Guess I'd better padlock the doors. Or better yet, run for my life. And esp don't go to work since that'll get me even closer. They're here, they're here! Ok, well, only one so far, but still, it's one of *them*. ;-) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090609/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_guantanamo_detainee;_ylt=AmUCZk5SKjI7V70Pe8TFt3Ws0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJuaGZyajduBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNjA5L3VzX2d1YW50YW5hbW9fZGV0YWluZWUEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2p1c3RpY2VkZXB0MQ-- That dress she wore to the pub couldn't be less flattering. Even with that belt. Granted it seems like a poor paparazzi shot, but still. In one of those pics at the Daily Mail, it shows Malia, I think, sitting with her back to the window. I'm shocked they'd let any of them sit by a window. I'm sure it wasn't bulletproof.

If you read the caption, I think they say Malia is not pictured. But aren't those windows bullet-proof. "He's" not the problem. You're safe from poor lil' Ahmed;-) It's his friends and co-horts...some in the US that could be security threats. FBI might have a reason for not endorsing this "endeavor". Read below: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105128523 FBI really doesn't know how many deranged people could want to take vindication for such...INYBY or mine.

I don't care for the look or the dress. Good news: in Italy so many regions that have always been left/Communist have turned to the right in the last elections. And that includes Umbria! LOL! It is not a happy day for the Firths. ;-)

OK, where'd they get the money to repay? I'd be concerned over their real financial health and motivation, as is alluded to in this AP article: 10 big banks get OK to repay $68B in bailout money By DANIEL WAGNER and STEVENSON JACOBS, AP Business Writers Daniel Wagner And Stevenson Jacobs, Ap Business Writers � 1 hr 55 mins ago WASHINGTON � The Treasury Department has approved 10 of the nation's largest banks to repay $68 billion in government bailout money. The department on Tuesday said the banks, which were not named, will be allowed to repay the money they received from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program created by Congress last October at the height of the financial crisis. The banks have been eager to get out of the program to escape government restrictions such as caps on executive compensation. All eight banks that took TARP money and last month passed government "stress tests" confirmed that they received permission to repay the bailout funds. They are: JPMorgan Chase & Co., American Express Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., U.S. Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., State Street Corp. and BB&T Corp. Morgan Stanley did not pass the government test, but on Tuesday said it had raised enough capital quickly and was approved to repay its TARP money. Northern Trust Corp. was not among the 19 banks subjected to stress tests, but the company said it also had received permission to repay the bailout funds. Experts say allowing 10 banks to return $68 billion in bailout money illustrates some stability has returned to the system but caution that the crisis isn't over. Some worry the repayments could widen the gap between healthy and weak banks. Stocks zigzagged after the Treasury's widely expected announcement. In midday trading, the Dow Jones industrial average dropped about 30 points. Broader indices were mixed. More than 600 banks nationwide have received nearly $200 billion in TARP money and 22 smaller banks already have repaid it. "These repayments are an encouraging sign of financial repair, but we still have work to do," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said in a statement. But some analysts warned that strong performance at the largest banks might obscure greater dangers in the broader banking industry. Smaller banks are still saddled with billions of dollars in risky commercial real estate loans, which could cause heavy losses depending on the speed of economic recovery. And large banks continue to hold the toxic, mortgage-backed assets at the heart of the financial crisis. Longtime bank analyst Bert Ely called the repayments a positive sign for the banking sector but not a reason to celebrate. He noted that three of the nation's biggest banks � Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Bank of America Corp. � are still tied to the bailout. The repayments show "that some of the major players have strengthened and will be able to ride out the crisis. The question is how will the other banks manage. It's not even clear the recession is bottoming out," Ely said. Even the banks permitted to repay the bailout funds are still dependent on government support, including debt guarantees from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and credit lines from the Federal Reserve. The firms now have the right to purchase the warrants Treasury holds in their firm "at fair market value." Besides Treasury's potential income from the sale of the warrants, the 10 banks already have paid dividends on the preferred stock totaling about $1.8 billion over the last seven months. Testifying before a Senate panel Tuesday, Geithner said the value of the warrants for banks permitted to repay TARP funds are in the "several billion dollar range." Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said the banks can begin repaying immediately � "as soon as they figure out where to send the check." Dividend payments received for all TARP participants are about $4.5 billion to date, according to Treasury. The amounts the banks could repay are: � JPMorgan: $25 billion � Morgan Stanley: $10 billion � Goldman Sachs: $10 billion � U.S. Bancorp: $6.6 billion � Capital One: $3.6 billion � American Express: $3.4 billion � BB&T: $3.1 billion � Bank of New York Mellon: $3 billion � Northern Trust: $1.6 billion � State Street: $2 billion The push to repay the funds comes a month after "stress tests" of the nation's 19 largest financial firms found that 10 needed to raise $75 billion more to protect against future losses. All of those banks, including Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, had submitted plans by late Monday to bolster their capital cushions that were enough to help them survive a deeper recession, the Fed said. The other nine institutions had to prove they could raise enough private capital without federal guarantees before they could return the money. So far, 16 of the 19 banks have raised $75.2 billion, mostly by selling common stock. [Ed note: They've diluted the value of the stock even further.] Regulators want to avoid letting a bank repay its TARP money only to have it return months later in worse shape, seeking another handout. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090609/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tarp_winners_and_losers

OK, where'd they get the money to repay? Bonds & Preferred. Sallie Mae and Wells Fargo sold bonds last month. Great interest and some short term . The motivation is obvious. I don't know how they can stop them.

Neither of those two are on the list. The article says the banks issued more stock from their treasury, a dilutive effect.

