know that if they call a piece of legislation "reparations," it doesn't have a prayer. But if they couch the legislation in fairness and compassion -- the usual liberal terms -- that people will go for it, because they think that they have created enough white guilt at all of the unjust immorality of
the history of this country that people sit by and let it happen, so that their own personal guilt can be assuaged, regardless of the impact on the country."

And:

"The objective is unemployment. The objective is more food stamp benefits. The
objective is more unemployment benefits. The objective is an expanding welfare state. And the objective is to take the nation’s wealth and return to it to the nation’s quote, “rightful owners.” Think reparations. Think forced reparations here if you want to understand what actually is going on."

"Reparations", meaning for slavery. As quoted from here and here, this is Limbaugh's worst nightmare. Nor is he and Gingrich the only ones who make these comparisons and play on the racist fears of a conservative mindset.

These are not subtle nor are they coincidental. These are signs of a party which has deliberately chosen to embrace the overtly racist politics of the 1960s. It is being repeated at every tea party and in the words of those who threatened the congressmen who dared vote for health care reformation. It is a feeling shared by those whites who long for a day when they had all of the power instead of simply most of it.

(photo from flickr)

Every time a Democrat is in office or progressive legislation is passed, open racism raises its ugly head by those whites who miss the days when they had all of the power instead of simply most of it. As Mr. Tomasky stated so well, we didn't have Confederate History Month in 1933. Just as the South Carolina's state capitol did not have a Confederate flag until 196 2, the current promotion of "Confederate History Month" is a response - a response to a black president; A response to progressive laws which would help those who have been the most disenfranchised and dehumanized. Just like those racist slurs being shouted at black members of congress, this is a perversion - a fear that those who have been historically the most disenfranchised and dehumanized might somehow end up with more power.

Yet it seems odd that I, a white woman who was born and raised in Texas and who went to college in Virginia, need to write an article about the latest incarnation of racism in American politics. I remember the Confederate apologists teaching my 7th grade Texas History class back in the 80s (ancient history to some of you). The story has not changed. Then, as now, the only people who are afraid of the word "racist" are the racists who then complain of victim hood when they are called it. The word frightens them when their actions and hate speech do not. Even dear Newtie had to back peddle away from his comment by stating the usual tripe that his "context" was "misrepresented".

Sure.

I'll let the last photo and this video from Rachel Maddow conclude this post. The threats are real. The hatred is real and oh yes, so is racism (at about 2:40 on the video). Congressman Lewis (D-GA) has my heartfelt sorrow for receiving such vitriol as well as my utmost appreciation for helping to pass the health care legislation.

My final note: There is some history which should never be defended. Officers in the Confederacy broke their vows to uphold the Constitution of the United States, in order to protect the interests of slave holders. There should be no pride in this act. We should not be having this conversation in the 21st Century.

This is despicable:

(photo from flickr)

Edited to add: So the back-pedaling begins. Just hours after McDonnell stated that slavery was not "significant" - and a week after the initial proclamation which left out any mention of slavery while only honoring those who served the Confederacy, he has now decided that he erred in the omission of slavery and did not mean that slavery was insignificant.

Really? Color me shocked. Whoever would have guessed that such an act and statement would have come back to bite him? It's about as shocking as the fact that the last three Republican governors have all chosen to proclaim a "Confederate History Month."

For all of the things which Virginia has of which to be proud, it speaks volumes that this is what they are choosing to celebrate.

Pope Blames Irish Bishops for Abuse Scandals

2010-03-20T14:02:00.003-06:00

In a letter to Irish Catholics read across Europe, Pope Benedict XVI blasts Irish bishops for "grave errors in judgment" for their handling of sex abuse cases by the clergy and ordered an investigation into the Irish Church.

He refused to blame any part of the scandal on the Vatican, nor their policy of silencing such problems and moving accused pedophile priests to different parishes.

The letter directly addressed only Irish Catholocs though the Vatican stated it could be read and applied to other countries as well which are being rocked by abuse cases.

Though Pope Benedict XVI harshly rebuked the Irish bishops for failing to apply the Church's own law for dealing with abusive priests, including the defrocking of priests, he never once stated that the bishops should have reported these cases to the police. Instead, he stated that serious mistakes had been made and that they must now work with the appropriate civil authorities.

The letter itself did not dole out any punishments for the bishops. Though abuse victims by Catholic clergy have been demanding that the bishops resign and three bishops have offered to do so, their resignations have not been accepted by Benedict.

The top Cardinal in Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady, welcomed the letter. He personally is under fire for not reporting a serial abuser to police.
　
Infuriating many Irish victims of absue is that Pope Benedict XVI refuses to accept any blame for the handling of pedophile and abusive priests, nor their policies which allowed pedophile priests to continue their work. This would include a letter penned by the Pope when he was Cardinal Ratzinger back in 2001, instructing bishops to keep such cases of sexual abuse quiet.

These cases would include a pedophile priest who worked in the Pope's former archdiocese in Munich, who was allowed to continue working with children even after allegations of sexual abuse were known. The priest had been transferred to Munich from Essen after he allegedly forced an 11-year-old boy to engage in oral sex with him. Church officials in Munich said that the Pope, who was the archbishop of Munich from 1977-1982, was involved in the decision to house the priest at the archdiocese so the priest could receive therapy. The priest was later assigned to do pastoral work, though the Church has insisted that this decision was made by Archbishop Ratzinger's then deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber.

A separate case with ties to the Pope involves the famous choir of Regensburg, in Bavaria, which Pope Benedict XVI's own brother led for 30 years. Several former choirboys described a "system of sadistic punishments and sexual lust." Georg Ratzinger denies any knowledge of any abuse at the choir during this time.

Victims of abuse in Ireland include some famous names. Actor Gabriel Byrne recently came forward to discuss the time he spent as a young altar boy.

