Monthly Archives: January 2011

Denton, Texas: A model for other towns, large and small, to keep energy costs down.

January 30, 2011

Having noticed several months ago that my hometown of Denton, north of Dallas-Ft.Worth has the distinction “of being the city with the most wind power per capita in the country” made this energy and climate hawk a bit proud, in a state where my more Progressive views are often over shadowed by red-state rhetoric. However, not even the conservative population that predominates here can argue against the fact that their home district has overall lower electric rates than some of their big city neighbors; thanks in large part to a “green” approach by their utility supplier, Denton Municipal Electric (DME), to find and utilize renewable sources of energy and programs that reduce consumption.

It’s hard to argue with Denton’s efforts to contain and even reduce electrical rates for homeowners and businesses. Currently they are in a fight to keep their costs down in one area where the energy source is not renewable, clean energy. Approximately 20% of DMEs energy comes from the Gibbons Creek coal plant in Carlos, Texas located between College Station and Huntsville. The coal is being transported 1400 miles from Wyoming and the railroad transporter based out of Ft. Worth, BNSF Railway, wants to increase their rates that would add approximately $4 extra dollars a month to each customer’s bill.

In a day and age where climate deniers and opponents of renewable energy tout cheap coal prices, this indirect increase as a result of transportation costs highlights the problem of any continued use of this dirtier source of energy. Not only does the Gibbons Creek plant add an additional 2231 tons of nitrous oxide into our air but the energy expended bringing the coal in from Wyoming adds to this pollutant that scientist are saying not only has an impact on the public’s general health but impacts climate changes resulting from a damaged ozone layer in our stratosphere.

As I noted in a piece back in January entitled “Who Needs an Ozone Layer?”, Ozone (O3) is a molecule made up of 3 atoms. Unlike it’s cousin O2 that is essential for life on the planet Ozone is much less stable and can pose a threat to inhabitants at ground level. However, when found in the upper atmosphere it benefits humans and all animal and plant species by serving as a barrier to protect us against excessive solar UV rays. It is mostly the results of the sun’s UV rays combining with O2 in our stratosphere but when found closer to earth it develops when sun light reacts with air containing hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Though always present even before the Industrial revolution it now exists in higher concentrations than historical records reveal.

Ozone only makes up 0.00006% of the earth’s atmosphere but it’s utility to prevent catastrophic conditions on earth make it a vital natural barrier to preserve our ecosystem and by default, our very way of life. The fear three decades ago was that the man-made green house gases (GHGs) of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from aerosol cans and freon then being used for cooling units in our homes, cars and refrigerators were literally burrowing a hole in the Ozone layer, allowing excessive UV rays to reach earth’s surface and amplifying global warming conditions around the planet. This amplified heat in turn breaks down Ozone in the atmosphere, further reducing it’s solar reflective abilities needed to sustain life here.

Thus the need to reduce toxic pollutants that contaminate our air and water and threaten human and animal life is a target that the City of Denton has taken aim at. Their use of wind energy seeks to supply up to 40% of the electrical power to the community by purchasing the renewable source from the “Florida-based NextEra Energy Resources LLC, which owns and operates more than 8,000 energy turbines in 16 states and Canada, including the Wolf Ridge wind farm near Muenster” according to DME spokeswoman Lisa Lemmons.

Ms. Lemmons also described other benefits to their programs in an article published recently in the local Denton Record-Chronicle. “The city … has a power-purchase agreement with DTE Energy to take 1.6 megawatts from its landfill-gas-to-energy project at the Denton landfill. The project has the capacity to triple its energy production as the quality and capacity of methane gas increases over time, she said.

DME’s GreenSense energy efficiency program includes rebates of up to $15,000 for people who install solar panels on their homes or businesses.” Add this to a current 30% IRS energy tax credit for solar investments and not only are overall expenses cut by 2/3’s but the out of pocket pay back period for customers is significantly reduced from the current average of 10 years.

These solar panels not only save consumers money on their electric bill but they also put energy back into the grid helping keep general costs lower for everybody. What currently is installed in Denton has “added about 57 kilowatts of solar energy to DME’s electric system”, according to Ms.Lemmon.

With a Congress unwilling to deal with an effective energy policy that seeks out cheaper, renewal energy sources over oil, coal and natural gas it falls on the states and local communities to address their needs for reliable sources of energy that can carry them well into the 21st century. Denton stands as a model on how to achieve this for any and all who are serious about keeping energy costs down instead of waiting for the federal government to act.

CO2: Friend and Foe

Posted by lbwoodgate in Climate Science/Global Warming, Energy, Texas/Local stories Tags: BNSF Railway, Chlorofluorocarbon, Denton Record-Chronicle, Energy, lower utility rates, Ozone layer, Renewable energy, Technology, wind and solar power

3 comments

FIXING HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS

January 29, 2011

Making Them More Attractive for Lower Income Working People

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) were set up as a part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 and are supposed to serve as a low-cost alternative to health insurance premiums for a large segment of the population, especially those considered high risk health problems for insurers, such as the elderly.

These are accounts where you can deposit tax-deferred funds for the sole purpose of covering any medical expenses you may incur. You will only be taxed on any withdrawals if the money is used for anything other than medical needs covered under the law. This coverage is available to most people even if you already have a health insurance policy, provided that the deductible on that policy is not less than $1000.

This Medicare Prescription Drug legislation passed with full support from the Bush White House and the Republican majorities at the time. It struck me odd that as much as Republicans today have fought tooth and nail against any and all health care reform under the current Obama administration that they would create legislation that was intended to keep health care costs down. And though HSAs do serve this purpose, a closer look reveals that there is a hook that comes with them that might explain why Republicans (and many Democrats) were on board with this so easily.

By investing in these accounts as opposed to buying a standard health insurance policy, it was intended that people wouldn’t “needlessly” see their doctor if they are spending their own money. Employees whose employer provides health coverage benefits tend to see health care providers more frequently than those whose health care costs come completely out of their own pocket. HSA’s do allow individuals to negotiate prices with physicians, hospitals and other health care providers to keep costs low, just as the health insurance companies do, making HSAs seemingly a neat way to cut out the middleman – insurance companies.

But here’s where the hook comes in. Health Insurance companies appear to have managed to get a piece of this so-called lower cost alternative via a requirement in the legislation that mandates all HSA accounts must include a high-deductible health plan (HDHP), a form of catastrophic coverage that covers more serious health issues that could land you in the hospitals for days, weeks or months and as a result, could affect your employment status.