Today's

sorry... Today's WASHINGTON POST reports that the banks were able to raise capital. I am sure common stock was part of that capital Though financial stocks have been improving and haven't shown signs of being "diluted" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060900891.html?nav=rss_business "The list of banks granted permission to repay the government was longer than many financial analysts had expected, in part because banks have been able to attract billions of dollars in new capital from private investors following the conclusion of government stress tests" The way I read it is that the financial strategy is working . LOL. But what do I know;-)

Given that the article I posted did say they issued more common stock...

AP Fiat closes deal to take bulk of Chrysler's assets Not enough to tempt me... I'm shopping for a new car and for the first time in my life I'm not buying an American car. UAW has taken enough of my tax $$$.

I don't know how many other companies do, but Honda has American plants. Still American made, if not designed.

"Two-thirds of "foreign imports" are, in fact, built in the United States in nonunion shops, where it costs at least $2,000 less in labor to build each vehicle." ..."The UAW, for its part, has tried to unionize the international plants in the South, to no avail. Its membership is down 17 percent from 2007, to 464,910 � the lowest since the Great Depression. " http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1205/p01s04-usec.html So I would still be supporting the American worker vs a total import.

You know, I think I'll worry more about these nuts rather than friends of foreign terrorists. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/06/10/holocaust-museum-shooter-had-close-ties-to-prominent-neo-nazis/

I'm posting this mostly for the amusing comments comparing us to corrupt Chicago-land politics. And guess who comes out smelling better? ;-) http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=22378

V. sad about the killing at the Holocaust Museum Unrelenting hatred ,be it religious, political, ethnic,ideological.. leads people to violent behavior...And there is so much of it around. All you have to do is read the blogs, talk radio, yes, Keith Olberman. Why does he always have to end his program with "...days since Mission Accomplished". This guy makes a living out of mocking and hatred for anyone who doesn't agree with him. Funny??? Sick.

This guy makes a living out of mocking and hatred for anyone who doesn't agree with him. Thanks for singling out Olberman. Because Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity are saints, of course.

I saw yesterday London's having a transit strike. I'm feeling for you all. I know what it's like.

Because Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity are saints, of course. OReilly isn't in that category, if you listened to him. His program is not all politics..takes on pedophiles and child porn big time. Limbaugh is talk radio , which I mentioned, and so are the others. They have just transferred their style to Tv. I don't know Glen Beck..but don't think he feeds on hate .

(Dorine) I'm posting this mostly for the amusing comments comparing us to corrupt Chicago-land politics. And guess who comes out smelling better? ;-) LOL! Sounds to me like you guys could just get rid of your legislature and its salaries and save some money. ;-) Nice of him to take time to go over there. He has been actively supporting the troops for a long time and makes a pitch for an organization called DonorsChoose, where you can pick projects that support school projects for the military's children. The link is on his website: http://www.donorschoose.org/donors/leadershipboard.html?category=94

Thank you. Nice man IRL. I don't look at his show though. His humor never hits me . These overseas shows must have different writers.

(Evelyn) His humor never hits me . LOL!! The irony of this amuses me, yet doesn't surprise me. :-) OReilly isn't in that category, if you listened to him. His program is not all politics..takes on pedophiles and child porn big time. Limbaugh is talk radio , which I mentioned, and so are the others. They have just transferred their style to Tv. I don't know Glen Beck..but don't think he feeds on hate . I have listened/watched all of them at one time or another as well as following what they say in other media accounts. Hate is their M.O. as well as preying on people's fears, manipulation of facts and disinformation.

These overseas shows must have different writers. Huh? You mean locals? You must be kidding. BTW, I saw Lora's son's name on the credits this week. Hate is their M.O. as well as preying on people's fears, manipulation of facts and disinformation. Exactly how I would characterize it.

Hate is their M.O. as well as preying on people's fears, manipulation of facts and disinformation. You forgot to add IMO;-) Your perceptions , of course, which you are entitled to. Remember ....your "perceptions" are other people's beliefs, which they ,as citizens, are guaranteed too;-D OK....anybody else????

Yeah, the nutjobs have to have their leaders or "entertainment" as well.

Regardless of where these people come from (radio) or if you call them "entertainment," the fact (not opinion) is that they reside on a NEWS channel. It is called Fox News. Not Fox Family. Not Fox Comedy. IMO (you did see that didn't you, IMO) that makes all the difference.

Hate is their M.O. as well as preying on people's fears, manipulation of facts and disinformation. (Evelyn) You forgot to add IMO;-) No I didn't. ;-) It's has been documented any number of places when facts are distorted or outright ignored and I just watched a whole documentary about FOX doing each one of the things above. And there are a number of websites (that *some* people don't read ;-D) that do keep track of things I list above from everywhere, not just FOX. I've only seen the Monday Colbert Report so far. That was v.v. funny! Obama crackin' on his ears, LOL! I look forward to watching the rest. I wondered if Lora's son would be going. Though he doesn't necessarily need to go to write I'd think. They took 30 people with them, but I wasn't thinking writers.

LOL. You two are so righteous;-) Funny. Good thing I don't take you seriously.

(Dorine) I've only seen the Monday Colbert Report so far. That was v.v. funny! Actually, I thought Monday's the least funny show, except for Obama's message. There are messages from others. One guest message last night fell v. flat, but I liked Wednesday's show best. Really good guest. v. funny. And I love his boot camp films.

I'll check the rest out this weekend hopefully.