"Unfortunately, I experienced some sexual abuse," he said. "It was a known and admitted fact of life amongst us that there was this particular man, and you didn't want to be left in the dressing room with him."

This allegation came on the heels by The Dublin Archdiocese Commission into the Archdiocese's handling of child sexual abuse. It involved a shocking "172 named priests and 11 unnamed priests" between 1975 and 2004.

What's even more shocking, this all happened in the same Archdiocese -- the one Byrne spent his childhood years earlier. "One unifying strand in all of the complainants' evidence," the report stated, "was the sense of dismay and anger felt by them that their Church, in which they had placed the utmost faith and trust, had in their view, duped and manipulated them over the years and that it had done so in order to preserve its reputation and its assets."

Nor has the cases of abuse by Irish pedophile-priests remained in Ireland's borders.

"Delivery from Evil", the first full-length documentary by director Amy Berg, is a devastating look at a pedophile priest named Father O'Grady, who absued children for 20 years while church officials turned a blind eye. Among those abused were a 9-month-old baby and stories of both boys and girls being vaginally and anally raped.

From 1973 until his arrest in 1993, Father O'Grady was shuttled from parish to parish in central California, all the while outraged parents were being informed that he was being defrocked or removed from any contact with children. The film argues that Roger Mahoney, the former Archbishop in Los Angeles, was instramental in protecting O'Grady in order to protect his own career.

Roger Mahoney is now a cardinal in the Catholic Church.

Father O'Grady has since returned to Ireland after serving seven years of a 14-year sentence.

For the Irish abused by the Church, the letter did not go far enough. The Irish victim's group, One in Four, wants the Pope to apologize and admit a cover-up.

They want the pope to say "clearly and unequivocally" that the church "at the highest levels" has always known about the clerical sexual abuse of children.
In its version of the letter, One in Four said it wanted the pope to say: "We have pursued a deliberate policy of cover-up, protecting sex offenders in order to avoid scandal, with no regard for the safety of children."
"The scandal of clerical sexual abuse is international and extends far beyond the Irish Church."
They also want the Pope to state that the church had "silenced and sanctioned courageous priests and lay people who have tried to expose the endemic sexual abuse."

In addition, the group is calling for mandatory reporting of all abuse allegations.

Reality Check: Gays Not to Blame for Srebrenica Massacre

2010-03-19T13:43:00.004-06:00

I was wondering how long it would be before this hit the fan.

Retired U.S. General John Sheehan testified before a senate panal yesterday regarding the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. He declared that, after the Soviet collapse in 1991, nations such as Holland made a conscious decision to socialize their military and allow openly gay and lesbian soldiers to serve because they did not believe another war was imminent.

According to Sheehan:

"That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war. The case in point that
I'm referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against
the Serbs. The battalion was under-strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into
town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off
and executed them."

When asked if Dutch leaders had told him that their problems were linked to gay soldiers, Sheehan responded in the affirmative.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/18/us.gays.military.srebrenica/index.html

Unfortunately for Sheehan, the Dutch are fuming at these remarks and are adamantly disagreeing. Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende stated that Sheehan's comments were "irresponsible" and "should not have been made." Defense Minister Eimert van Middelkoop stated that Sheehan's remarks were "damaging" and "not worthy of a soldier".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100319/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_us_military_gays http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/19/dutch-sheehan/

"It is astonishing that a man of his stature can utter such complete nonsense,"
said Roger van de Wetering, the Dutch defence ministry spokesman. "I have never
heard of a single statement by a Dutch political or military leader that drew a
link between the fall of the enclave and the fact that there were Dutch
homosexual soldiers."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7478738/Gay-Dutch-soldiers-responsible-for-Srebrenica-massacre-says-US-general.html

In addition, General Henk van den Breemen, Dutch Chief of Staff at the time of the genocide and the man whom Sheehan implied had blamed the massacre on Holland's gays, stated that this was “total nonsense.”

At the time of the massacre in Srebrenica, Dutch troops were serving at a undermanned U.N. peacekeeping force when they were overrun by Serbian troops who slaughtered Muslim men in the area. This was the worst genocide in Europe since WWII.

--------------------------------------

When recruitment levels for the U.S. military have been so low that it has resulted in the lowering of standards for those wishing to serve, including the recruitment of criminal criminals, many are wondering why active servicemen are being dismissed under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/22/2223533.htm?section=justin

As of June, 2009, DADT has resulted in the discharge of more than 13,000 qualified men and women, including at least 1,000 who had "critical occupations" such as engineers and interpreters. By the end of fiscal year 2003, DADT had forced out 320 personnel who had vital language skills such as Arabic and Farsi. As far back as 1993, studies have shown that gays in the military is “is not an issue and hasnot created problems in the functioning of military units." The DODT policy has even forced the removal of highly decorated Air Force fighter pilot and 18 year veteran who had flown over 88 combat missions. He was dismissed just 2 years before he would have been able to retire with full benefits.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/dadt_execsumm.pdf

Yet for some, gays still have no place serving in the military, even blaming gays for the problems of an undertrained and undermanned U.N. peacekeeping force which was unable to stop a genocide.

Or course, Holland is by no means the only country, European or otherwise, which allows gays to openly serve in their military. Since 1983, the Israel Defense Forces has allowed homosexuals to serve openly in its armed forces. In 1993 those rules were relaxed even further to allow gays to serve in an equal basis with heterosexuals, including in highly secure functions. Studies have shown that this policy in no way harms unit cohesion, morale, operational effectiveness or combat readiness.

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/study_finds_gays_do_not_undermine_israeli_military_performance

Being gay in Israel's military is considered a "non-issue" while a brigadier general stated that Israelis show a "great tolerance" for gay soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service

Funny how most of Europe, Israel and parts of South America allows for openly gay servicemen in their military while we, along with Iran, Saudi Arabia (actually most of the Middle East) and China do not.