Unless you have a pre-existing condition many people are eligible for HDHP policies (The pre-existing condition is scheduled to go away in 2014 when the new reform legislation under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act kicks in). The premiums are reasonably low IF you are in good health but the plan will have deductibles no lower than $1,150 for individuals, $2,300 for families and not to exceed $2850 for individuals and $5650 for families.

This arrangement doesn’t truly benefit most working families whose income is slightly above and below the national poverty level and whose health conditions may be less than stellar. When premiums are averaging out around $300-$500 a month it is hard for low income families and individuals new to the workforce to pay into these HDHPs while also making significant contributions to their HSAs.

Considering that from time to time you will have to make withdrawals from an HSA when you or the kids need to make a doctor visit for minor illnesses or check-ups, what small amounts you are able to contribute monthly can be negated by such routine factors. One finding showed that “42 percent of HSA holders had under $500 in their accounts at the end of 2009″ while some 31% had on average 4 times that much indicating that higher income groups are more apt to put money away in an HSA than lower income families. (BNET, Health Savings Accounts Are Becoming a Big Investment Business, By Ken Terry, 5/26/2010)

Insufficient funds in your HSA becomes a problem if you cannot reach your deductible amounts in those HDHP policies you were required to buy before a serious illness requires withdrawing it. Building up enough in a timely manner to cover deductibles is extremely difficult for people hovering around the poverty levels in this country as issues arise requiring periodic withdrawals for non-emergency medical problems and economic conditions that prevent them from making routine contributions each month. “Statistics show that on average most people withdraw half of what they put into their HSA each year.” (Generation X Finance, Health Savings Account (HSA) Basics, 6/15/2010)

There is a remedy for this however provided we can get our representatives in Congress to detach themselves enough from the health insurance industry to make it happen. As it stands now the health insurance industry profits considerably the way the law is written regarding HSAs. Even though this is your money being set aside for strictly medical expenses, you are still required to purchase a high-deductible health plan in order to qualify for these tax-deferred accounts.

The HDHP policy makes good sense because no one, except those in a select few upper incomes, can fully pay the expense of a catastrophic illness. However, most people make incomes that struggle to provide other essentials for them and their families and putting money into a health savings account AND pay a monthly premium on an HDHP policy may not be feasible.

The practical realities of allowing people to open tax-deferred HSAs at their local bank without being required to pay monthly premiums for a high-deductible health plan not only allows a better choice that frees them from mandatory payments towards that HDHP but also allows the transfer of a consumer’s money to institutions that are more familiar and friendly to them.

Eliminating these HDHPs will create fierce resistance from the health insurance lobby and their allies in Congress. But a suitable compromise that may persuade many of our representatives in such a fight to defend this change would be the requirement that once an individual’s HSA account has reached a level equivalent to the standard deductible most health insurance companies require, then consumers could be required to purchase catastrophic coverage with an HDHP policy.

Older people would benefit better from this arrangement even though their premiums for HDHP policies will be higher than younger people. Usually more mature, pre-retirement individuals have an income or source of revenue that could pay the higher premiums and meet most deductible limits quicker than younger men and women entering the job market out of high school or college.

The law as it stands now needs to be changed to remedy the disadvantages to certain segments of income earners. Eliminating the mandate to purchase catastrophic health coverage in order to open an HSA account until the consumer’s financial circumstances can better allow for it would make affordable health care more available to more Americans. Also, making it easy for such tax-deferred accounts to be available in all local banks would keep revenues local, adding an extra benefit to each community.

HSA’s are popular with GOP representatives as an alternative to most of what is currently in the health care reform bill the House just repealed. They have offered no substitute to replace it but HSAs, with this modification, would be an acceptable element in any program they might eventually offer.

RESOURCES:

Workers’ Health Coverage Worse Off

Health Savings Accounts Are Becoming a Big Investment Business

Health Savings Account Answers

Wikipedia – High-deductible health plan

Posted by lbwoodgate in Health Care Reform, seniors/aging Tags: HDHP, Health care, Health savings account, healthinsurance, High-deductible health plan, Insurance, Insurance policy, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

3 comments

Mubarak’s Mistake

January 29, 2011

What can other nations take from corruptible and repressive government actions similar to Egypt’s to prevent civil unrest that could lead to chaos?

Seeing the pictures of Egyptians protestors fire-bombing buildings and police vehicles is anathema to what civilized people refer to as peaceful protests and there is a tendency to condemn such actions by some before fulling grasping the historical conditions that have brought the people out into the streets in Cairo, Alexandria and Suez.

For years there have been routine police, judicial and human rights abuses by Egyptian authorities that many around the world never see. Thus when police were sent out to address the swelling crowds of protestors the worst thing they could have done was to exhibit some of this repressive behavior under these very public circumstances. This attitude was displayed by Interior Minister Habib Adly who warned that “the security agencies are able to stop any attempt to attend” the demonstrations and called the efforts of the “youth staging street protests ineffective”, according to an interview released Tuesday with state-run al-Ahram newspaper. (3 dead after thousands protest in rare Egypt outpouring, by Ben Wedeman and Amir Ahmed, CNN, 1/26/11)

The reactionary steps by those who are supposed to “serve and protect” alienated them from the people. Water-hosing and tear-gassing crowds of boisterous protestors was a big mis-step on the part of the Mubarak administration. Once this course of action is taken violence on the part of protestors who are familiar with the police’s record of brutality is destined to escalate.

No doubt Mubarak felt justified to take action against these crowds because it was perhaps suspected by him that radical elements like the Muslim Brotherhood were inciting these protests. But this over-reaction is the fault of a government that has stayed out of touch with its legitimate citizenry and seems more concerned about staying in power.

The minor reforms that the Egyptian government have provided over the years have done little to break the pattern of corruption within their ranks. Faced with growing unrest from economic conditions in Egypt, it is no wonder that what seemed like a contained scenario in one of the more U.S.-friendly nations in the middle east blew apart shortly following similar unrest in nearby Tunisia.

When non-violent protests occurred in parts of the U.S. in 2009 by a rising Tea Party movement there was no intent of the police in these locales to do anything more than to ensure that any rogue elements that might arise respected human and property rights. We have laws that prevent police from imposing Marshall law style tactics against citizens who assemble to protest their government’s actions.

Not since Chicago in 1968 and the Kent State shootings in 1970 have authorities stepped over the limit to quell uprisings they viewed as politically unacceptable.