(Evelyn) LOL. You two are so righteous;-) Funny. I know, we're cards, ain't we? ;-D

Sometimes (well, maybe more) I really hate my city government. :-(( Their goose is cooked! City to kill at least 2,000 geese near LaGuardia, JFK over bird strike fears By Lisa L. Colangelo DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Thursday, June 11th 2009, 5:51 PM The city and Port Authority are mounting an all-out war on Canadian geese, vowing to wipe out at least 2,000 birds living within a five-mile radius of the airports. "The serious dangers that Canada geese pose to aviation became all too clear when geese struck US Airways Flight 1549," Mayor Bloomberg said Thursday in announcing the aggressive plan. "The incident served as a catalyst to strengthen our efforts in removing geese from - and discouraging them from nesting on - city property near our runways." Federal wildlife officials will be dispatched to net and euthanize the molting birds over the next few weeks at 40 city parks and other locations near LaGuardia and Kennedy airports. In addition, the Port Authority will train and arm supervisors to shoot the birds in an emergency situation. Over the past six years, more than 1,200 geese have been netted and gassed on nearby Rikers Island in an effort to reduce the population and potentially dangerous collisions with planes. But after a bird strike forced Flight 1549 to land in the Hudson River, there were calls for tougher measures. Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler said the city will contract with the U.S. Agriculture Department to round up the geese and share the cost with the Port Authority. "They have experience at Rikers," Skyler said. "They know how to do it as humanely as possible." Geese will be targeted at Flushing Meadows Corona Park and Fort Totten. Skyler said the feds will work with the Parks Department to figure out the least disruptive time to remove the geese. "Research has shown that resident Canada geese in several New York studies stay within five miles of a particular location and that 74% of wildlife strikes occur at or near the airport," said Martin Lowney, director of the USDA Wildlife Services program in New York. Port Authority Executive Director Chris Ward said the agency is also installing a trial bird radar program and hiring a second wildlife biologist to investigate other ways to cut the bird population. Federal Aviation Administration officials said there have been 77 goose strikes in the city over the past 10 years. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/06/11/2009-06-11_their_goose_is_cooked_city_to_kill_at_least_2000_geese_near_laguardia_jfk_in_bir.html#ixzz0IBc80fHl&D

Forgot to add, sometimes I hate humans, too.

Can't remember who was on what night, but the Deputy Prime Minister was v.g. and the packing USO boxes bit with Tom Hanks was v.g. Tonight's ride with the Thunderbirds was hilarious. Just watching him walk up to the jet with his rolling carryon bag! LOL! I liked that tonight's included a segment that more representative of his usual fare: Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger and it wasn't military-centric, as all the other bits have been.

Very cute. Obama writes girl a note for missing school AP By RYAN J. FOLEY, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 31 mins ago GREEN BAY, Wis. � Ten-year-old Kennedy Corpus has a rock-solid excuse for missing the last day of school: a personal note to her teacher from President Barack Obama. Her father, John Corpus of Green Bay, stood to ask Obama about health care during the president's town hall-style meeting at Southwest High School on Thursday. He told Obama that his daughter was missing school to attend the event and that he hoped she didn't get in trouble. "Do you need me to write a note?" Obama asked. The crowd laughed, but the president was serious. On a piece of paper, he wrote: "To Kennedy's teacher: Please excuse Kennedy's absence. She's with me. Barack Obama." He stepped off the stage to hand-deliver the note � to Kennedy's surprise. "I thought he was joking until he started walking down," Kennedy said after the event, showing off the note in front of a bank of television cameras. "It was like the best thing ever." The fourth-grader at Aldo Leopold elementary in Green Bay already knew what she was going to do with the note: frame it along with her ticket to the event. She said she'd make a copy for her teacher. Kennedy said she had never seen Obama before. "He's really nice," she said.

Yeah...that Town Hall exchange was funny. He doesn't always need a teleprompter;-) I bet she gives the teacher a copy and frames the original. Forgot to add, sometimes I hate humans, too. LOL...Gotta quit that hate-stuff, Dorine. (I'm gonna keep reminding you; we're happy, remember?;-) ...it wasn't military-centric, as all the other bits have been. He did say at the beginning that he wasn't going to pander. But hey, Just the fact that's he *went* to Iraq is complimentary enough. I'll watch the other shows this weekend too. Nice change for all those shows. I'm so tired of the SOS

He did say at the beginning that he wasn't going to pander. Huh? That is what he does. He has said every night to guest that it was "pandering is his job." I expect you've missed his irony.

(Karen) LOL! Sounds to me like you guys could just get rid of your legislature and its salaries and save some money. ;-) The Daily News likes your thinking! http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/06/12/2009-06-12_its_time_to_punish_the_albany_knuckleheads_join_our_dont_pay_the_bums_campaign.html