"Has Anything...Odd....Ever Happened Here?" A True New Mexico Ghost Story

2009-10-28T19:42:00.014-06:00

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Has anything…. odd… ever happened here?”

I've heard that question asked before, by a neighbor just before they moved out in the middle of the night, breaking a lease which they had only recently signed. A previous neighbor had also broken a lease and left. Now, again, I'm hearing that same question. I even asked it myself when I first moved here. Those first neighbors answered in the negative but still moved to another house very quickly. Then I took a trip to the Nambé Trading Post, a mere stone's throw from where I live, to look at the merchandise and to learn what I could about my house and the area. As fate would have it, it was the owner's grandmother who built these casitas and he used to live in the one in which I have been renting. That one, short conversation would have greater impact on my life than many of the ones which I thought would be life changing. Yet somehow, it was also a validation which I desperately needed.

I had quite literally moved to New Mexico on a moment's notice. A week prior I had interviewed for a job and was told I needed to move in or near Santa Fe as soon as possible. That Friday, my Strictly Platonic Male Friend, Dennis, helped me settle in a motel as Monday I would be starting my new job and hopping on a flight to El Paso for a week of training. That weekend, Dennis and I would be looking for a place for me to live. During the week prior, since the interview, I had been on Craig's List looking at properties I could rent. As I had been recently divorced, my credit had taken a hit and I knew I would probably be limited to where I could live. I e-mailed the properties which seemed like they might work and there were some owners who seemed willing to work with me. A woman who owned a little casita in Nambé was the first to respond with some charming photos of her property and didn't seem to take issue with my credit being less than stellar. In fact, she seemed more than eager for me to see this casita as quickly as possible.

That Friday evening, Dennis and I drove down from Colorado to Santa Fe. The next day we had seen several properties and the landlady of the casita decided to meet us so we could follow her to see it. Just turn onto the road for Nambé, make another turn right at the little cemetery and just a very short distance later we would be there. By Sunday a check was being written for the deposit and rent on the casita. The grateful landlady, in turn, was being as helpful and charming as anyone could possibly be. By Monday morning I was flying to El Paso and later in the week upon returning to Santa Fe, I was buying a few supplies and a little inflatable mattress on which to sleep as my furniture and cats would not be coming down until sometime later in the month.

Nambé, to say the least, is a lovely and rather historic area. As I was learning, the Nambé Pueblo and lands were just a tiny distance off the property I am renting. Nambé, meaning "people of the rounded earth" has existed there since the 14th Century. The village of Nambé, where I am living, was once an original Spanish Land Grant and many of its descendants still live in their ancestral homes here. Time in New Mexico and especially in Nambé seems to move a bit more slowly. This was something which, in the chaos that had been my life, I was welcoming.

My little rented casita is one of four casitas on a smallish plot of land which extends back to a river. Over 100 years old, fully renovated, mine has a high adobe wall and gate enclosing the front porch. High windows give light onto a small loft area. Old cottonwoods line the property and through them I could glimpse the mountains. There were so many reasons this was the property where I wanted to live while starting my new life in New Mexico. The hope of stability in a lovely environment was top among them.

That first night I unpacked my few supplies and inflated the mattress. I believe I was in bed about the time it started to get dark, both due to exhaustion from a hectic couple of weeks and because the only lights I had were in the bedroom closets and in another room.

Actual sleep, however, was a different matter.

I kept awakening during the night after the same recurring nightmare: I knew I was on these lands but the casitas were not here. The outline of the landscape and the views still caused me to be certain where I was. It was dusk and I was watching a young Indian man and a much older white man make camp for the night. The Indian appeared to be a recent convert to Christianity. He was holding a long wooden pole with a wooden cross fixed atop it. I remember thinking in the dream that I've always seen these with brass or otherwise golden crosses, never with wood and it struck me as being rather odd. He seemed extremely proud to be holding this cross and was completely transfixed by it. During his concentration, the older man came up from behind him and slit his throat.

It is not my nature to watch extremely violent movies. There was nothing I had seen nor read which would have put such a graphically violent image in my mind, yet there it was. The dream played out over and over again that first night - and never again. As silly as it sounds, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was watching actual events from a distant time.

The second night I was even more exhausted from not having slept and having been going full speed since that interview. I was in my little inflatable bed and must have dozed rather quickly. Sometime during the night I awoke due to what was the most ghastly smell I had ever experienced. It was hideous beyond reason - an overpowering stench of something horribly burned or burning mixed with a sickening sweet.... something. As the house was almost empty with only me, a suitcase and some clothes, water and paper goods, I kept telling myself that there is nothing which could be causing such a stench...... AND WHY THE HELL IS IT SO COLD IN HERE?

Somewhere, in the darkness of the front room, I could hear crashes and bangs - sounds which I would have blamed on the cats if they had been here and had things which could be knocked over and broken.

There was absolutely nothing, not even furniture, in the other room.

The stench was so unbelievably strong it was to the point where I thought I might actually choke from it. I had decided to turn on the closet lights and leave them on for the remainder of the night. Though the crashes and bangs diminished, I could now distinctly hear the sound of heavy footsteps running up and down the stairs leading to the loft. This was along with the sounds of movement and running in that loft, directly above my head. Didn't get much sleep that night either. Welcome to my new home.

Within the next few nights I would frequently be awakened by that same, ghastly odor mixed with the sickly sweetness. This often occurred along with the bitter coldness and the sounds of various noises and running in the other room. Other nights, though, there would be nothing unusual whatsoever. Often the stench which awoke me was nothing more than one of the many skunks which seemed to use this area as a maternity ward.