Lessons were taken from these tragic mis-steps that prevented a repeat when later war protests and anti-government crowds convened to vent their frustrations in various venues around the country since those years. There have been some arrests at times by police that have pushed the envelope when it comes to violating one’s civil rights. However such actions usually follow behavior from protestors who have stepped over a line, for a good cause or not, when their actions have violated accepted norms for peaceable protests or threatened human injury to some and property damage to others.

The right to peaceably assemble means just that. Shout all you want and parade up and down the streets but once a protest march turns into a mob that disregards the rights and property of others, civil societies expect the police to step in. The key here is to avoid zealous authorities to over-react and engage protestors that could in fact incite a disregard for innocent bystanders and property. Such seems to have been the case in Egypt and the consequences now have created a disdain for Mubarak and his government and support for the protestors, despite their damaging retaliatory strikes on police and public offices.

Let’s hope that someone like Nobel Peace laureate Mohamed ElBaradei steps up and prevents the legitimate protests from devolving into angry riots and thus robbing the movement for reform the legitimacy they have earned. The last thing Egypt or anyone wants is a total melt-down where there is no authority; allowing both criminal and radical elements to create further abuses on a public that is unprepared to deal with such destructive consequences.

Other nations in the middle east and around the globe need to take notice of Mubarak’s mistake, especially those regimes where repressive measures are used to hold onto power and the vote is denied citizens. The economic hard times that have hit global communities spur unrest. Failure for any government to recognize and act on this is inviting not only protests but violence that could worsen the socio-economic fabric of a nation, creating greater chaos that will make them susceptible to exploitation by bad elements within.

Posted by lbwoodgate in People Tags: civil rights, Egypt, Egyptians, Hosni Mubarak, Human rights, Mohamed ElBaradei, Muslim Brotherhood, Politics of Egypt

3 comments

Recalling George Harrison’s Part in “End of the Line”

January 28, 2011

I took this years ago at Wembley, George is si...

Image via Wikipedia

Driving down the road the other day with my radio on I heard an old tune by the Traveling Wilburys in which George Harrison was a part of, along with Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, Jeff Lynne and Roy Orbison. I hadn’t heard it in a while and when I did, Harrison’s voice seemed to stick out.

I listened to the words again and I thought how appropriate, not only for these times but all times. So I thought I would share them here. I’ve attached the You Tube video of the version at the bottom of the page and the lyrics are just below.

Well it’s all right, riding around in the breeze

Well it’s all right, if you live the life you please

Well it’s all right, doing the best you can

Well it’s all right, as long as you lend a hand

You can sit around and wait for the phone to ring (End of the Line)

Waiting for someone to tell you everything (End of the Line)

Sit around and wonder what tomorrow will bring (End of the Line)

Maybe a diamond ring

Well it’s all right, even if they say you’re wrong

Well it’s all right, sometimes you gotta be strong

Well it’s all right, As long as you got somewhere to lay

Well it’s all right, everyday is Judgment Day

Maybe somewhere down the road aways (End of the Line)

You’ll think of me, wonder where I am these days (End of the Line)

Maybe somewhere down the road when somebody plays (End of the Line)

Purple haze

Well it’s all right, even when push comes to shove

Well it’s all right, if you got someone to love

Well it’s all right, everything’ll work out fine

Well it’s all right, we’re going to the end of the line

Don’t have to be ashamed of the car I drive (End of the Line)

I’m glad to be here, happy to be alive (End of the Line)

It don’t matter if you’re by my side (End of the Line)

I’m satisfied

Well it’s all right, even if you’re old and gray

Well it’s all right, you still got something to say

Well it’s all right, remember to live and let live

Well it’s all right, the best you can do is forgive

Well it’s all right, riding around in the breeze

Well it’s all right, if you live the life you please

Well it’s all right, even if the sun don’t shine

Well it’s all right, we’re going to the end of the line

Posted by lbwoodgate in Music, People Tags: Bob Dylan, End of the Line, George Harrison, Harrison, Jeff Lynne, Roy Orbison, Tom Petty, Traveling Wilburys

3 comments

Active Euthanasia – Dying with Dignity

January 28, 2011

For some, the thought of dying begins to creep into our train of thought almost daily when we reach retirement age. That we are naturally nearer to it than at any other time becomes even more evident as we catch ourselves reviewing the obituaries and see people our age and younger passing away. It’s a disconcerting reflection we have that the earth will one day reclaim us, but for a growing few, Walt Whitman’s perception is most valid; “Nothing can happen more beautiful than death.” Whitman’s romantic take on dying appeals to many aged and physically handicapped people whose current state is that death would indeed be a release from their living hell on earth as they see it and earnestly desire to end their own life with dignity.

If free will exists, as many religious faiths believe, then it would be a given that God allows all things to occur by free will, including the deaths of innocent victims caught up in mankind’s social, religious and political agendas. One can’t argue that bad things happen to good people because it is God’s unfathomable will and then turn around and restrict the free will of people whose actions hurt no one except perhaps themselves.

Many have chosen to take their own lives for reasons incomprehensible to those who remain but there are also those who wish life to cease as they know it for very apparent reasons. How is God NOT involved in these isolated incidences but involved with human deaths from tragedies everyday? Can society rule that ending a life that has taken a life is the will of God anymore than they can say it’s not God’s will to allow a rape victim to terminate an unwanted pregnancy or a suicide of one suffering immeasurable pain?

Devoutly religious people often wrestle with the notion of ending their life that’s in severe pain and the belief that only God has the right to cut life short. For them to decide to stop the enduring pain of a disease that medical science offers no relief for can be an agonizing challenge for them. But the decision can also run afoul of our social taboos on suicide and euthanasia, making a difficult decision even more so.

This dilemma has recently been personified by one Lawrence Egbert who is currently charged in the states of Georgia and Arizona for assisting in the suicides of two people in those states. The case has been under review in a Georgia county court and could ultimately wound up in the state’s Supreme Court.

According to a Newsweek article on Egbert by Sarah Kliff and Arian Campo-Flores (3/15/10), “Supporters hail him as a hero who offers the sick a measure of autonomy. Critics denounce him as a killer who assumes God-like powers and prods desperate people to their deaths.” But the argument of assuming God-like powers could be turned on those doctors as people who assume God-like powers to sustain a life where it would not otherwise survive but for their actions.

Obviously saving lives and preventing death by medical professionals is desirable with younger and healthier people who face life-threatening conditions not of their own free will. But don’t older people whose quality of life has passed and those who suffer unspeakable pain from disease or deformity have not only the right to refuse such “God-like” intervention, as is the case in most states, but be allowed to end their life by their own hand?