Boy is this a gift. The irony of this column showing up now in light of our conversation. Think Krugman's a lurker here? ;-)) Also, Evelyn, don't point out it's only his opinion, please. :-) That means nothing to me as a response. The Big Hate By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: June 11, 2009 Back in April, there was a huge fuss over an internal report by the Department of Homeland Security warning that current conditions resemble those in the early 1990s � a time marked by an upsurge of right-wing extremism that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. Conservatives were outraged. The chairman of the Republican National Committee denounced the report as an attempt to �segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration� and label them as terrorists. But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient. There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn�t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment. Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven�t directly incited violence, despite Bill O�Reilly�s declarations that �some� called Dr. Tiller �Tiller the Baby Killer,� that he had �blood on his hands,� and that he was a �guy operating a death mill.� But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric [Ed note - i.e., playing on people's fears], just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House. And at this point, whatever dividing line there was between mainstream conservatism and the black-helicopter crowd seems to have been virtually erased. Exhibit A for the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism is Fox News�s new star, Glenn Beck. Here we have a network where, like it or not, millions of Americans get their news � and it gives daily airtime to a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration�s �totalitarian� agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening). [Ed. note - i.e., preying on people's fears and disinformation] But let�s not neglect the print news media. In the Bush years, The Washington Times became an important media player because it was widely regarded as the Bush administration�s house organ. Earlier this week, the newspaper saw fit to run an opinion piece declaring that President Obama �not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself,� and that in any case he has �aligned himself� with the radical Muslim Brotherhood. [Ed. note - i.e., manipulation of facts and disinformation] And then there�s Rush Limbaugh. His rants today aren�t very different from his rants in 1993. But he occupies a different position in the scheme of things. Remember, during the Bush years Mr. Limbaugh became very much a political insider. Indeed, according to a recent Gallup survey, 10 percent of Republicans now consider him the �main person who speaks for the Republican Party today,� putting him in a three-way tie with Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich. So when Mr. Limbaugh peddles conspiracy theories � suggesting, for example, that fears over swine flu were being hyped �to get people to respond to government orders� � that�s a case of the conservative media establishment joining hands with the lunatic fringe. [Ed. note - i.e., ....oh, you get the picture ;-)] It�s not surprising, then, that politicians are doing the same thing. The R.N.C. says that �the Democratic Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals.� And when Jon Voight, the actor, told the audience at a Republican fund-raiser this week that the president is a �false prophet� and that �we and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression,� Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, thanked him, saying that he �really enjoyed� the remarks. Credit where credit is due. Some figures in the conservative media have refused to go along with the big hate � people like Fox�s Shepard Smith and Catherine Herridge, who debunked the attacks on that Homeland Security report two months ago. But this doesn�t change the broad picture, which is that supposedly respectable news organizations and political figures are giving aid and comfort to dangerous extremism. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows, of course, although the analysts at Homeland Security fretted that things may turn out even worse than in the 1990s � that thanks, in part, to the election of an African-American president, �the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years.� And that�s a threat to take seriously. Yes, the worst terrorist attack in our history was perpetrated by a foreign conspiracy. But the second worst, the Oklahoma City bombing, was perpetrated by an all-American lunatic. Politicians and media organizations wind up such people at their, and our, peril. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opinion/12krugman.html A version of this article appeared in print on June 12, 2009, on page A27 of the New York edition. Here's the comment section for this, which I haven't really been through yet to know who agrees and disagrees. http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opinion/12krugman.html

A review of Colbert's shows from Iraq with comparisons to Bob Hope's shows. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/arts/television/12watch.html?em

LOL...Paul Krugman is a columnist.... "Columnist � A person who writes a regular column giving a personal opinion." http://nie.brownsvilleherald.com/newspaperterms.htm I have nothing more to add. Actually, I consider him a liberal "blabberer". That is, a blogger with creds. IMO, of course;-) (NYT)Today�s troops are hardly starved for entertainment... Oh but they are. Nothing beats live entertainment. Gives them someplace to go besides their barracks to go on the computers; a touch of home. Kudos to Colbert.

Oops I missed! One more time... But, of course. The more I read, the more I realize health care reform will be a sham. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090613/ap_on_go_co/us_senate_disclosures

Oh I'm confident we'll get some kind of fix that will have consensus. Perhaps not a permanent one this time around, but like Medicare, it can have improvements as it progresses. Everyone seems to be on board . The biggest hurdle seems to be $$$$$ w/o raising personal taxes. He never should have boxed himself into that one. There's just not enough tax $$ from those earning over $250K to cover.

Well, if POTUS and SoS are excited about the vote in Iran, I guess, I am too...:-( From Reuters Obama "excited" by Iran's robust election debate" http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSTRE55B4SG20090612

Colbert and crew (with Rob) was in Iraq at the time of the WHCD. Excellent shows. Now my 2 cents. I like Glenn Beck and I think you would like him too Evelyn. And I can't put Bill O'Reilley down because during the Pres. primaries, he was fair to Hillary and he was impartial. Nothing to do with what CNN were doing at the time. Changing subject: I wonder what Obama will do about that bogus election in Iran? A is not giving up the power.

Interesting article, thanks Evelyn! But he can not be so naiveas to think that there is a debate going on in Iran, LOL! The voting results are a fraud. :-(

(Moon)The voting results are a fraud. :-( I know that , and so does he. But this way he can take some credit that extending his hand to Iran had an impact. Really, I wish we would just face up to the fact that Iran and North Korea are not going to give up their nukes. It's an illusion to think we are going to change their minds. And no one seems to be concerned that Pakistan has nukes. Put up the anti-ballistic missiles and get on with it. LOL I do remember Hillary commenting how fair FOX had been . And it seems to me that everyone around here was for Hillary and no one made a comment re: FOX and fairness at the time.

Wait... I did comment here at the time that I only watched Fox News because they were fair to Hillary. That's when I started watching Glenn Beck. And no one seems to be concerned that Pakistan has nukes. India is.

Great, they were fair to Hillary. But for 98% of the other time and on other topics they have a well documented history of distorting facts, flat out lying and the aformentioned playing on people's fears. And the beloved Bill O'Reilly has told people to "shut up" countless times on his show. Isn't he a real sweetie? ;-)

Oh yeah, and on Iran, of course O knew things weren't right and that was his way of putting it out there without saying so. Looking forward to the debate? LOL. His way of saying he hopes the opposition puts up a fight. All that is so bogus. And cutting off phone and text service, Skype and social media sites like Facebook. No, nothing to see here, move along. :-((

You know, many times I don't go looking for stuff like this, *at all*, but these bits just keep falling into my lap as I surf. I don't make this stuff up, truly (nor do people like Krugman). I don't have to. This is a contrast between what Pres O said and how Hannity on his show distorted what was said.... President Obama: If you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. Sean Hannity: He honors the national day of prayer behind closed doors. Now, on his Middle East apology tour, the President calls the U.S. a "Muslim nation." President Obama: We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens, who are bound by ideals. Sean Hannity: The same president who insists the U.S. is not a Christian nation is now calling us a Muslim nation.