By the time Dennis and a friend had moved my furniture down from Colorado, it had been decided that my cats would stay with him until after the move as we didn't want to risk them either getting hurt or lost during this time of transition. By then, I was already starting to talk about the strange happenings at my place. On one of the first nights I was finally able to sleep in my real bed, it jolted with such a force that I was nearly knocked out of it. Again, I would have tried to blame this on the cats had they been here but realistically it was as if someone had body-slammed the bed. It was also very, very cold but the sickly stench did not occur.

It was during this time I decided to stop at the trading post. I had introduced myself to the owner and mentioned that I had just moved into a place nearby. Upon further discussion, I learned that these casitas had been built by his grandmother and it is part of his family heritage - and that I was actually living in the casita where he had once lived. He mentioned what a nice job the new landlady had done in renovating them. At that point, I could hold back no longer.

"Um, do you know, has anything....odd... ever happened here?"

"Oh yes, your house is haunted."

And with those six words, I had confirmation of what I truly had already known but couldn't make myself admit.

He didn't want to discuss much and had seemed cagey, though he was very nice and somewhat curious when I was discussing where I was living. However, that one question essentially ended the conversation. He did add that it was the casita diagonal from me which REALLY seemed to have the issues. This is the same casita which has never finished being renovated.

The casita where no one lives nor has lived in quite some time.

As I was learning from books and my own research, Nambé has this reputation. I would discover that Nambé was known for the number of witches who were known to have lived here. Evil witches. In one case, cannibal witches. I would read about two men from Nambé who were executed for eating small children in order to practice their craft. Another witch was burned alive in her house. Supposedly she had evil dolls hidden throughout the house which came to life and tried to escape. There are many other alleged cases of witchcraft in the village. One book describes Nambé as "the Twilight Zone of the Southwest". Another book I had found shortly after I had moved is called "More Mysteries and Miracles of New Mexico", by Jack Kutz. In it, the very first story is about a divorced woman who moved into an old adobe house in Nambé, surrounded by old cottonwoods and a high adobe wall. Shortly after moving in, she begins to have strange and frightening occurrences. Though I don't believe the description of her house too closely matches my own, one thing which caught my attention what that she described being plagued by a horrible stench "like something from the depths of hell."

I couldn't have phrased it better myself.

Shortly thereafter, Dennis finally came down with my cats and stayed to visit for a while (I suspect because he knew he would truly miss my cats and their guardian human). More than a month had passed since I had moved into the casita and I had only had this conversation with the owner of the trading post a few days prior. As could be expected, he took these stories with more than a few grains of salt. He's never lived it and I do seem to be prone to ending up at places which have paranormal happenings. I have lived in ghost stories in the past. This, however, was something much more powerful and incredibly more frightening.

It was, surprisingly, one afternoon while he was visiting that the overpowering stench came again from out of nowhere. There was no sudden chill and no other odd occurrences, yet Dennis described it as being like the smell of a crematorium. As it was broad daylight, I went outside to investigate but there was absolutely no odor outside. It seemed to simply materialize inside the center of my bedroom and spread throughout the main level of the house. Even with my opened bedroom window, I walked outside to that window and there was no odor while standing next to the screen.

As Dennis would comment, it was the kind of stench which not only seemed to be something we could taste but something which also seemed to leave an almost residue inside our noses until we could not be certain it was even still in the air. Horrifying. Disgusting. But as the months would pass, less frequent. That's the thing about living here. There can be extreme activity lasting anywhere from part of a night to every night for over a month, as well as long periods of absolutely nothing. I seem to think it's like some sort of poltergeist which keeps returning and yet I sense there is more than one entity. These entities are either connected to the casita or are others which are connected to the land, both inside and outside.

About 7 weeks ago my cat died. Though he was 17, to me it was still a shock when I took him to the vet and they determined there was nothing more I could do for him. In hysterical tears, I decided to put him down.

I had lost the job for which I had moved to New Mexico back in April, four days before my birthday. At this time, another job to which I had applied had been stringing me along for weeks, calling me for a second interview to occur the day after I lost my cat. I had no money, no food and nowhere to go. Being in this kind of shape and quite literally falling apart, Dennis came down to visit and help for a few days. As his car broke down shortly after he arrived, he ended up staying for three weeks.

On one of those first, sad nights, he was helping me tidy up my bedroom when he noticed that a bottle of water I had been drinking had sometime in the days prior rolled under the bed. He joked, sarcastically, if I liked storing my water under the bed and asked if I was still planning on drinking it. As the lid had been securely tightened and the water barely touched, I told him I would and he put it on my bedside table.

Later that night I had gone to bed and was trying desperately to fall asleep, only too aware that I was in pain and extremely restless. I very clearly heard an older woman's nicotine voice ask me sarcastically, "Are you still planning on drinking that water?" Dennis was asleep on the love seat. I wanted to reply but couldn't. Realistically, I couldn't swear that I wasn't half asleep and that this was, therefore, a dream. Still, I must also admit while in that state, dreamy voices are anything but clear and that I definitely seemed awake enough to be aware of my physical pain and of how badly I wanted to sleep. I wish I had a voice-activated tape recorder to know for certain if this truly occurred. This had been one of many times I wished I had one.

As is his custom, Dennis was up late one night and decided to work on his car when my neighbor, who also works until late at night, came home from his shift. He started asking Dennis some questions and Dennis thought it would be best for him to ask me.

"Has anything......odd..... ever happened here?"

"Yes, these casitas are haunted."

We discussed what the owner of the trading post had said, what the books said and what happened to me. I told him about coming home at night and seeing my moonlit shadow cast into the grasses - and another shadow belonging to someone or something else appear beside it when no one and nothing was around. I told him about seeing shadowy figures along the trees bordering the property and having rested on the love seat at night with only my front door open, only to get up to close and lock the door after hearing the most ghastly sounds coming from outside. Sounds which even at the time I couldn't describe yet made the hairs on the back of my neck quite literally stand up. I told him how I could no longer sleep, even in the summer, with the door or windows open. I also told him about driving home late on a beautiful June night during the full moon, the fields and trees so clearly visible from its radiance at these altitudes, only to find that our little cemetery - the one right by our casitas - appeared pitch black in spite of the surrounding light. No rational explanation for why the fields and homes around it would simply glow while it remained absolutely black. For that matter, no rational explanation why my headlights suddenly dimmed while I was driving past. Ah, almost home. Get inside and lock the door, again.

