Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi was on the edge of tears as she attempted to liken opposition to the proposed health care reform bill to anti-gay rallies in the 70's in San Francisco, during which two politicians were assassinated. 

I feel like I would like to say something about her performance yesterday, but I'm still shaking my head in wonder and trying to figure out whether this performance was the result of genuine sorrow and a feeling of loss as she begins (finally) to realize that a pet project is lost, or whether it is a last ditch appeal to one's emotions to pass an ill-fated and poorly crafted bill.

I really don't know at this point, so I'm just going to open it up for ya'll to comment on the matter while I try to sort it out.

"Capitalism is evil."   So concludes Michael Moore in his new film "Capitalism: A Love Story."   He suggests that not only is capitalism evil, but that evil can not be regulated, and it must, therefore, be replaced with something else.  He does not say what that something else is.

When he gets ready to sell his home, I wonder it he will try to sell it for more than he paid for it -- i.e. for a profit?   Is that not capitalism?  I wonder if Mr Moore pays his script girls the same thing he pays his camera men.  I wonder if he pays his camera men what he pays himself.  If the answer is that he pays employees the prevailing rate for the job, based on it's importance, or on the skill levels required of the workers, he himself is engaging in capitalism.  Why does he not see this?  Is it because that hits too close to where he lives?  Can he only see the evils of capitalism in others, but can not see them in his own actions?

Michael Moore's own father apparently was an assembly line worker in Flint Michigan.  As such he managed to put together some money to buy a car and a house, while feeding and clothing his family and providing for Michael's education.  I expect that he was happy to have a job that would enable him do do that.  Of course, everyone would like a little more than what they have, but does Moore believe that his father should have received the same salary as the head of General Motors? 

I have to suppose that Mr. Moore is not completely stupid, and if that is true, it suggests that he has some agenda other than just racking capitalism over the coals.  What do you suppose it is?

More and more I hear people being accused of being racist when they disagree with the President's policies.  I've heard it on the news from reporters who are supposed to report what actually happened -- not what they emotionally believe may have happened or what they think somebody else really meant to say, regardless of what they actually said.  I saw it yesterday when a Congressmen suggested that maybe we will soon see whitehooded riders again.  And this morning I hear it from former President Carter, who failed while in office and who has meddled in the affairs of State ever since, without warrant and to the detriment of those who were in office after him.  And I've seen it growing here on xanga among members who have slung charges of racism around like mud.  

I've even seen it in my personal life where people who don't even know me have picked up the siren call that has echoed around the country.  Never mind that my parents taught me from childhood that racism is wrong; never mind that I have supported several black candidates for both the House and the Senate; never mind that I supported Alan Keyes in his 1992 bid for the Presidency; never mind that I supported Condoleeza Rice and would love to see her run for office; never mind that I have never uttered a single word about Barack Obama that could be interpreted as a racial slur. None of that matters.  I disagree with President Obama's politics, therefore, I must be a racist.

I didn't hear that same argument used when Hillary Clinton tried to push what was essentially the same health care proposal when husband Bill was President.  Why is that?

"Well -- she's not black.  That's the point!  She isn't black, but we all opposed her version of health care reform then for the very same reasons we oppose Obama's bill today.  Because it's a bad bill. 

"Yeah, but she wasn't black,"  so opposition then was okay, except of course if you opposed it because she was a woman.  Uh?!  Did these people have to learn to be stupid, or were they just born that way!  It's the issue, stupid!  Then and now.

Charges of racism are used today by people who want to distract from the main issues because they have no answer to the objections raised by opponents of the President's policies.  They get away with it, because they know that there are people so anxious to avoid the charge of being racist that they will do anything, up to and including selling out their own values, to avoid being accused of racism.

I've gotta tell ya, this nonsense has now gone beyond being ridiculous, and if it continues, it will come back to bite those who use race as an issue.  So to the honest and reasonable men and women of color I say, "Please, try to talk some sense into those of your neighbors who are too quick to play the race card after 50 years of good progress in race relations. This nonsense can only hurt the cause of better race relations."  I will do the same in my community

Or is that what they actually want?  Yes . . . it may be, because if race is no longer recognized as a factor in human relations, those people who use race to gain a political or social advantage will no longer have that card to play, leaving them with nothing to sell and no one to cast a shadow of guilt upon.  When that happens, there won't be any reason for anyone to put them in power.