I don't understand your postings on 549 and 550? Where did this all come from? Are you well? I'm concerned.

I don't understand what confuses you. I'm following up two different conversations on here, on Iran and Fox content being less than honest. Seems kinda clear cut to me. *scratches head* I'm fine thanks, though a bit tired from a short night's sleep and sitting in Central Park for 6 hrs (from 7am) for Shakespeare in the Park tix (pray it doesn't rain tonight!). ;-)

Uh oh, I have an idea Moon isn't going to like this... Prrrrretty daring... this is the larger version, but it's Photo Shop and I didn't think it would copy here. http://mrs-o.org/?paged=2 Running to light candles for dry balmy night, in Central Park:-)))) Tell us how it goes...

LOL, Evelyn, that outfit is awful. Not even youthful looking, just a mess. I'm following you, Dorine, but the media in general play with quotations to suit them at the time. The important issue with Fox was that they were fair with Hillary.

"She's likes her...she really likes her..." (Hope she didn't wear that little flower number) Michelle Obama, girls get rare London palace tour By NANCY ZUCKERBROD, Associated Press Writer Nancy Zuckerbrod, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 29 mins ago LONDON � First came the hug, then a guided tour of Buckingham Palace. First Lady Michelle Obama, on a visit to London last week, got permission from Queen Elizabeth II for a guided tour of the palace with her daughters, Sasha and Malia. They were shown around the queen's official residence and its gardens and the queen herself greeted them afterward, according to a royal source who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private. In April, during a visit to Britain with her husband, Michele Obama made a warm impression on the queen � so much so that the monarch strayed from protocol and briefly wrapped her arm around the first lady in a rare public show of affection. The first lady also put her arm around the monarch. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090614/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_michelle_obama

Like Tiananmen Sqare all over again... On Yahoo Huge pro-reform rally defies crackdown threats Such brave people .

Absolutely!

This is when the United Nations should step in. It's a useless and expensive organization paid for by our tax dollars. Shut it down. And Obama's silence? What's he waiting for?

(Moon)And Obama's silence? What's he waiting for? Agree... These poor people need to know the free world is behind them. ...we did it for China and more recently Georgia. Yesterday on Meet the Press Biden gave a *weak* endorsement...

(Moon)And Obama's silence? What's he waiting for? Agree... Because at this juncture no moderate politician in Iran will back a movement sanctioned by the U.S. They'd have to oppose it for political cover. C'mon. Our "support" has to come in the back door through diplomatic channels. Plus the ayatollahs control what happens; their president doesn't wield the real power there. It's a theocracy, remember?