Dr. Egbert, founder of the right-to-die organization, Final Exit Network (FEN), its medical director and a former anesthesiologist, is being depicted by many as the new Dr. Death, replacing Dr. Jack Kevorkian of this dark label, who went to prison years back for one of his many assisted suicides. But unlike Kevorkian, Egbert or any who voluntarily assist with FEN are actually not present to assist the individual who has chosen to end their life. Egbert’s credo, found on his website at www.finalexitnetwork.org states that “mentally competent adults have a basic human right to end their lives when they suffer from a fatal or irreversible illness or intractable pain, when their quality of life is personally unacceptable, and the future holds only hopelessness and misery.”

FEN is there as a source of information to guide people to end their lives who so choose but only after they have been rigorously interviewed and met strict criteria that prevents just anyone ending their life who is feeling “blue” on any given day. According to the web-site, “safeguards are in place to ensure that the person’s decision is voluntary and repeatedly stated.” Specific details can be found on their “Exit Guide Program Criteria” link.

Dr. Egbert is also dedicated to raising awareness to what he feels is a basic human right, much like civil rights, women’s suffrage and the rights of the disabled. The stigma associated with suicides is a prevailing state of mind in most cultures, especially for those who dread the loss of someone close to them. Those who remain behind not only suffer emotionally but are often adherents to the dogma of their religious faiths that teach about there being no good reward in the hereafter for people who take their own life. This becomes another gray area for many when such rigid perceptions are challenged by events where terminally ill patients elect to refuse medical treatment (known as passive euthanasia), or parents give their life for their children, or the soldier who throws himself/herself on the exploding grenade to save their compatriots.

The right-to-die issue appears to be growing around the world too, perhaps because more people are facing the inevitability of death as the baby-boom generation prepares to embark on what Hobbes called the “last voyage, a great leap in the dark.” When four FEN volunteers were arrested in a raid in February, 2009 many outsiders came to their financial aid and also offered emotional support.

Image via Wikipedia

Derek Humphry, FEN’s Advisory Board Chair noted on their web-site that “a total of $130,000 was raised, even though contributions were not tax-deductible.” It was more than enough to clear their legal debts that arose from charges in Georgia.

Despite the fact that the federal government prohibits the use of federal funding for doctor assisted suicides under the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, Washington and Oregon have right-to-die legislation that includes physician assisted suicide while other states like Montana reviewing current laws that prohibit it. However unless you are a resident of a state or a foreign country that allows doctor assisted suicide you will not be allowed to go there for that intent if you remain a citizen elsewhere. The exception to this is an organization in Switzerland known as Dignitas.

This organization was the topic of discussion for a PBS Frontline program last year entitled, “The Suicide Tourist”. It documented the gut-wrenching last days of Craig Ewert as he and his wife went through the process of assisted suicide. Interviews with the children and the people involved at Dignitas gave a broad perspective on what is involved in the only place where most people can currently go to die with dignity without a residency requirement. Craig had ALS, better known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, where all organs and motor skills shut down, leaving people completely dependent on others to assist them with the most basic of bodily functions.

The ultimate and painful result of the disease is the suffocation a patient experiences as their lungs give out. Craig made the decision to go to Dignitas before it was too late for the remaining part of his body, the ability to sip fluids through a straw, was denied him from this disease. As a part of the process at Dignitas, the client had to actuate the means by which they would die. For Mr. Ewert, it was taking in a toxic concoction that a physician with Dignitas had put together for him.

Life is a precious gift and when we see it starting to leave us we all are reluctant to allow the inevitable to occur. But after we have gone through Kubler-Ross’ stages of denial we make peace with ourselves and those we leave behind. For those who so choose death by passive euthanasia the legal hurdles do not exist and are often fortunate that death comes quickly once their fate has been determined by the medical profession. But for the thousands who must endure anguish and unbearable physical pain before death comes knocking there is only suffering heaped on the knowledge that it gets worse each day.

For those of us who have witnessed the civil rights movements in the 60′s, women breaking the glass barriers in the ’80s and communist countries crashing down following the removal of the Berlin wall just two decades ago, the right-to-die movement is viewed as a part of the spirit of that personal freedom these earlier movements evoked.

The value of life isn’t based entirely on efforts to preserve it. If that were an absolute there would be greater efforts to avoid wars, death penalties would not exist and the civilized world would have joined as one to fight the forces of evil in Darfur, Rwanda and all other known areas where genocide occurred and continues to occur around the world. But the value of life does include heroic efforts to preserve it where we can and have. What we have a hard time facing is coming to grips with our sense of life lost apart from less dramatic and evil forces we often can’t control.

Active euthanasia is caught up in this human emotion that feels compelled to honor the beliefs of personal faith and the hope that somehow miracles still happen. Most of us are in accordance with this sentiment. What we are missing though is that it is not we who have to endure the daily physical pain of a terminal disease or the inability to address our own bodily functions as we lay in our own excrement until someone comes to change us. Until we realize we are unwitting enforcers of torture – impediments to someone dying with dignity – those who we cherish the most will continue to suffer for reasons other than what we deem is in their best interests.

RESOURCES:

The New Doctor Death

Dignitas Right to Life

Final Exit Network

The Suicide Tourist

Posted by lbwoodgate in Health Care Reform, seniors/aging Tags: Assisted suicide, Derek Humphry, Euthanasia, Final Exit Network, Jack Kevorkian, Right to die, Walt Whitman

1 comment

Challenging the NRA’s 2nd Amendment Philosophy: The Fear of Tyranny

January 27, 2011

former spokesperson and NRA president Charlton Heston in his famous “from my dead hand…” pose

Supporters of the 2nd amendment vary in degree from the progressive view that we need an armed militia to protect us against outside threats to the other extreme that wants to arm every individual man, woman and child to serve as a deterrent to perceived tyrannical forces within our borders. It is this latter notion that I find hard to defend and has resulted, I believe, in a condition that arms too many incapable people with weapons that only a military commander would drool over, ultimately leading to the needless deaths of innocent people.

Handling guns doesn’t intimidate me. I dove hunted as a youth with friends in central Texas and qualified with the M-14 rifle as a former Marine. And though I have never owned a firearm of any kind and feel no compulsion to do as some to “feel secure in their homes”, I have no problem with the limited ownership of those who want a semi-automatic handgun or a rifle/shotgun for this purpose. Anything beyond this is absurd and belies the real reason that the NRA opposes any and all restrictions on private ownership of deadly assault weapons; weapons that would never be used to hunt wild game or are necessary to fend off an intruder in one’s home.