The neighbor told me that for 45 days straight, after his baby was born, he and his family would hear the sounds of heavy footsteps right outside their house. They could clearly hear limbs breaking and heavy breathing but never saw another person. They even threw rocks at it but it was no deterrent. Dennis would admit that, on the nights he was working on his car, he also heard sounds from that area but blamed it on livestock, though those neighbors have no livestock and nothing was ever seen.

The neighbor hinted that there were other things which were occurring but were not discussed. I was left with the impression that he may have seen something up in my loft. He said he was considering breaking lease and has been home very little since this discussion. A previous neighbor indicated that these incidents were often worse when I wasn't at home. This might have been due to my smudging and blessing the house when I was aware of activity. It might not have liked that. During one major smudging, the front door slammed shut though there was no breeze. I do know that after I had spent the night at a friend's house in Albuquerque after a long day's visit, I came home the next morning to find my cat hiding under my furniture, crying and terrified.

Was it simply that she was afraid of being home alone now that my other cat died? Did something scare her? Did something hurt her? I will never again leave her at home, alone at night, in that house.

What can be said about all of this? It took some odd experiences for me to look for a job in New Mexico. Some very bad experiences seem to be keeping me here. I'm out of money and need to move, possibly back to Colorado, if there was only some way to do it.

It's seems as though I've had such horrific luck living here but is it really due to Nambé's violent and bloody past. Is it truly a haunting or is it New Mexico being....well... New Mexico? So many people are having a dreadfully hard time now. The haunting may just be stress coupled with me needing to blame all of this on something outside of me and yet....

And yet.... So many people have been having these experiences here long before I came onto the scene. Whatever is inside the house seems angry though not, necessarily, hostile. Whatever is outside is another story. Seeing the shadow people, the feeling I had was that I was witnessing something absolutely evil - something which would hurt me if it could. The ghastly noises from outside followed by a chorus of dogs barking and growling only adds to that fear of an unknown and unnamed horror. Somehow, I suspect this land of the 100-year-old adobe and giant cottonwoods knows a secret which it won't, quite, reveal. My time here among them is at an end. It's time to move on now.

Refuting the Birthers, Round 2

2009-08-31T21:01:00.009-06:00

On August 5th, Alex Koppelman wrote an excellent post on Salon.com about refuting the "Birthers". Many of us linked to it, promoted it and referenced it.

So, end of story, right? I mean, any person with half a brain can read this and hang up their greatest delusions about Obama being an illegitimate president?

Not so fast. A new conspiracy has grown trying to debunk the talking points which Koppelman had later used in his article. Specifically, it is trying to refute the points he made regarding Arthur's presidency as well as the actual status of citizenship as decided in The United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

I first learned of this, accidentally, when I was reading an article in the Deadline USA blog in the Guardian. It had an article entitled, Who are the "Birthers", which in turn referenced a poll showing the demographics of the "Birther" movement.

It was due to my response which referenced Koppelman's article that I became aware that a site had sprung up which is entirely dedicated to using half-truths and outright lies to find some way of getting Obama out of the White House. o, let's address the issues at hand:

1. President Arthur wasn't a "natural born citizen".

First, it is true that President Arthur's father was born in Ireland and maintained British/Irish citizenship until Arthur was 14. A gentleman by the name of Arthur Hinman had set about trying to prove Arthur's ineligibility by stating that Arthur was born in Ireland. As anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment was rabid at that time, this ploy to undermine Arthur was very conceivable. When that failed, Hinman then tried to state that Arthur was born in Canada. This attempt also failed.

While Arthur would have appreciated British citizenship due to his father, what had not been decided at that time was if that disqualified Arthur from also being a natural born American citizen:

"Neither the law nor any federal court ruling in the United States has
ever determined whether a natural-born British subject like Chester Arthur can at the same time also be a natural born citizen of the United States, which is one of the constitutional requirements for the offices of President and Vice-President."

Therefore, when Natural Born Citizen claims this:

"He would have known that if anybody found out his father naturalized after he
was born, he could never be President or Vice President."

-- It's a bold-faced lie. The author is projecting what he feels the SCOTUS should decide, not anything regarding what they have already ruled.
It should also be noted that Hinman, for all of his attempts to show that Arthur was born in another country, did not try to prove Arthur had British citizenship due to his father's citizenship. Though Natural Born Citizen seems to think that this was an oversight on Hinman's part, I disagree. At a time when 34 million Europeans had immigrated to the United States and were credited for having helped shape the economy as well as start the Industrial Revolution, it might not have been advantageous for Hinman to try playing against those born in this country to one non-citizen parent. This is probably why Hinman initially tried to focus on Arthur having been born in Ireland. At a time when "No Irish Need Apply" were on signs throughout the country and Irish were considered to be lazy, stupid and ironically both Pagan and Catholic, this would have tapped into people's fears more than questioning their own citizenship status. Hinman did later produce a pamphlet entitled How a British Subject Became President of the United States, it focused on the claims of Arthur's Irish birth and was not successful. It has also been disproved as records show that President Arthur was born in Vermont.
What I find amusing is that both Arthur and Obama had American mothers yet those who wish to denounce Obama seem to think that having any foreign born parent trumps all other factors - in spite of the fact that the SCOTUS has never decided that this is the case. Therefore, I find this attitude a bit of a stretch. Most U.S. laws give citizenship status to a child born oversees if even one parent is an American citizen. As Obama's mother was an American citizen at the time of Obama's birth and as he was born in what was an American state the time, laws tend to consider him a natural born citizen.
It should be noted, lawsuits have been filed against other potential presidential nominees on the same grounds, none of which were successful: Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a state yet he was considered eligible to become president. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone yet there doesn't seem to be a problem there. (Even Colorado senator Michael Bennet was born in India to American parents yet is considered a citizen by birth.) Yes, lawsuits have also been filed against Obama which have also failed.
Most of the laws the "Birthers" love to cite - Obama's mother was too young; was 18 when he was born and therefore not having lived as a "citizen" of this country for at least 5 years after age 16 - only apply to those born outside of the United States. As Obama was born in Hawaii after it had become a state, this is, again, pointless.
2. The Citizenship of Wong Kim Ark.