Bless him, he's taking his case right to the docs; Godspeed, Barack: Obama presses doctors to back health care overhaul By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer CHICAGO � President Barack Obama asked skeptical doctors Monday to get behind an overhaul of the nation's health care system, declaring the system a "ticking time bomb" for the federal budget that could force the entire nation to "go the way of GM." The difficulty of his sales job was evident when he said he was against limiting awards in malpractice lawsuits, a top priority for doctors. That statement brought him a smattering of boos � a remarkable public response to a popular president accustomed to cheering audiences. Flying to his hometown to speak at the annual meeting here of the American Medical Association, Obama struck back at critics of his efforts to reshape the health care delivery system to bring skyrocketing health care costs under control and expand coverage to the millions of uninsured. He had his sharpest rhetoric yet for those critics, calling them "naysayers," "fear-mongers" and peddlers of "Trojan horse" falsehoods who should be ignored. He warned interest groups and lobbyists not to use "fear tactics to paint any effort to achieve reform as an attempt to socialize medicine." The president directly took on criticism from former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, though not by name. On Sunday, Romney, widely expected to consider another run at the White House in 2012, called Obama's support for creating government-sponsored insurance as an option alongside private coverage a "Trojan horse" for a single-payer system like Britain's. "When you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: they are not telling the truth," Obama said. Even before Obama spoke, Republicans offered push-back. GOP Rep. Tom Price of Georgia � a former orthopedic surgeon � accused Obama of pushing a "government takeover" of health care. Speaking to reporters on a conference call organized by the Republican National Committee, Price contended that a committee established within Obama's administration to study the effectiveness of various medical treatments would turn into a "rationing board" to overrule doctors and deny patients care. And Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and other Republicans introduced legislation to ban the rationing of care on such a basis.The economic stimulus legislation that passed over the winter provides funding for "comparative effectiveness research," and the GOP proposal would block the government from using the results to "deny coverage of an item or service" in a federal health care program. The president said for the first time publicly that health care reform, including covering the almost 50 million Americans who have no insurance, would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years. "That's real money, even in Washington," he said. "But remember: That's less than we are projected to have spent on the war in Iraq. And also remember: Failing to reform our health care system in a way that genuinely reduces cost growth will cost us trillions of dollars more in lost economic growth and lower wages." Aides have said previously that the administration wants to keep the cost around $1 trillion, while also acknowledging it might go higher. Obama said he's "open" to requiring all Americans to have health insurance, stressing that the plan would permit assistance for those who cannot afford it on their own. A "health care exchange" would be set up to provide additional options for the uninsured. "A big part of what led General Motors and Chrysler into trouble," he said, "were the huge costs they racked up providing health care for their workers � costs that made them less profitable and less competitive with automakers around the world." "If we do not fix our health care system," Obama said, "America may go the way of GM � paying more, getting less, and going broke." Obama has taken steps in recent days to outline just where money for the overhaul could be found. For instance, he wants to cut federal payments to hospitals by about $200 billion and cut $313 billion from Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years. He also is proposing a $635 billion in tax increases and spending cuts in the health care system as a "down payment" for his plan. Obama traveled to Chicago to talk to the 250,000-physician group in hopes of persuading doctors not to fight him. The nation's doctors, like many other groups, are divided over the president's proposals. He drew hearty applause with a focus on the particular concerns of the medical profession: telling them any system that relies on them "to be bean-counters and paper-pushers" is out of whack and that his push to investigate best-practices and eliminate unnecessary procedures "is not about dictating what kind of care should be provided." But the malpractice issue is the most provocative with this audience. Doctors chafe at the rising and eye-popping costs of malpractice insurance, and support limits on malpractice lawsuits. Obama started by sympathizing with doctors "who feel like they are constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of lawsuits" and with their desire for some way to curb them. The crowd burst into loud support. "Don't get too excited yet. ... Just hold onto your horses here, guys," Obama said as he prepared to deliver the disappointing news. "I want to be honest with you. I'm not advocating caps on malpractice awards," the president said. He explained that he thinks such limits would be unfair to patients who had been harmed � a line interrupted by boos. Instead, he said, without offering specifics, that expensive "excessive defensive medicine" can be curbed in other ways. Democrats have long opposed caps on medical malpractice payouts � something former President George W. Bush pushed for. Trial lawyers' groups stepped up their efforts. The Center for Justice and Democracy, which says it advocates for injured consumers, attorneys and others, released a letter to Obama signed by 64 survivors of medical malpractice saying they didn't want to be used as a "political bargaining chip" in the president's efforts to win support from doctors. "We are extremely concerned that the rights of medical malpractice patients may be stripped away as part of your national health care proposal," they wrote. The main lobby for trial lawyers also disputed Obama's statement that it's "a real issue" that doctors order more tests and treatments to avoid legal liability. "The notion that 'defensive medicine' is leading to higher health care costs is not supported by empirical data or academic literature," Les Weisbrod, president of the American Association for Justice, said after Obama's speech. "Limiting the legal rights of injured patients will do nothing to lower health care costs or aid the uninsured," Weisbrod said. Obama co-sponsored legislation with Hillary Rodham Clinton when both were in the Senate in 2005 that would have created a program to allow patients to learn of medical errors and establish negotiated compensation with the offer of an apology.

"Instead, he said, without offering specifics, that expensive "excessive defensive medicine" can be curbed in other ways. " Like? He's bowing to the trial lawyers like he did to the UAW. Hey, it pays to float($$$$) the winning candidate.

(Mari) Plus the ayatollahs control what happens; their president doesn't wield the real power there. It's a theocracy, remember? And how amazing is it that Khamenei finally made a turnaround and agreed publicly to look into the issue. Whether anything comes of it in the end there's no telling as it's quite unprecedented.

"The notion that 'defensive medicine' is leading to higher health care costs is not supported by empirical data or academic literature," Les Weisbrod, president of the American Association for Justice, said after Obama's speech. Not supported by the facts, eh? But I suppose it is his "opinion" that it is not supported by the facts. *shaking head*

ABC News to air Obama interview on health care AP Mon Jun 15, 11:54 am ET NEW YORK � ABC News will present a prime-time interview with President Barack Obama on health care issues next week. The special will air June 24 at 10 p.m. Eastern, on two-hour tape delay. Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer will moderate the White House discussion with a live audience, also taking questions submitted by viewers. After a break for local news, the discussion will continue on "Nightline." That morning, Sawyer will interview Obama for "Good Morning America." Gibson will anchor that evening's edition of "World News" from the White House Blue Room. Obama has been carefully doling out access to broadcast networks. NBC had big ratings with its inside peek at the White House. Obama has also given interviews to CBS' "Face the Nation" and "60 Minutes."

Godspeed to Obama. I want Socialized medicine in the US. (Mari) Plus the ayatollahs control what happens; their president doesn't wield the real power there. It's a theocracy, remember? And the West must fear stepping on their toes because they retaliate with bombings and killing innocent people. So our leaders don't speak out? That's not right.

Yeay! He did it! AP on Yahoo... Obama: Iranian voters' voices should be heard 1 hr 3 mins ago WASHINGTON � President Barack Obama on Monday said Iranian voters have a right to feel that their ballots matter and urged the investigation into vote-rigging allegations to go forward without additional violence. Obama said reports of violence that followed Iranian elections trouble him and all Americans. Peaceful dissent should never be subject to violence that followed weekend elections that gave President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a second term, he said. "It would be wrong for me to be silent on what we've seen on the television the last few days," Obama told reporters at the White House. Obama said he had no way of knowing whether the results are valid � the United States, he noted, had no election monitors in the country � but he added that it is important that the voters' choices be respected. Hundreds of thousands marched in central Tehran. Gunfire from a pro-government militia killed one man and wounded several others while the government cracked down on dissent. An Associated Press photographer saw at least one demonstrator killed and several others with what appeared to be serious injuries. The march came as Iran's most powerful figure, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ordered an investigation into vote rigging against reform leader Mir Hossein Mousavi. "I am deeply troubled by the violence I've been seeing on TV," Obama said. Obama said he would continue to engage the Middle East nation, even if Ahmadinejad's re-election is upheld. Obama said the United States must work with the country to prevent a nuclear arms race in the region. He emphasized that he disagrees with Ahmadenijad's "odious" beliefs and said the United States has serious disagreements with Iran's foreign policy. Yet, he said, the United States has a broader interest in stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons or exporting terrorism. The president was careful not to wade too deeply into Iran's domestic politics, recognizing "sometimes, the United States can be a handy political football." He said it's up to Iran to determine its own leaders but that the country must respect voters' choice. However, Obama praised protesters and the nation's youth who question results that showed Ahmadinejad winning a second term in a landslide. "The world is watching and is inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was," he said. Obama's remarks came at the end of an Oval Office meeting with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi. ~~~~~~~~ I didn't know Silvio was here:-)))) I doubt v. much if we get Euro-care. There will be some kind of expanded medical medicine by consensus to include the people who don't have insurance . Everyone seems to be on board for that one.

