Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Hehhehheh ...

Speaking of a "the people's sport" moment.... In today's Glob was a photo of the Bush, Laura and the mexican prez and wife hiking on the Bush ranch. To his credit, Bush seemed to be comfortable doing so, the rest - naaaah.

Interesting article - dated last month, but I think most of us missed it.
***********************
Genuine concern or corporate greed?
By Brad Johnson, Guest columnist
February 28, 2004

Does Senate Bill 139 represent genuine concern or corporate greed? Follow the money.

SB 139 will set forth a statewide database of all Colorado's children. The system will be used to call
parents and coerce them to have their children "fully" vaccinated. This means the child must have
every single recommended vaccine.

When I was a child I only had two immunizations: polio and smallpox. These shots were for serious
diseases that affected large populations. I am truly grateful for advances in modern medicine that
have eradicated deadly diseases. Today, though, Colorado's children are required to receive 29
vaccinations by the age of 4. The risk of children contracting some of these diseases is miniscule.

For instance, the hepatitis B vaccine is promoted as necessary for infants and schoolchildren yet the
over a period of years there was only one chronic case of Hepatitis B in the birth through age 4
category. The calculated average would be less than four in a million cases. These are the children
who contracted the disease from their infected mothers. Children of infected mothers should be the
only children needing this vaccination. In that same time period there were only 15 cases in the birth
through 14 years age group. According to the Colorado Department of Public Health Environment
fact sheet: "Hepatitis B is not spread through casual contact or in a typical school, office or
food service settings. It is not spread by coughing, sneezing, or drinking out of the same
glass." The Centers for Disease Control admitted there is not one documented case of transmission
of hepatitis B from sharing toothbrushes, razors or ear piercing. Most important, the American
Association of Physicians and Surgeons has declared that children are more at risk of being harmed
by the vaccine than the disease.

Why the drastic increase in vaccine requirements for diseases posing no risk to most children? Is the
vaccine industry really concerned about the welfare of our children, or have our children become a
captive market for the vaccine industry? To answer these questions we must follow the money.

Congressman Dan Burton was instrumental in uncovering the corporate profit connection to the
increase in vaccine requirements. His interest started when his perfectly healthy grandson turned
autistic overnight after receiving nine inoculations in one office visit. These vaccinations contained 40
times the toxic level of mercury for humans. He became determined to uncover the truth. What he
discovered is sickening, if not shocking. A majority of the members on the committees that
approved vaccines had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that produce the vaccines.
Either they were being paid as consultants or lobbyists, or owned vaccine patents or stocks in the
pharmaceutical company. One member owned a patent for the vaccine being approved and was
also being paid by the pharmaceutical industry to travel around the country and promote vaccines as
safe. This is tantamount to letting the vaccine industry write their own profitable government
mandates. When committees approve a vaccine as safe, federal funds are released to buy the
vaccines from the manufacturers. Follow the money. "The vaccine manufacturer of a new
vaccine that is added to the universal list has an assured stable market of three-and-a-half to
four million babies born in this country every year. As of 1986, the manufacturer has virtually
no liability for adverse events that may occur .... No liability. Stable made market. A
stockholders dream," said Barbara Fischer of the National Vaccine Information Center.

Corporate Executives of the major vaccine manufacturers have invested millions of dollars into the
creation of a framework for a national database to tag and track citizens to enforce compliance with
government vaccination policies. SB 139 fits perfectly into their plan.

Around the country parents have been threatened with losing custody or losing insurance coverage if
their children were not "fully" vaccinated. Section 1 (1) ( c ) of SB 139 states: "The Colorado
Department of Health and Environment has a stated performance goal to increase the
number of "fully" immunized children ..." Why "fully" immunized when some vaccines are
unnecessary and cause more harm than good? According to the American Association of Physicians
and Surgeons: "the federal government pays the state a bonus of up to $100 for every "fully"
vaccinated child. What's their motive-money or medicine?" The state does not receive the
money if a child is exempted from just one vaccination.

If SB 139 passes, responsible parents who choose to exempt their child for valid reasons will be
pressured by the Colorado Department of Health into full compliance.

Brad Johnson is a resident of Broomfield.


http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/broomfield_opinion/article/0,1713,BDC_2504_2688134,00.html

A bit of comedy for Monday:

-- Craig Kilborn

-- Jay Leno

-- David Letterman

-- Craig Kilborn

...and an oldie-but-goodie from Monty Python:

PDid, Very good! I"m looking forward to reading more of these gems as we approach November.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8164060.htm

[/size]http://slate.msn.com/id/2097033/

And what is wrong with any group of people recognizing their political power in this country?

