• Obama pushes health care plan in speech to join session of Congress tonight.
• Supreme Court hears arguments in Hillary: The Movie free speech case today; may roll back restrictions on corporate contributions to political campaigns.
• U.S. "very concerned" that Iran is nearing its first nuclear weapon.
• European powers call for a major U.N. conference on the future of Afghanistan.
• Pentagon cautiously allows U.S. troops to blog.
I say a decade in Afghanistan is enough. Let's plan to hand it over to the UN in 2011.
Anyone else going to start keeping a running tally of how many times the Assclown In Chief is going to make a speech in primetime to the American people to try and sell some form of bullshit or another?
I don't get the joint session bullshit. He doesn't want to lose his base by completely throwing out the public option, and he doesn't want to lose Congress in 2010 by shoving the public option down our throats. What possible good will a speech do in resolving this dilemma? Gotta make a choice or back away from the table.
"Obama pushes health care plan in speech to join session of
Congress tonight."
Rumor has it when he discusses the public option he will speak
heavily about competition.
In sports news, the NCAA has announced that the USC-Ohio State game
will have a few rule changes to increase "competition" and to keep
things fair. Ohio State will be able to put 48 men on the field
versus USC's 11, a USC player will be deemed down upon two hand
touch, whereas the Ohio State players will be deemed down under the
regular rules, and Ohio State will be given unlimited timeouts. All
in the name of "competition".
Yeah, so after we spent a month's pay on Indian hookers at the opium den, we got back to camp and heard that we're attacking a facility outside of Farah. At 3:00 a.m., UT.
No, PC, that was the Democrat's proposal. They'll compromise at 24 players, 50 timeouts, and full tackle for both sides, but only three downs for USC.
Radley, the summary you have for the Citizens United oral argument is misleading. The case doesn't concern corporate contributions to political campaigns. It instead asks whether the government can ban corporations from independently speaking out about candidates. There's a big difference between the two under the law.
the USC-Ohio State game will have a few rule changes to
increase "competition"
Ohio State will also have access to Ohio National Guard air cover,
not to intimidate their opponents, but to keep them honest. The Air
Guard will level the playing field with short bursts only. USC fans
will still be able to root for their team if they so desire.
USC fans will still be able to root for their team if they
so desire.
But only up to sixty days prior to kickoff.
Grammar Nazi | September 9, 2009, 9:55am | #
it's first nuclear weapon → its first nuclear weapon
Get off my turf, Nazi dog!
Finally, Obama talks about health care. I mean, according to Ezra Klein, Obama has never given a speech about it before.
It is only those sick, fascist, right wing nutjobs, egged on by sports announcers, that think the new NCAA rules in any way will negatively impact on USC's ability to win football games.
Would somebody please get that apostrophe out of "it's" out of
the Iran nukes lede? Bugs the crap out of me - I expect a site like
Reason to employ writers with a basic grasp of grammar and
punctuation.
Okay, yes, I'm a little OC.
Sadly, even with all the above rule changes in the name of "competition", USC is still favored by 16.5 on Saturday.
Congressman wants all 'czars' to testify
By Jordan Fabian - 09/09/09 10:11 AM ET
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) on Wednesday called for President
Obama's "czars," or appointed high-level advisers, to testify
before Congress about their "authority and responsibilities" in the
executive branch.
The president's "czars" have become a point of controversy among
his opponents because they do not have to be confirmed by the
Senate as cabinet-level officials do.
McHenry wrote to committee chairman Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) and
ranking member Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asking the appointed
officials to testify.
"If the czars have high-level, decision-making authority as their
titles would indicate, then it is my concern that their appointment
without Senate approval represents a circumvention of our
Constitutionally-mandated confirmation process," McHenry, who is a
member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said
in his letter.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/57849-congressman-wants-all-czars-to-testify
USC favored by 16.5? Not quite. (And I'll take all that action I can get my hands on, if anyone can find it.)
Who started all this czar business anyway? Was it always legal? Is it now legal? If so, who made it that way? Enquiring minds want to know.
'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature
baby'
Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days
too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.
Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just
21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months
early.
They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following
national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be
given medical treatment.
Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden,
who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.
She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was
even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a
special care baby unit.
Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical
guidelines.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html
Brotherben,
Who started all this czar business anyway?
I think that the term Czar started back in the Nixon era, though
Nixon himself didn't originate the term.
The writer of this wiki article lists some references that confirm
my belief:
The 'czar' title was first used to refer to an appointed government official in a Time Magazine article in December 1973, referring to William E. Simon's appointment as the head of the Federal Energy Administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_czar
Pro Libertate
I just can't understand anyone opposing a public option in health
insurance when Citizens Insurance (Florida's public option in
property insurance) is such a thriving and succesful
enterprise.
And how about the fantastic financial strength of Medicare and
Medicaid.
Isaac,
Someone--can't remember who--really hit the nail on the head when
he/she publicly asked why the government wouldn't prove their point
by fixing Medicare first.
Citizen's--what a friggin' mess. And Crist is making sure that the
problem will blow up after he's gone.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245