Somehow I get the feeling The Liberal Left doesn't like PM Netanyahu. Why do they always side with the Palestinians? From THE NATION Bibi's Media Manipulations By Neve Gordon June 11, 2009 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is beginning to sweat. Notwithstanding the agreement between President Barack Obama and Netanyahu on issues such as the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the insistence that the Palestinians renounce violence, there are currently points of serious contention between the two leaders. These include Obama's position that the two-state solution is the only way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, his demand that Israel stop building settlements and his intimation that all the settlements are illegal. Other points of strife include Obama's call for regional nuclear nonproliferation (which, in effect, assumes that Israel's nuclear capacity will be part of the negotiations with Iran), his recognition of the plight of Palestinians, including the refugees, and his claim that Hamas is a legitimate rather than a terrorist organization. So far Obama's challenges to Israel have been theoretical, and the only substantive demand that Washington has made involves the 100 or so Jewish outposts in the West Bank. Reiterating President Bush's directive, Obama recently asked Netanyahu to begin dismantling the outposts. Legally the outposts are just like the 121 settlements (that is, they are all illegal), only the outposts were built following the 1993 Oslo accords and, as opposed to the settlements--which are now home to close to half a million Jews or about 7 percent of Israel's citizenry--almost all the outposts are extremely sparsely populated with fewer than a dozen people in each one. Netanyahu did not refuse, but instead of carrying out the job, he decided to put on a show. Last week, the government sent troops to dismantle two outposts. The television networks were invited to cover the event, and that evening viewers watched how a group of settlers struggled against the most powerful military in the Middle East. Within hours of the news broadcasts, the settlers had already rebuilt the outposts, and thus today we are, once again, back to square one. The perceptive viewer understands that the government and the settlers are staging the events, using the media to broadcast them to the world. The images of lawless fundamentalists fighting the military convey a clear message to the audience at home: if Netanyahu dares to dismantle the outposts, the settlers will not only topple his government but there will be blood. More specifically, the not-so-latent inference is that if Netanyahu goes ahead with Washington's directive, he will be responsible for a civil war. While all of the major news networks provided a similar narrative, Channel Two, the most popular news provider, dedicated fourteen minutes of prime time to the issue. In the segment, a reporter is shown interviewing a Jewish settler named Araleh from Karnei Shomron in the West Bank about the dismantling of Jewish outposts. The two men are standing on a mountain ridge overlooking Palestinian fields that had been set on fire. The settler asserts that, "This is the price tag.... People need to know that if they dismantle anything in Judea and Samaria, there is a price." He then looks at the horizon and asks, "Do you see all these mountains?" and immediately responds, "They are all ours." When the reporter inquires what the settlers will do if a nearby outpost is dismantled, Araleh exclaims that they (the government) will not destroy it, and then adds, "They might destroy a little shack in the outpost to send pictures to the nigger in the United States." The crux of the matter is that this pathetic racist settler is right: the images of troops dismantling a few outposts and the forceful resistance are all part of a well-choreographed spectacle that is being produced specifically for Washington. Otherwise why remove only two outposts at a time instead of forty at once and getting the job done? And why invite the networks to cover the events and not to dismantle the outposts by surprise in the early morning hours when the settlers are not ready? The answer is straightforward: Netanyahu wants Obama to think that Israel will end up in a civil war if the White House stands firm. The question now is whether Obama will back off or whether he will he have the courage to make Netanyahu dismantle both the outposts and the settlements. If Obama hesitates, Israel will become a full-blown apartheid regime, while if he remains bold he will probably be remembered as the president who helped save Israel from itself. To do so he will have to make Netanyahu sweat much more. About Neve Gordon Neve Gordon teaches politics at Ben-Gurion University, Israel http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090629/gordon

(Evelyn) I doubt v. much if we get Euro-care. Damn straight we won't. That would mean every player would get much less of the pie, esp docs, so it won't happen.