The case of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the SCOTUS based its decision on the 14th Amendment. This was, in turn, based upon English Common Law tradition which excluded two types of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory:

"The SCOTUS decided that since none of these conditions applied to Wong's
situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were
not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens
because of the Chinese Exclusion Act)."

Again, this defines Wong's citizenship status as a "naturalized" citizen, not as a "natural born citizen" (splitting hairs if you ask me) - but only because the SCOTUS has yet to determine exactly what makes a "natural born citizen".
In addition, the birthers love to leave out one extremely important truth about the Wong decision, which ironically was based on the views of those who dissented and did not want Wong to become eligible for citizenship:

In the view of the minority, excessive reliance on birthplace as the principal
determiner of citizenship would lead to an untenable state of affairs in which
"...the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing
through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency,while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not".

Therefore, though the the Supreme Court has yet to determine what exactly makes a "natural born citizen", the dissenting voice of the SOTUS wanted to refuse Wong's naturalized citizen status because they felt that being born here would make him eligible to become president. As they clearly stated, they felt it necessary to deny this opportunity to those of certain races who were born here.
Some things never change.
On a final, personal note: The "Birther" movement has only become more rabid and is relying on partial truths and outright lies in order to make its case. If this article means anything to you, please promote so others may find it.

Dumbing Down America One Texan at a Time

2009-08-26T17:54:00.007-06:00

I actually hate writing this. I was born and raised in Texas and know many intelligent people who are still there. Yet, when I read this, my stomach curdled:

Posted by Lee Fang, ThinkProgress at 6:00 AM on August 22,
2009. Students will be expected "to identify
significant conservative advocacy organizations and individuals," like Newt
Gingrich and the Moral Majority.
Texas Revising History Textbooks: Liberals Out; Limbaugh, Gingrich, NRA In

The Texas State Board of Education review committee is
preparing to vote on a draft of proposed standards for history textbooks. Noting
that the draft has "nothing
about liberals," the Houston Chronicle reported:
The first draft for
proposed standards in United States History Studies Since Reconstruction says
students should be expected "to identify significant conservative advocacy
organizations and individuals, such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly and the
Moral Majority." [...] Others have proposed adding talk show host Rush Limbaugh
and the National Rifle Association.

The 15-member committee, stacked with10 Republicans, is expected to vote along party lines. Earlier this year, a panel of right-wing "experts" produced a report urging the committee to remove biographies of GeorgeWashington,
Abraham Lincoln, and Stephen F. Austin, César Chávez, and instead add
history about the "motivational role the Bible and the Christian faith played in
the settling of the original colonies."

The Houston Chronicle did include some discussion by the dissenters:

Will it pass muster?

Whether students will also be exposed to liberal examples from the ebb and flow of American politics is hard to predict. Conservatives form the largest bloc on the 15-member State Board of Education, whose partisan makeup is 10 Republicans and five Democrats.

David Bradley, R-Beaumont, one of the conservative leaders, figures the current draft will pass a preliminary vote along party lines “once the napalm and smoke clear the room.”

But not all conservative board members share that view.
“It is hard to believe that a majority of the writing team would approve of such wording,” said Terri Leo, R-Spring. “It's not even a representative selection of the conservative movement, and it is inappropriate.”

Advocate for both sides

Another board conservative, Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, thinks students should study both sides to “see what the differences are and be able to define those differences.”

He would add James Dobson's Focus on the Family, conservative talk show host Sean Hannity and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to the list of conservatives. Others have proposed adding talk show host Rush Limbaugh and the National Rifle Association.

“I think, at the end of the day, we will want the young students to be able to identify what's conservative, what's their advocacy and who are the conservative groups, individuals and leaders. And what is liberal in contrast,” Mercer said.

Among liberals to include, Mercer would nominate the National Education Association, MoveOn.org, Planned Parenthood and the Texas Freedom Network — a group that says it promotes “religious freedom and individual liberties to counter the radical right.”

“We don't think it's appropriate to be listing groups and people in the standards just because they're conservatives or liberals,” said Kathy Miller, the group's president. “The state board should simply stop putting politics ahead of our kids' education and putting teachers in the position of indoctrinating students with political agendas.”

The debate will likely intensify in coming months. Two reviewers have recommended that César Chávez, the late farm workers union leader, be removed from history books because they deem him an unworthy role model.
Board members appoint the review committees and typically choose people who share their philosophies.

Of course it should be noted that these implications reach much further than the Texas borders. As Discovery.org noted:

It’s sometimes said by revelers and gamblers that what happens in Las Vegas, stays in Las Vegas. That’s not true of Texas. As one of the country’s major consumers of textbooks, Texas powerfully influences the way educational texts for high school and other students are written. The same critical thinking on science that is being encouraged in that state will also influence students elsewhere in America.

Legislators outside the state are also taking careful note. On the very same day that the final vote was held by the SBOE, news came from Florida of legislation being considered there that would require “a thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution.”
Clearly, a fire has been lit, small for now, but one that as it spreads, the Darwin lobby will have difficulty smothering entirely.