What do you think the reason for accusations of racism are?

In their many tens of thousands they came.  They came from Washington D.C., Maryland and Virginia, from Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, from Utah, Wyoming, and Montana, from Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, from Florida, New York, and Tennessee, and from a host of other States to protest "an overstuffed government."  They were part of a loose-knit movement that is galvanizing anti-Obama sentiment across the country.  They came shouting, "You want socialism?  Go to Russia."  They came carrying home made signs reading things like 

1. Don't Tread on Me
2. Liar, Liar, Liar
3. Preserve, Protect, Defend
4. We Own the Dome
5. How Is That Hopey Changey Thing Workin' Out For Ya?
6. Socialism is UnAmerican
7. King George Didn't Listen Either.
8. Terrorists Won't Destroy America, Congress Will!
9. Where's the birth certificate
10. We Came Unarmed From  . . . This Time!
11. '08 Was A Mistake 
12. And the now familiar poster of Obama made up to look like the Joker

In recent weeks, Democrats have repeatedly said that rallies like this, and other protests in recent months, "represent a small minority" of voters.  Saturday's "Tea Party" should show anyone with an eye to see and an ear to hear that that isn't the case.  This is very much a grass roots protest, not just over proposed health care reform, but against cap 'n' trade, high taxes, gun control, bail outs, big government take over of business, a stimulus package that enriches the rich, dismantling of the free enterprise system, and in general, meddling in the lives of the individual.

Their very numbers and diversity show that this is not a "relatively small" minority group, and that for all his ability to campaign and sway an audience, his speech before the joint members of Congress this past Wednesday has done little to persuade America that he has a better way.  He clearly has the wrong message for the wrong people at the wrong time.

America, this is a most dangerous time for us.  Only seven and one-half months into Barack Obama's term of office millions of people want to be rid of him and his politics, because this government has shown no signs of caring anything about what the people want.  Some of our Senators and Representatives have called the loyal opposition racist and have compared protesters to brown shirts and likened them to Nazis.  (It seems to be alright if they do it to those they oppose, but not when their own tactics are used against them.)

Obama himself seems to think that just because he is the President he can have anything he wants.  Even now, in the face of massive opposition, he has not yet realized that this is just not true, as demonstrated by his statement to Congress last week when he said he will never backdown on the issues important to him.  (What about what's important to the people he was elected to serve?)  This along with his letting Congress run away with the legislative process demonstrates his complete lack of administrative skill and ability. 

Through inattention and a lack of awareness, we have allowed a significant number of egalitarian marxists to gain very high and powerful positions in our nation's ruling political bodies.  Their mission in life is to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of our capitalist way of life in favor of a socialistic one and the creation of a modern proletariat where they themselves can dictate what is good for whom and how we shall live.

Yes, it is a dangerous time, so stay cool, but be vigilant in the face of a defiant government.   Let the States declare their support for States Rights, and let them follow through as necessary.  Continue to peacefully protest, and let the ballot box and the recall vote be used to rid ourselves of oppressive leaders and legislators.

I still remember, and I am still outraged at the atrocity committed by Osama Bin Laden on Sept 11, 2001.  And I am furious at the lack of cooperation we have gotten from Pakistan in finding this vermin.  It just boggles my mind to think that he remains free. Here's a guy who, in addition to the September 11 World Trade Center bombings, has:

• Arranged the bombing of a hotel where American GIs stayed in December 1992
• Approved a plan to assassinate Pope John Paul II on January 15th 1995
• Formulated a plan to crash an airliner into the CIA headquarters on January 21, 1995
• Approved a plan to blow up 11 international airplanes on Jan 21 and 22, 1995
• Directed the bombing of two American Embassy buildings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998
• Financed the attack on the USS Cole while in harbor in 2000 and handpicked the bombers
• Financed the Bali bombing in October 12, 2002
• Blew up the Marriott Hotel on August 5, 2003 in South Jakarta, Indonesia
• Approved the Madrid train bombing in 2004
• Approved the London Subway and bus bombings in 2005

Thousands have died because of this man.  He has openly declared war on the United States; he has advocated killing all Americans wherever they may be found; and yet we are no closer to catching him today than we were eight years ago.  There is no excuse for this situation.  If our leaders are too timid to do what it takes, then we need to find someone who can. 

