I just can't look at the former President without thinking of him concerned about the definition of "is" and the fact that he "did not have sex with that woman." I just can't imagine that anyone would ask that man to participate in a campaign when everyone knows full well that unless he is under oath (and even then one can't be sure) that he has a lot of trouble with telling the truth.
I don't know enough about subconscious thought or subliminal suggestions, but it would seem to me that any candidate would want someone of good character, integrity and at least a modicum of honor to speak for and ask for support. Hmmm, maybe it's because the choices for believable former and present Dem Presidents is so limited....
Read a short piece written by a surgeon who has been helping out in Haiti both immediately after and periodically since the earthquake. After such a horrendous experience and given that it's not the first time that island has suffered a disaster, I started wondering what it is about the human race that pushes us to keep "returning to the scene of the crime." I mean, rebuilding after a flood, or a forest fire or a hurricane or even a volcano.
Is it because we all deep down enjoy the excitement? Or might it be a simple trade off of risk vs the sheer beauty of a location and joy at being able to wake up every day looking at a picture post card scene? The next thought was wondering if that mindset is similar to the one which leads some folks to vote for a government which takes away freedoms in exchange for security? Does it seem that these two positions are so opposite as to be a comment on the gamut of emotions between risk and security? Those of us who consider ourselves somewhere in the middle look at the extremes and mutter, "Go figure."
It looks as though Obama is trying to convince people that his health care plan is a positive and one of the issues being talked about this week is the one allowing folks to keep their kids on their insurance plan until age 26. I called a couple of companies but of course they wouldn't commit to an actual number (I had seen $3000 as the average cost for such coverage) but it was frustrating for me when they said that of course this was not going to be free coverage, but couldn't explain why the insurance companies weren't clarifying the fact.
Have you heard anyone at all indicate that there will be a cost for this benefit? If you did, I'm sure it was in the small print or an afterthought. Just another example of a half truth. It seems pretty obvious that the public has already made up their minds and the polls are not changing. Too little, too late, Mr. President.
When Ms. Pelosi said we had to pass the bill to see what was in it, apparently she spoke the truth. All the warnings were accurate.
Had a request on how to make a comment. When this is posted, I will click on the pencil and at that point if memory serves, a screen will appear, you can choose any name you want, and follow the prompts. I'll give it a try. It's been a long time.
Sorry I'm a day late, have my husband in the cardiac unit at the local hospital. He rec'd 3 stents and I'm bringing him home tomorrow.