When Newscasters Were Smart and Bombs Were Dumb

2009-08-12T22:09:00.003-06:00

I wonder if our smart bombs scored better in geography than some FOX News broadcasters?

You'd think they, of all people, would know which countries we were bombing.

(For source, click here)

I am hoping my fellow StrixFixers know what's wrong with this photo.

Either that or explain to me how Iraq has been bombed so frequently that it decided to jump up and switch places with Egypt.

You know, I've come to expect FAUX News to routinely put a (D) beside Republicans who get caught up in scandals but seriously, this is starting to get embarrassing.

Surrendering to Republicans

2009-08-09T22:41:00.007-06:00

I'll be the first to admit I was shocked to read in the Daily Kos about the number of concessions we are making to the Republicans in order to pass some sort of health care reformation. Since I know no Republican will believe me, I am quoting directly from the site so you can see how many of our core principals have been compromised:
--------------------------

Dear Republicans,

Over the past week, we have seen your passionate protests and heard your concerns about Democratic proposals for health care reform. We have considered your insightful and well reasoned arguments, and on behalf of progressives everywhere, I am here to say: OK! We give up! We are willing to compromise on the proposals that concern you. You've won! Yay!

In accordance with your cogent and potent criticisms, these are the terms of our concession:

1. We will not euthanize your grandmother. This is the big one, and I really hope you guys appreciate how much of a concession this is on behalf of the progressive movement. Since the days of the Bull Moose Party, progressives have wanted nothing more than to slaughter old people by the millions. That much is obvious. After all, if we wanted senior citizens to have long and healthy lives, why would we have created Social Security and Medicare? Think about it. Death to grannies has long been the core of progressive policy, so it's not without some consternation that we give it up. So there: no euthanizing old people. You've got it.

2. Rahm Emanuel's brother will not kill Sarah Palin's baby. While this will require us to gut HR 3200 "America's Health Choices and Murder Sarah Palin's Baby Act of 2009," we're currently working with Henry Waxman to remove the extensive Sarah Palin's baby-killing provisions from the final bill. While this will probably cost us Andrew Sullivan's support, we recognize that this is a necessary sacrifice for securing broad bipartisan support of health care reform.

3. The government will not nationalize hospitals and other health service providers. This is another big one. Though the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has correctly pointed out that current Democratic proposals involve adopting the British health care system, we now recognize that this is not politically viable. The final bill, accordingly, will not involve the nationalization of hospitals and other health service providers. This will be a major setback to Obama's well known communist agenda, but again, we progressives agree with the Blue Dogs that we need to reach a broad national consensus by responding to Republican concerns.

4. We will make the health care reform bill available for all Americans to read as soon as possible. I know that conservatives and pundits have been eagerly anticipating an opportunity to read the final health care reform bill, and after extensive discussion, we have decided to comply with your request. While we would like to have unseen drafts languishing in committee forever, we have asked Senate Democrats like Max Baucus and Kent Conrad to deliver a bill as soon as possible in order to allow the public to read it. As you know, progressives wanted nothing more than to keep these drafts hidden for as long as possible, but in the interests of transparency and bipartisan consensus, we recognize that it's vital to move the legislative process forward. In fact, it is our hope that Baucus and Conrad will return from the August recess early in order to ensure that the public has as much time as possible to inspect their work.

5. We will not subsidize abortions with your hard-earned tax dollars. Despite the fact that both FactCheck.org and Politifact insist that we already made this concession months ago, we're going to make extra-special-super sure that we did. Just give me a second...
...

... yep, we did.

6. We will not allow the government to have direct access to your bank account. I know several conservatives I've spoken to are deeply concerned about this measure, and while we progressives are always looking for new ways for the government to unlawfully violate your privacy and steal your money, we have decided to remove this provision from the final bill. While we may include a way for individuals to voluntarily set up an electronic funds transfer with their insurance provider, we will no longer push for government access to all individual bank accounts. You've won this one.

7. We will not provide illegal immigrants with unlimited free health care. Though progressives want nothing more than to provide unlimited social services to illegal immigrants while denying them to everyone else, we now recognize that this plan was, perhaps, a bit inequitable. However, while they will not be receiving unlimited free health care, each illegal immigrant will still receive a pretty pony. I'm sorry, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

8. Private health insurance will not be eliminated. Though, as Drudge recently pointed out with a damning YouTube video, the long-stated Republican goal of moving away from employer-based coverage somehow means "eliminating private insurance" when Obama talks about the same thing, we've decided to preserve private insurance plans for those who want them. However, we have yet to convince ultra-socialist Charles Krauthammer to drop his communist crusade against employer-based (i.e., according to Drudge, "all private") coverage.

9. You will not be issued a "National Health Insurance ID." While we thought this was a fun idea, the final version of the health care reform bill will not require you to have any kind of ID when you're pulled over for drunk driving or found loitering outside of a military base. In fact, you are hereby encouraged not to carry any proof of insurance whatsoever. Trust me, it's a terrible idea!

10. There will be no super-secret-awesome health care program for ACORN employees. Though we love our election-stealing squirrels, we have decided that they'll have to settle for the same options as everyone else.

With these concessions having been made, I trust that we can now move forward on health care reform with a broad, bipartisan consensus. Blue Dogs and Republicans, you can now rest easy knowing that the concerns of the town hall protesters have been met. While the progressive dream of a nation in which old people are slaughtered to pay for the abortions of ACORN-employed illegal immigrants will again have to be deferred, we are willing to settle for a bill without these measures in the name of bipartisanship.

Congratulations, Republicans. You've won this round

------------------------

Though I will admit to my personal sadness that we will not be giving unlimited free health care to illegal immigrants, I at least can take some comfort that we will be giving each and every one of them a new pretty pony. Speaking on behalf of all liberals who were denied pretty ponies when we were younger, I can assure you there is nothing we like more than living vicariously through an illegal immigrant who makes 35 cents an hour picking fruit.