Pay a professional hit man if necessary, squeeze Pakistan until it hurts, and tear it down brick by brick it if necessary.  Tear up its villages, its cities, and its hills, but find this guy, flush him out, kill him, drag his body through the dusty streets, then put his head on a pike in the middle of downtown Kabul and televise it as proof that he is dead.  D.E.A.D.   Dead!  And damn those who worry about making him a martyr.

If it sounds like I would be willing to plunge the world into war to get this guy, you are right.  Never have I wanted to see one man hang as much as I want to see this man taken down.  I want him to feel and experience my anger and my rage.  For me, nothing is too great to risk -- no price too high to pay -- to get him, so if you're squeamish, be thankful that I'm not running the show.

The President said last night that his health care bill does not provide for a 'death panel' and that the bill will not cost anything but will be paid for through elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse in the current systems, i.e. medicare and medicaid.

It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the term "death panel" was ever used, because when taken literally the President is right, there is nothing in the bill calling for the establishment of a "death panel," and the idea is too outrageous to be believed.  And proponents of the bill use a literal interpretation of the term to try to run down and mock the bill's opponents.

However, the term "death panel" was never intended to be taken literally.  It was intended to point out that when the government attempts to cut costs as part of the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse, someone has to sit down and decide just what needs to be cut.  Usually this boils down to elimination of redundant procedures and those which cannot have a lasting benefit.  Why pay for two sets of xrays, when one set should be sufficient.  Why pay for two EKGs when one should be sufficient.  Etc.  And so they draft regulations to eliminate payment for the extra procedures.

Sounds good, but let me ask you what will happen if an irregular heart beat does not show up on an initial EKG, or a patient should move at a critical moment resulting in a slightly blurred xray that fails to reveal a tumor?  With regulations to prevent payment for additional procedures to help clarify the situation, hospitals and doctors are left with only two choices: don't do the procedure that could end up saving a life, or do the procedure and worry about the payment later.  If they take the second option, they must fight a long and protracted battle with low-level government clerks who are not authorized to make exceptions because they aren't qualified to decide when such procedures were really necessary and when they weren't.  The only other option would be to hope the patient can pay for it. 

Clearly, the easiest way out of this dilemma is to not do the extra procedure and hope for the best.  And that choice is made easier because the doctor and hospital are legally covered and can't be sued.  All they have to do is point to the regulation, and say sorry, but the patient was not entitled to an extra set of xrays. 

No one has been empaneled to sit in judgment on grandma, but grandma is still dead because well intentioned government regulation to eliminate waste and fraud has done the job just as if there had been such a panel.  Of course, when grandma does die as a result of not getting that extra xray or EKG, there will be additional savings resulting from not having to fund any more treatments for her -- ever.  Unfortunately, that aspect of the reduction in waste, fraud, and abuse, hasn't kept the Canadian and British health care systems solvent.  Those systems are in a world of financial hurt and are looking for more ways to make cuts.

My friends, if waste, fraud, and abuse were so easy to get rid of, don't you think that the government, which has known about this for many years, would have already done so.  And it wouldn't take a new health care bureaucracy to do it.

As for the 30 million uninsured, or whatever today's number is, it must be clear that it would be cheaper to simply tack an additional $5 dollars onto each federal income tax return each year to pay for their insurance than to put the entire nation's system in jeopardy.  200 million tax payers paying an extra $5 in tax each year will result in $1 billion dollars annually to cover the cost of insuring the uninsured.  Over 10 years, that's $10 billion dollars -- a lot less that the 900 billion the President is talking about.  If we each kick in an extra $10 each year that doubles the take to $2 billion annually and $20 billion in ten years.  It's still a bargain.  So why does the government insist that we need to create a whole new bureaucracy?

And speaking of things digital, there is a story in the Boston Globe about the Cushing Academy doing away with its library of hardback and paperback books in favor of a digital library.

"This year, after having amassed a collection of more than 20,000 books, officials at the pristine campus about 90 minutes west of Boston have decided the 144-year-old school no longer needs a traditional library."  The academy's administrators have already given away more than half of it's library holdings.  They intend to replace them with an assortment of electronic book readers.  The article specifically mentions Amazon's Kindle and a counterpart made by Sony.  Others may follow.  They see the future as digital.