What I would like to see us as a nation address is the prevailing thought among supporters, including the NRA, that condones the sale of automatic weapons to private individuals for personal protection. Such support lacks merit as a means to defend ones self against intruders in their homes. Nor is there any logical need for such weapons owned by private citizens that allows for the defense of one’s homeland. Such posturing by the NRA leadership is merely a tactic to sell more guns by free market advocates. What once served as a means to improve the marksmanship of troops in 19th century has become an organization that now acts in the interests of the gun manufacturers as much if not more than it does the right’s of citizens to educate themselves on safe gun practices

Based on information from their website the NRA was formed originally in 1871 by Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate to improve the shooting skills of their troops while later developing programs to educate and promote the safe use of firearms for all citizens. In 1934 the NRA formed an information source for gun owners called the Legislative Affairs Division to combat what they perceived as threats against their view of 2nd amendment rights. This effort evolved into the Institute for Legislative Action, or ILA in 1975 to place NRA lobbyists at the doors of the nation’s Capital. In 1990 the NRA “Established the NRA Foundation, a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt organization, with the intention of serving as “a means to raise millions of dollars to fund gun safety and educational projects of benefit to the general public.”

It has in fact gone beyond this innocent premise and works to foster the excessive purchase of firearms at a deadly rate. Though not a public policy of the NRA, many members defend the position that ownership of assault weapons are necessary to defend against tyranny from our government leaders. This fear is apparently a hold over from early pre and post-Revolutionary days where many who advocated “an armed nation” did so for fear that their new won freedom from the British monarchy was not yet secure.

They also did so at a time when automatic weapons were a distant reality. Not faced with the deadly capabilities of such weapons in the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable, no defender today of private ownership of assault weapons can assure that the founding fathers would be of a like mind. The framers of the Constitution were intelligent and rational people who would be capable of seeing the difference between a fledgling nation of farmers being an essential part of a local militia to protect against a more powerful European threat, and one where immature and mentally unstable people today need assault weapons to defend them from anything.

Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho

To believe as some of them do that the comments of a post Revolutionary mindset reflects the reality of today disregards the fact that we have gone beyond an ability to provide a citizen defense in the form of local militias and replaced it with a military capability like no other in the world to safely oppose any foreign threats. To believe equally that we need to be on guard about internal threats to our liberty is also a weak premise when one looks at what conditions have prevailed in those countries which gun advocates site as examples of tyranny taking over.

After centuries of monarchial rule, Germany was formed after the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1814, nearly three decades after the first Constitutional Convention (1787) in America. Up until Hitler’s Nazi Party took control of the government and imposed his tyranny on them, Germany was never a stable Republic. It was a confederation of states always vying for control amongst each other and with an outdated monarchy, much like our often disorganized pre-Constitutional Confederation of States. There was never any long-term cohesion as a stable nation. This and Germany’s military character made it susceptible to being overtaken by a single power broker like Hitler. Then there is Russia that, up until the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 which eventually ushered in the tyranny of Joseph Stalin, was ruled by a domineering monarchy.

The point to be made here is that both of these countries represent the worst scene scenario for a country to become subject to a dictator taking control. Unlike the U.S. that has had a stable democracy for over 200 years, with only the 4 year period of the Civil war breaking from this pattern, the German and Russian people were never fully cognizant of or had any real experience of personal freedom as we have had for over two centuries. We are grounded in this virtue along with having real-life experiences, making us much less susceptible to interlopers who would take it away.

Because of this we have managed to sustain a balance between our freedoms and the need for a government to set rules and standards that not only protects us within acceptable norms but advances us as a nation.

We have a system in place that allows us to amend the rules, not willy-nilly or by a coup of angry mobs, but by a process that represents each community and each state. In similar fashion we have a well placed institution that allows for the peaceful transference of power that follows routine elections.

It should also be noted too that the myth of gun ownership protecting us against internal tyranny threats doesn’t hold up in light of the evidence where both Iraq and pre-Nazi Germany allowed individuals to own guns, yet both still fell to the power moves of Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler. (SOURCE)

Though becoming lax can result in allowing some usurpation of liberty, we have not faltered bad enough in our lengthy history to allow it to reach a point where totalitarianism can gain an easy foothold. The prospects for this to happen are not likely to occur either, despite what all the fear-mongering warns us about.

And as if this argument was insufficient to convince people who look too closely at its assertions, there is the distortion of facts used by the NRA to make assault weapons appear as harmless as those semi-automatic handguns most people use for the defense of their homes. Last year the NRA issued a statement here claiming that “Semi-automatics, including “assault weapons,” aren’t “high-powered.”Power is determined by the ammunition a gun uses, and semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and rimfire handguns use the same ammunition as other guns”.

This is terribly misleading as it tries to create the perception that both styles are the same. Assault weapons, though not FULLY-automatic (continuous firing without releasing your finger on the trigger), they are designed to be more deadly and thus more powerful. Their design makes it easier to fire consecutive rounds with hair triggers and special grips. They also can accommodate extended magazines that prevent frequent reloading. Assault weapons are great for those in our police forces and the military but in the wrong hands of a criminal or a mentally imbalanced person, they can kill more innocent people quicker than a semi-automatic weapon.

This should be clear following the actions of Jerald Loughner in a shopping center in Tucson in January, 2011 and the increased violence along our southern borders where the easy access drug lords have to American-made assault weapons have terrorized the towns in these areas, nullifying local police forces to provide basic security for the citizens there.

Raising the fearful specter that “our freedoms are being taken from us” to promote free market values is dishonest and puts personal wealth over human life. Keeping assault weapons out of the general public’s access will in no way diminish a citizens right to arm themselves for the purpose of feeling secure in their homes. But it will increase the likelihood of further human carnage as we saw in Tucson while conveniently increasing the profits for an amoral gun industry.

Myth of the Hero Gunslinger

I Hunt, but the NRA Isn’t for Me

Posted by lbwoodgate in Gun Control Tags: assault weapons, extended ammo magazines, fear of tyranny in u.s., Glock 9mm, gon control measures, gun sell loopholes

11 comments

How Can You Appeal a Hospital or Nursing Care Facility’s Decision to Prematurely Release a Patient?

January 27, 2011

One of the dilemmas we face in our society today is the high costs of medical care. Unless you are amongst the wealthiest 5%, more than likely you have limited coverage purchased from the health insurance industry depending on what your premiums are; the higher your premium, the more thorough your coverage.