Change the banner to read "women", "homosexuals" or "environmentalists" instead of "Evangelicals" and I bet you wouldn't be pointing to it with dismay.

Touché Scrat.

Scrat
What is wrong is the potentially must dangerous and divisive element in this secular democracy the "religious wrong" is attempting to force their religious values through legislation upon the rest of the nation. May we be protected from religion and George Bush.

Au, I gotta say I think it a bit presumptive to assume, as you appear to, that there is an overarching agenda to impose religious values on anyone. Some evangelicals certainly wish to do so, but I don't see that as a lynchpin of Conservative Agenda. Some liberals would like to impose a meat-and-fur-free agenda on society, but they too are in the minority among their more-or-less otherwise kindred ideolgues. It isn't all either KKK or ACLU.

Timber
I see it as the lynchpin of the evangelical agenda.
I also see G Bush catering to them because of their strength in numbers.

Fair enough. However, do you contend The Dem's don't cater to interest groups because of their strength in numbers, too? Labor unions and gays come to mind right off the top. Sauce for the goose, and all that, you know :wink:

good day scrat

Well, 'recognizing' is a rather benign and unthreatening way to word that sentence. The point of course is the achievement of real power and the likely or possible consequences of use/abuse of such power.

And you say "any group". al Qaeda fine too? If not, why not?

You, and others, voice a pretty consistent discomfort or disagreement with arguments that suggest the rise of the conservative religious community within the republican party and its increasing power and influence upon the nation is a bad thing. Your discomfort/disagreement arises from, apparently, both a libertarian leaning and some personal affinity for this particular community.

I, and others, are not at all discomfited by singling out religious communities for criticism when they become powerful political agents, holding that they lose any special dispensation we might previously have afforded them. They identify themselves and define themselves as religious organizations, and so I shall too.

Your examples (homosexuals, women, environmentalists...let's add blacks and latinos) are not comparable examples to the 'religious right' (or 'social conservatives' or whatever label you wish to apply) in the American political horizon. They are each concerned with a singular issue - gays, women, ethnic/racial groups have grouped and become active to minimize institutional and cultural patterns which have disadvantaged them and restricted full and equal membership within the nation. Environmentalists' concerns lead them, perhaps, into broader levels of activism, but again, their issue is a singular one.

The comparable example to power in the hands of the 'religious right' in America would be the Taliban or al Qaeda or the fundamentalists in Israel. But this isn't a differentiation or conclusion you are going to have any truck with.

You can say, "the gays want something and the religious right wants something, thus they are exactly the same"...but they aren't. It's WHAT IS WANTED that differentiates. The gay community or blacks or women do not wish for power further than that of achieving equality. The religious right in the US does not seek power so as to achieve equality, but so as to dominate and mandate the functions and values of the community.

Thus I take this movement, as presently constituted, to be a serious threat to liberty and freedom.

Depends on your sauce preference............. I think Bush has catered to some groups to the extent of disenfranchizing a number of key groups in total. He is truly the divider.

I already know that you think free speech should be reserved to those with whom you agree, so let's hear from some other folks with a bit less fascist ideals.

Sounds like you are seeing things. :wink:

Yes, if we had a sizable block of al Qaeda members who were US citizens and chose to use their political power to achieve change through legitimate channels, I would accept that just as I do the power of NOW, GLAAD, PETA, and other groups with whom I disagree.

Given my writings on the subject, did you really expect to find it otherwise?

Your claim that these other groups deserve a political voice but the "religious right" does not neither passes constitutional or logical tests. Would you like me to list for you the number of issues NOW is actively involved in right now, not to mention historically?

If you can categorize NOW as a "single-issue" group because their focus is (ostensibly) solely issues that effect women, then the religious right is a single-issue group because their focus is solely issues that they believe effect Christians. Of course, both of these groups have their fingers in many, many issues, which I am confident you know.

Scrat
Have you perhaps heard of separation of church and state? The religious right is bent on blurring that line and Bush is their enabler. In effect their aims are no different than that of the Taliban in that their aim is to impose there religious "morality" upon the rest of us.

Yes, I've heard of it. It's just that, unlike you, I know what the phrase means, and what it doesn't.

It doesn't mean that those who are religious give up their rights to free speech and to take part in the political process. Your position claims that they do, and it is ignorant, vapid, and little more than arrogant, self-congratulatory bigotry.

I won't waste my time explaining what it does mean, since it is abundantly clear that you don't care. You think it gives you the right to complain that Christians should not have the same rights as every other citizen, and somehow (through a pure and simple lack of actual thought, I suspect) you believe the Constitution supports you in this laughable notion.