“When I look at books, I see an outdated technology, like scrolls before books,’’ said James Tracy, headmaster of Cushing and chief promoter of the bookless campus.  He believes that the "old pulpy devices that have transmitted information since Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1400s" limit the size of the library and how many people it can serve.  He intends to replace the 20,000 paper books with more than a million ebooks.

Of course not everyone on the campus is in favor of this change, but the administration says that the books aren't being used often enough to justify the expense of keeping them around.  And many students say that while they use the library as a quiet place where they can study, they almost never browse the book stacks.

Is this the beginning of a new trend?

With the advent of the digital age, people are acquiring more and more technology for use when they are on the move.  And it follows from this that people will lose more and more of their personal, mobile devices.  At first, folks just accepted that the stuff was gone; they kicked themselves for being so stupid as to walk away and leave their stuff somewhere, and moved on with their lives, replacing their devices as necessary.

But now a new trend is developing.  Instead of admitting that they left their iPhone on the bus, in the park, or on the plane, they are now reporting these items to the manufacturer as being stolen, and they are getting downright nasty when the manufacturer will not help them locate their "stolen" devices. 

People don't understand why AT&T won't help them.  After all, they reason, with AT&T's network, the company can precisely locate their iPhone as soon as it is turned on.  Likewise with the Amazon Kindle.  As soon as someone registers it, Amazon knows who has the device and where it is.  So why can't the manufacturer's help recover these items?

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as one, two, three, and it starts with the fact that the police all across the country do not consider these kinds of things as being stolen, unless they were taken in the course of stealing a car, burglarizing a home, or during an armed robbery.  (If they did, at best it would be considered petty theft and not pursued).  In all other cases, these items are considered to have been lost by the owner, and it is the owner's responsibility to find their own property.  Better yet, they need to learn how to hang onto it from the beginning.

Second, since the property is not considered stolen without an official police report and a warrant, the manufacturers or service providers can not compromise another customer's privacy by telling you who has the property, so that you can go get it.   That would violate company privacy policies and, in some cases, public law.  Besides, as O.J. Simpson has learned, you can not just go into your neighbor's home and simply take something because you claim that it is yours.  If an official investigation is undertaken by the police, companies will cooperate with those agencies.

OK.  Well why, then, can't the manufacturer just remotely disable the device when whoever has it tries to use it?

A fair question, but also not something that will satisfy all concerned.  Consider this, for example: you lose your cell phone and report it lost.  You ask the service provider to disable the phone so the person who finds it can not use it.  Then, a week later, you found where you misplaced your phone.  Having been turned into a doorstop by the phone company, at your request, it no longer works, so you call the company and try to explain that it was all a misunderstanding and would they please reactivate the phone.

How does the phone company know that you are the rightful owner?  How much background checking is the phone company required to do to verify that you are who you say you are?  What if the caller is really just a friend who knows something about you and can answer the right questions?  If the phone company reactivates the phone and you start getting billed again, what is their liability if it should then be proved that the person who had the phone reactivated was not authorized to do so?

So why can't they just turn it into a doorstop and leave it that way forever?  I guess they could, but as a legitimate owner who has been lucky enough to recover your phone, you would most likely not take to kindly to them refusing to reactivate it.  In fact, I suspect you would probably be just as mad at them as you were when they refused to deactivate it.  The company is between a rock and a hard place; it's damned if they do and dammed if they don't.

And then, of course, there is always the disgruntled, soon to be ex with whom you shared an account so you could both use your Kindles for the price of one.  What happens when your soon to be ex calls Amazon and out of spite reports your kindle as lost or stolen and requests that it be deactivated, all without your prior knowledge, of course.  You aren't too happy, but how does Amazon know who the account really belongs to.  They can sympathize, but they can't reactivate your Kindle without running the risk of a law suit by the other party to the account.  Amazon is screwed again.

So here it is.  Companies like Amazon and AT&T are not enforcement agencies.  They can not know simply on your say so that any item was actually stolen.  Short of a warrant and a police request for assistance, they can do nothing.  It's a difficult pill to swallow, knowing that someone else is going to be enjoying your electronic equipment, but right now the best you can do is admit that you lost your device, accept responsibility, make sure your account can't be billed for any further usage, be upset for a while, and then move on with your life.

EDIT:  If you wish, you can take advantage of the service offered by TrackItBack.  For a modest fee, they may help you recover your stuff.  They claim an 85% recovery rate.