At least we haven't surrendered HR 4700 "Everyone Must Undergo Mandatory Sex Change Operations While Wearing a Burka Act of 2009"

We must stand up for our core principles.

Employer Provided Fire Insurance

2009-08-07T16:42:00.004-06:00

I just wrote this on a community board for a mountain community where I once lived. The majority of people there are extremely conservative and are opposed to Obama's health care reform though they admit they don't know what it's about. At the same time, forest fires routinely break out and force mass evacuations - yet they have never had to start a bake sale to raise money to fight the fires. The irony is lost on them. So, here's my parody:

This was a call which took place last Saturday:

Dispatch: Thank you for calling 911, what is your emergency?

Me: My house is on fire.

Dispatch: OK, we'll send someone out as soon as I get the following information from you. May I have your social security number please?

Me: Um, why do I need to give you my social security number?

Dispatch: We need to make certain that you are on a policy which covers your house being put out when it's on fire.

Me: I thought government law dictates that you have to respond to an emergency?

Dispatch: Ma'am, are you still in your burning house?

Me: No, I'm calling from a neighbor's house.

Dispatch: Then we do not consider that an emergency. Your life is not in immediate danger.

Me: But my house is burning down!

Dispatch: You already told us that, ma'am. Try to stay calm and please give us that social security number. If you don't like giving that out over the phone, I can take your policy number along with your employer group number.

Me: I was recently laid off. I know longer have coverage through my employer.

Dispatch: Well, times are hard, especially now that Obama is in office. He's been in power over 6 months and has yet to get the economy up and running again. So, I can take your COBRA information.

Me: As I'm no longer working and drawing an income, I can't afford $800 a month for COBRA. Isn't there anything you can do?

Dispatch: Unfortunately, since you chose not to keep your job or insurance, you cannot demand we put out your burning house. Perhaps you can learn to take some responsibility for your actions rather than hope the government takes care of it for you.

Me: I do take responsibility for my actions and I normally am employed. Shouldn't government step up to the plate and help fix the problems that adults and corporations can't fix?

Dispatch: That's socialism ma'am! If you think things are bad now, just wait until Obama pushes through his ObamaFirePlan.

Me: You mean, Obama's plan will be worse than me having my house burn down and losing all of my possessions?

Dispatch: Obama's plan is about killing off the elderly - in house fires. Once his plan is passed, government agents are going to talk to old people and get them to understand how dying in a house fire is good for the economy. Do you want your grandmother to die in a house fire?

Me: Actually, all of my grandparents are dead. My parents are elderly, though.

Dispatch: So, because you are too selfish and lazy to stay employed and keep your company provided fire insurance, you want the government to fix your problems while your parents die?

Me: I never thought of it like that. I still don't see how getting laid off and being unable to afford $800 a month for a COBRA fire plan means I'm selfish and deserve to have my house burn down.

Dispatch: I don't believe you when you say COBRA will cost you $800 a month. That seems unusually high.

Me: Well, they say I'm a pre-existing.

Dispatch: You mean to tell me that your house has burned before?!!!

Me: No, but they say living along the 285 corridor puts me at higher risk because there have been so many fires in this area in the recent past.

Dispatch: So, you're telling me you CHOOSE to live in a fire-prone area and then want the government to offer a SOCIALIZED FIRE DEPARTMENT to put out your fire. Next you'll be telling me you want the government to take care of roads and bridges because you CHOOSE to live an hour away from a major city and can't be bothered paying for that either.

Me: Actually, I think Obama's plan would allow us to CHOOSE whether to keep our company provided fire insurance or go with a government plan. It's called competition. I thought that was a good thing.

Dispatch: It will bankrupt the country!

Me: The funny thing is, if my house burns down and I loose my possessions, it will be that much harder for me to find a job with no home or clothing. I think having lots of homeless, unemployed people who otherwise could work and have their own homes is also very bad for the country. That's why I support Obama's Fire Plan. It just strikes me as being absurd that something as important as putting out a fire is entirely dependent on the companies for whom we work, assuming they even offer Fire Insurance. Many companies don't have the money to offer Fire Insurance. Do their employees deserve to have their homes burn down?

Dispatch: They can get insurance that isn't from their employer.

Me: Often it costs more than what they make in a month!

Disptach: Then they can get better paying jobs, or jobs which offer Fire insurance.

Me: That would kill small businesses who would lose their employees.

Dispatch: So you would rather your taxes go up in order to help people unwilling to help themselves?

Me: If you consider what it cost me to pay for coverage when I had it, plus premiums, deductibles and co-pays, my taxes would have to be higher than what I was earning for it to be more than what I was paying.

Dispatch: So your answer to everything is to have government intervention and force us into a nanny state.

Me: No, I just think the government should offer options to those of us who have none. Sometimes a little government intervention helps its citizens, like when it regulates toxic dumping and prohibits adults from buying cigarettes for minors.

Dispatch: You're opposed to the free market?

Me: Your definition of the Free Market is to prevent competition from offering affordable solutions - kind of like Halliburton saying it supports the free market.
Look, it's been fun. My house is done burning down now but it has spread to a neighbor's barn.

Dispatch: Well hopefully they aren't selfish liberals who think Uncle Sam should pay for their fire to get put out. Christ, next thing you know people like you will be saying the government should pay for the military or police, or should intervene the next time there's a pandemic or hurricaine. Socialized roads will be next, for people to lazy to pay for or build their own roads....

(click)

Dispatch has a point. If only all of the services we take for granted could be determined by what benefits are offered to us by our employers. It would do wonders for government spending even if it means most of us could never leave the house because our employers can't afford road insurance.

Edited to add: please check out this link about the health care debate.