In less than 10 Years, AMERICA will Spend $1 o...

Image by Leader Nancy Pelosi via Flickr

Obviously those with lower premiums have high deductibles and less coverage and are subject to earlier discharges from medical facilities they’ve been admitted to because their insurance benefits cannot cover the medical expenses necessary to treat them completely. It is often the goal of medical administrative staff and insurance providers to have patients discharged whose high dollar care cuts into their profits.

Those most likely to find themselves facing early discharge are low-income patients like many seniors whose only means of medical insurance is through Medicare. Medicare pays a flat rate to hospitals based on what the procedure is. If that institution is able to provide the service at a rate below Medicare’s rate they make a profit; if not they take a loss. It is when these rates no longer sufficiently cover the costs of medical care or when insurance providers are unwilling to continue coverage that forces budget-focused administrations to pressure doctors and other medical staff to find reasons to discharge these patients earlier than their conditions necessitate.

Quality Improvement Organization contractors (QIOs) are hired by the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) to address such abuses. They are available free of charge to patients who feel their early discharges are based on monetary concerns rather than sound medical decisions. Such organizations, like the Health Services Advisory Group, Inc. serve their clientele “by providing quality expertise to those who deliver care and helpful information to those who receive health care services.” They are but one element in a Medicare peer review organization mandated by federal law that insures patients receive “quality, access, timeliness, and appropriateness of care” from the facility their doctor has admitted them to.

The Medicare patient, upon learning that they are being discharged before they feel they should, is required to state their views to hospital staff. If their protestations are ignored then the patient can appeal their decision and should contact a QIO authorized by CMS as soon as possible, giving them the details about their pending discharge. Under the law Medicare will continue to pay for hospital care until the issue is resolved one way or the other.

Once the patient files an appeal through a QIO the medical facility must present the patient with aDetailed Notice of Discharge to justify their actions. The hospital or care facility is also required to send the patient’s records to that QIO for review in helping them form an assessment. Usually within a day of receiving all of the pertinent information from the patient and care facility, the QIO will make a determination and transmit this information to all parties by phone and in writing.

If the QIO agrees with the patient then the hospital is obligated to continue its care for them and will continue to be paid by Medicare at the rate they originally accepted the patient at. If they rule in favor of the care facility then they will only continue covering a patient’s stay until noon of the day following their decision. Most states have laws set up to protect elderly patients, on Medicare or low-cost health insurance plans, from unreasonable discharges by licensed medical care-giving facilities. Each patient or their family should be familiar with their rights to appeal a decision for what they feel would be a premature discharge before or shortly after a hospital or nursing care facility admits them.

If a transfer from a nursing facility doesn’t pose a physical threat to a patient they are allowed to transfer patients for the following reasons only:

1. Medical care the resident requires cannot be provided in a nursing home setting.

2. The resident no longer needs nursing home care because the resident’s condition has improved.

3. The health or safety of other individuals in the home is endangered.

4. In the case of a self-pay patient, the resident has not paid for care at least fifteen days.

5. The home plans to cease operations. (SOURCE)

All appeals with patients, whether on Medicare or private coverage, must file their complaints within 10 days of being advised of their discharge (though exceptions up to 30 days can be made). Unless it is an emergency situation nursing facilities must give you or your guardian, “a written notice, at least 30 days, and no more than 60 days, before a transfer or discharge from one facility to another.” This written notice must contain information that provides the facilities reason for the discharge or transfer, dates, location to where patient will be moved, your legal rights and the details necessary to file an appeal, including the name, mailing address and telephone number of Long-term Care Ombudsman.Without these specifics it is unlawful to take action to discharge and relocate a patient from their originally assigned facility.

Patients and their families should contact the local offices of their state’s Public Health Department to assist them in protecting their rights as a patient. Half of all elder abuse cases reported are related to a failure to fulfill a care taking obligation. Health care fraud and abuse are often perpetrated by unethical doctors, nurses, hospital personnel, and other professional care providers. Knowing your rights on what constitutes a legitimate cause for being discharged or re-located to another care provider should be at the top of any one’s list that has a loved one subject to these conditions. Proper care should not be short-changed because profit-motivated facilities or insurance providers want to game the system to their advantage.

RESOURCES:

ElderCare Expert Bolg

Health Services Advisory Group

Posted by lbwoodgate in Health Care Reform, seniors/aging Tags: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Elderly care, Health, Health care, Health insurance, Insurance, Medicare, Nursing home

3 comments

Prophet or Scaremonger

January 26, 2011

Another religious interloper is using her interpretation of scripture to denounce homosexuality. Is there a thin line between these people who claim to hear the word of God in their readings of the bible and those who claim to hear voices that push them to kill those who pose a threat in their mind only?

Throughout the course of human history there are those in every culture that claim to have a direct line to the supernatural forces that many of us are aware of but few, if any, can really claim to have experienced in any real, physical way. Not all prophets have a direct line to God (if they ever really did) but that doesn’t stop them from imagining as much. Take the case of the up and coming fundamentalist televangelist Cindy Jacobs of Generals International.

Ms. Jacobs has stated in a recent program (see video here) that viewers have beseeched her with questions as to what was the cause of the apparent instantaneous death of “thousands of black birds” in Arkansas along with 100,000 drum fish dying in state bodies of water around the same time. Ms. Jacobs feels that these are acts of God, “being the God of Nature” that he is. But she also informs us that “we don’t always know what God is saying” as she proceeds to tell us what she thinks God is saying.

Quoting from the Old Testament in Hosea 4, Ms. Jacobs connects the message of the old prophet as he tells the children of Israel that their bad behavior has caused the “land [to] mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.”

This was at a time when ancient mystics didn’t understand the cause and effect of natural phenomena as we witness in Joshua 10:12-13 where the Israelite God made “the sun stand still and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies”

Yes kids, take note; there are consequences for bad behavior; consequences to innocent species. God will punish YOU by making the birds and fish sick around you. But I digress. From this passage Ms. Jacob makes quite a leap to connect the bird and fish deaths in Arkansas with the recent repeal of Don’t ask; Don’t tell. It’s probably safe to assume that the “bad behavior” Ms. Jacobs feels has caused the deaths of these poor creatures is homosexuality. Though I doubt this is the case, an argument could be made that some bad behavior of incestuous relations that Arkansans are suspected of could put many of us into a state of hurt.

Now I know for many of you, this one would not have been your first bible-related causation assessment. Many of you may have deciphered such inexplicable results as a demonstration of God’s power by showing doubter’s how he can end flight capabilities for birds (Matt 10:28-29): “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father?” Clearly some backwoods yokel had to be repeatedly shown this thousands of times to prove it was more than lightning or fireworks. The dead fish were thrown in for added effect.

But seriously, I think that Ms. Jacobs can now be compared with Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church who hears God telling him to picket soldiers funerals because they are somehow linked to homosexuality and Terry Jones, the Florida Preacher who also heard God’s voice to agitate civil minded Muslims by burning their holy book. To people such as these, God’s hate message carries as much weight if not more than his message of compassion.

This neurotic behavior is symptomatic of people who feel its okay to hurt people we hate, yet rational people hate that people get hurt from people who suffer a form of neurosis. Does the tragedy in Tucson come to mind when I point this out? Oh dear, have I gone and made an absurd connection along the same lines Cindy the prophet has?

There is the remote possibility that if indeed God was expressing anger towards humans on innocent birds and fish that it might be an anger aimed at stupid people who just don’t get it. This is borne out in the very chapter of Hosea Ms. Jacobs was using to connect gays with bird and fish deaths. “My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. “Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you …”(Hos 4:6). Now I might be accused of taking this out of context but why would my interpretation of ancient scriptures be any less valid than Ms. Jacobs?

Ms. Jacobs’ notion that nature speaks to us when we behave “against God’s principles” is in conflict with the belief that he might be angry because we go against God’s natural laws. The climate science that indicates an increase in violent and more frequent natural disasters has indeed been rejected by many climate deniers; many of them religious fundamentalist and free-marketers. Fish dying in the sea and birds dropping from the air may be connected to man’s toxic waste into our eco-system but that would have possibilities that impact corporate profits so dismissing this is an easy one, right?

Fear is an innate instinct, God-given if you prefer, that aids the human species to avoid life threatening conditions. Yet the signs that threaten our existence are not always clear to us at a given time so it helps to have people who have a better sense of things preferably by those who have diligently studied nature. Before there was science though there were the soothsayers and mystics who attributed inexplicable acts of nature in their less sophisticated understanding of the world as messages from God.

As the window of science gave us a better view into our physical world, explanations apart from the metaphysical evolved and the cause and effect aspect of seeing how events unfolded slowly began to challenge the religious leaders views of what makes things go bump in the night. Thinking in terms of man’s condition as a result of a punishing or rewarding God was challenged by science that has more verifiable evidence and can predict things pretty reliably, eliminating confrontations of postulated absolutes concerning the spiritual world that vary from person to person and culture to culture.

There is the science that comes from man’s efforts over long periods of time and through careful analysis of the data and then there are the views of so-called prophets whose thought processes filter information of reality and convert it into scriptural translations, often for the purpose of justifying the condemnation of social behavior that those scriptures have traditionally considered taboo. One gives us some degree of assurance but with caveats; the other gives us rigid absolutes with no more proof than a traditional belief that simply claims to be true.

Because things changed slowly these social-religious codes withstood the test of time. It was still just as easy to believe in 1000 B.C.E. that there were four corners of the earth and the sun revolved around our planet as it was in 1000 A.D. Once technology enabled man to see beyond our stratosphere and sail beyond suspected edges of our world, all of the ancient views were slowly dispelled, but not without a fight.

Ms. Jacob and those like her are unwilling to let go of a practice that sustains their control over people who, like themselves, are fearful. Fearful that despite the fact that biblical prophecy aimed at our generation is wanting because the second coming keeps getting further and further out of reach from its original expected time.

As people’s belief in this weakens then other core principles of the faith will also weaken. Thus, out of fear, the Cindy Jacobs’ of our age will always make some connection between their rendering of scripture and natural events that seem, to them,to parallel similar occurrences documented in those ancient texts.

Religious views are a product of one’s belief of the unknown. Some are helpful to deal with our complicated and often chaotic world. Some are not helpful and in fact harmful to many who zealously claim them as truth. To extrapolate some religious views to the real world as people like Ms. Jacobs does with dead birds and homosexuality is not only unhealthy for that faith system when taken to certain limits but presents a danger to society for acting on our human instinct of fear; an instinct that told us to flee from immediate danger, not remain in ignorance of the threat we ran from.

Posted by lbwoodgate in Religion/Science

4 comments

Do I Have What it Takes to Be a Member of the Polar Bear Club?

January 26, 2011

Reprinted with kind permission from my friend Donna Cavanaugh

As I was driving along in southern New Jersey, I saw an advertisement for the annual Polar Bear Plunge in Sea Isle City. I love Sea Isle. This is where my family and I spend our vacation, and this is where one day, I dream of owning my shore home.

Anyway, it wasn’t the destination of the Polar Bear Plunge that grabbed my attention; it was the plunge itself. Yes, I am going to confess something here: I am intrigued by people who leave the warmth of their homes to plunge into the icy waters of the oceans or lakes of North America just for the thrill of it. Well, in fairness, it is not just a thrill. Most Polar Bear Plunges do involve a charitable cause, but I still wonder who came up with the plunge idea instead of holding a bake sale or dinner or a walk-a-thon for that charity. Who was the first genius who thought a dunk in 37-degree water would be the perfect way to raise money? And why, when this genius did suggest the plunge, did someone with more sense, not stand up and say, “Can’t we just write out checks instead?”

Okay, here comes confession number two: I want to try the Polar Bear Plunge. I know most people think it is crazy to risk hypothermia and jump into frigid waters, but I think it would be an experience I would never forget. I mean…I hope I would live to never forget it. My biggest fear is not the cold water (although I have to say, I am more of a hot tub person than a freezing ocean person), but the drowning. I would think that when that cold hits me, there is a good chance that I might find myself belly up like a dead goldfish, hoping the life guards care enough to make their way into the icy water to retrieve me. I wonder if my life would pass before my eyes or would I just hear my mother saying, “What exactly were you thinking? Was this really necessary?

Oh well, at least with the Polar Plunge, I would go out with a story. My family would be able to tell anyone who came to my funeral how colorfully (that would be blue) I went out. I would suspect there would be laughter, gasps of disbelief and a few would mumble, “Well, she deserved it.”

I know it sounds crazy that I want to be a Polar Bear member, but let me explain. I have a list of things that I want to do, but I don’t have the courage to do. I would like to skydive or bungi jump, but if either of these went awry, I would go splat, and I don’t think “splat” would be a good look for me. Besides, I don’t even like roller coasters, so just the thought of me free falling from a plane or a cliff or a bridge, makes me want to vomit, and I don’t want my last act on this Earth — or rather above this Earth — to be throwing up. I know…I have a lot of dying rules.

Anyway, I am going to look into the Polar Bear Plunge that is taking place in Sea Isle, NJ next month. I think this is a good year as the ocean temperature is at a record cold – at least, that is what a Sea Isle resident told me. If I only do this once, and that is a good probability, I can at least say I did it in one of the coldest water temperatures in memory. I might even take pictures and post them on Facebook. If I do possess the courage to take that dip, I think I should be rewarded — a week in the Bahamas or Hawaii would be nice. I’m not picky; either is fine. Yes, a vacation in a warm place would definitely be worth a dunk in the frozen water.

I have to be honest and say that I do have concerns that I might not be Polar Bear Plunge material. I wouldn’t want to give these brave people a bad name with my screaming and weeping as I wade into the surf. I wonder if there is a Polar Bear Club Auxiliary I could possibly join instead — a group of helpers who bring blankets, hot cocoa and brandy to the plungers after they emerge from the ice-capped water. I was always good at hospitality. Yes, maybe the auxiliary would be a better fit, or maybe I should just find an organization that likes dry land.

Donna Cavanaugh’s “Erma Bombeck” style of writing can be found on her YahooAC list.Among many of her distinguishments, Donna has published a humor book entitled “Life on the Off Ramp” and a poetry book, “Poems for a Positive Day II” that were named award-winning finalists of the Best Books 2010 Awards, sponsored by USA Book News.

Posted by lbwoodgate in Our crazy and wonderful world Tags: Bahamas, Erma Bombeck, Polar bear, Polar bear plunge, Sea Isle City New Jersey, United States

2 comments

Udall’s Senate Resolution 10: A Path to Breaking Senate Gridlock

January 25, 2011

There hasn’t been much of anything that the two major political Party’s in this country could agree on over the last couple of years. What legislation that did make it past both Houses was the result of a strong Democrat majority in the House and a few reluctant moderate Republican alliances in the Senate.

Otherwise there were obstacles of every “legal” nature that were used by the GOP in their efforts to defeat needed reform legislation with our financial and health services institutions along with efforts to keep needed benefits coming to America’s large numbers of unemployed workers hit by the devastating recession. Two of the most effective tools the GOP used in their obstructionist efforts were the filibuster and the “secret hold”

Both practices are accepted parliamentary procedure set in the Senate Rules. The establishment of setting Senate and House rules is authorized by Article I, section 5 of the U.S. Constitution that states “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.” But these rules are not etched in stone and there is a move afoot to make some needed changes.

The filibuster, rarely used for over 150 years became more common place in the mid and late 20th century by minority members who allowed their personal feelings on some issues to over ride what most people would accept as a progression of social values. The biggest historical examples were the efforts of Southern Democratic Senators, who became known as Dixiecrats, that blocked most civil rights legislation in post WWII life that sought to establish equal rights for blacks. The most common perception of the filibuster is when one or more Senators request extended debate on a bill with the intent to delay or entirely prevent a vote on it.

On the “secret hold”, Sections 2 and 3 of Senate rules state that “no motion to proceed to the consideration of any bill…shall be entertained…unless by unanimous consent”. It was originally intended to prevent a motion on legislation to come to the floor until all senators could study it thoroughly, especially those who felt their state would be impacted greatly by such legislation. But since 1970 it has become a tool of the minority to block not only legislation but Executive nominations to administrative positions and judgeships that some would feel held views anathema to their own.

When the Republicans lost the Senate and the White House to the Democrats in 2008, after losing the House in 2006, the use of filibusters and secret holds by the minority GOP exploded. Having lost control of political power they had scratched and clawed for since the 1950‘s, the GOP in the 111th Congress turned to archaic senate rules to hog tie the new Democratic leadership. They broke all filibuster records with over a 100 causing Senator Al Franken to characterize most filibusters by Republicans as a “perversion” of its intent.

The rancor that occurred between Republican and Democrats over health care reform left the Senate so divided that several Democrats were convinced that advancing any defining issues like climate change legislation “would have to rely strictly on their own caucus.” (Senate Debate on Health Care Exacerbates Partisanship, by Carl Hulse and David M. Herszenhorn, NY Times, 12/20/09)

Democrats in the Senate, aware that their majority would be trimmed following the 2010 elections signed a petition requesting Majority Leader Reid to address filibuster reform in the new 112th Congress, including abolishing secret holds and reducing the amount of time given to post-cloture debate. From this effort has risen Tom Udall’s (D-New Mexico) Senate Resolution 10. In this resolution Udall and others propose that Senate rules be changed to:

Eliminate the Filibuster on Motions to Proceed
Eliminates Secret Holds
Guarantee Consideration of Amendments for both Majority and Minority
Ensure Real Debate (not merely a dismissive gesture to oppose a motion or bill)
Expedite Nominations by reducing Post-Cloture Time to two hours

For a more detailed breakdown on these items visit David Walden’s piece on the Daily Kos here.

This is one piece of business that appears to not only produce greater transparency within the structures of representative government but could also represent an opportunity to chip away at the irksome gridlock within the nation’s Capital, if not the entire system of government.

Granted, this would only be an incremental achievement if it passes but its lasting impact would insure that no longer could disgruntled politicians who find themselves on the losing end of an election use their “club rules” to pervert the reasonable implementation of majority views and fair execution of Constitutional expectations.

Filibusted

Posted by lbwoodgate in Social Discourse Tags: Chuck Schumer, Democratic Party, Democrats, filibusters, Harry Reid, Republican, secret holds, Senate gridlock, Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Tom Udall, White House

5 comments

Monthly Archives: January 2011

Denton, Texas: A model for other towns, large and small, to keep energy costs down.

FIXING HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS

Making Them More Attractive for Lower Income Working People

Mubarak’s Mistake

Recalling George Harrison’s Part in “End of the Line”

Active Euthanasia – Dying with Dignity

Challenging the NRA’s 2nd Amendment Philosophy: The Fear of Tyranny

How Can You Appeal a Hospital or Nursing Care Facility’s Decision to Prematurely Release a Patient?

Prophet or Scaremonger

Do I Have What it Takes to Be a Member of the Polar Bear Club?

Search Blog Content

America Honors Leaders, Not Politicians

Bet on solar power

What I have written recently

Blogroll

Archives

Follow “Woodgate's View”