I saw on CNN, while President A was making his re-election speech, that the council has 3 days to certify the results. I didn't realize how many votes there were either. I wonder what kind of voting machines they have or everything's by hand (hint: I didn't read the whole article yet ;-)). Speed of Iran vote count called suspicious AP By JASON KEYSER, Associated Press Writer � 49 mins ago CAIRO � How do you count almost 40 million handwritten paper ballots in a matter of hours and declare a winner? That's a key question in Iran's disputed presidential election. International polling experts and Iran analysts said the speed of the vote count, coupled with a lack of detailed election data normally released by officials, was fueling suspicion around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's landslide victory. Iran's supreme leader endorsed the hard-line president's re-election the morning after Friday's vote, calling it a "divine assessment" and appearing to close the door on challenges from Iran's reformist camp. But on Monday, after two days of rioting in the streets, he ordered an investigation into the allegations of fraud. Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's reformist challenger, claims he was robbed of the presidency and has called for the results to be canceled. Mousavi's newspaper, Kalemeh Sabz, or the Green Word, reported on its Web site that more than 10 million votes were missing national identification numbers similar to U.S. Social Security numbers, which make the votes "untraceable." It did not say how it knew that information. Mousavi said some polling stations closed early with voters still in line, and he charged that representatives of his campaign were expelled from polling centers even though each candidate was allowed one observer at each location. He has not provided evidence to support the accusations. His supporters have reported intimidation by security forces who maintained a strong presence around polling stations. Observers who questioned the vote said that at each stage of the counting, results released by the Interior Ministry showed Ahmadinejad ahead of Mousavi by about a 2-1 margin. That could be unusual, polling experts noted, because results reported first from Iran's cities would likely reflect a different ratio from those reported later from the countryside, where the populist Ahmadinejad has more support among the poor. Mousavi said the results also may have been affected by a shortage of ballot papers in the provinces of Fars and East Azerbaijan, where he had been expected to do well because he is among the country's Azeri minority. He said the shortage was despite the fact that officials had 17 million extra ballots ready. Interior Ministry results show that Ahmadinejad won in East Azerbaijan. The final tally was 62.6 percent of the vote for Ahmadinejad and 33.75 for Mousavi � a landslide victory in a race that was perceived to be much closer. Such a huge margin also went against the expectation that a high turnout � a record 85 percent of Iran's 46.2 million eligible voters � would boost Mousavi, whose campaign energized young people to vote. About a third of the eligible voters were under 30. Ahmadinejad, who has significant support among the poor and in the countryside, said Sunday that the vote was "real and free" and insisted the results were fair and legitimate. "Personally, I think that it is entirely possible that Ahmadinejad received more than 50 percent of the vote," said Konstantin Kosten, an expert on Iran with the Berlin-based German Council of Foreign Relations who spent a year from 2005-06 in Iran. Still, he said, "there must be an examination of the allegations of irregularities, as the German government has called for." But Iran's electoral system lacks the transparency needed to ensure a fair election, observers said. International monitors are barred from observing Iranian elections and there are no clear mechanisms to accredit domestic observers, said Michael Meyer-Resende, coordinator of the Berlin-based Democracy Reporting International, which tracked developments in the Iranian vote from outside the country. He noted that the election was organized and overseen by two institutions that are not independent, the government's Interior Ministry and the Guardian Council, a 12-member body made up of clerics and experts in Islamic law who are closely allied to the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Meyer-Resende said that to be sure of the results announced by the Interior Ministry, it must release data all the way down to the level of each polling station. One of the central questions was how 39.2 million paper ballots could be counted by hand and final results announced by authorities in Tehran in just over 12 hours. Past elections took at least twice as long. A new computerized system might have helped speed the process in urban centers, where most Iranians live, though it is unclear if that system was extended to every small town and village. And each ballot � on which a candidate's name was written in � would still have to be counted by hand before any data could be entered into a computer, aggregated and transmitted to the Interior Ministry in Tehran. "I wouldn't say it's completely impossible," Meyer-Resende said. "In the case of Iran, of course, you wonder with logistical challenges whether they could do it so fast." Susan Hyde, an assistant political science professor at Yale University who has taken part in election monitoring missions in developing countries for the Carter Center, agreed that would be uncharacteristically fast. "If they're still using hand counting, that would be very speedy, unusually speedy," she said. The Interior Ministry released results from a first batch of 5 million votes just an hour and a half after polling stations closed. Over the next four hours, it released vote totals almost hourly in huge chunks of about 5 million votes � plowing through more than half of all ballots cast. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, a professor of Middle East politics at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, said a major rigging process would require the involvement of powerful advisory bodies, including those in which one of the other candidates and a key Mousavi backer are prominent figures. "Given that Mohsen Rezaei, one of the other presidential candidates, is the head of the powerful Expediency Council, for instance, it is highly unlikely that he wouldn't have received any information of such a strategic plan to hijack the election," Adib-Moghaddam said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iran_fraud_allegations;_ylt=At7hA2gxwqGZDfH1vu0UCKis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJxNmRldDZ2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNjE2L21sX2lyYW5fZnJhdWRfYWxsZWdhdGlvbnMEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMxBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2lyYW5lbGVjdGlvbg--

Well, The American Conservative seems to elaborate on Mari's point earlier about Obama reaction. The President of the United States is not and must not be seen as a partisan in the elections of other nations. No matter the party and no matter the country, their cause is not and cannot be the same as his. For another thing, such a symbolic display of solidarity in the absence of action would be interpreted, correctly, as worse than doing and saying nothing. Nothing would please his domestic enemies more than to be able to mock his empty symbolism and falsely impute Islamist sympathies to him, and nothing would suit Mousavi�s enemies more than to be able to tie Mousavi to the United States through that symbolic identification. While we�re at it, it would be seen as an attempt to use worldwide sympathy for the movement in question to bolster himself politically while doing absolutely nothing for the people with whom he supposedly sympathizes. It would give the regime the pretext of treating Mousavi as an American lackey. They may do this in any case, but Washington need not enable or provide justificatio for this. The administration�s wait-and-see approach is the right one http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/06/15/political-colors/

Tweets from Iran and pics. Multiple deaths apparently. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/livetweeting-the-revolution.html#more

(Dorine) I wonder what kind of voting machines they have or everything's by hand On CR last night Roger Cohen (NYT) reported on the phone from Tehran. There were four other Middle East scholars on the show . The consensus is that no one really knows who won...it could be President A. "Voting Machines"..don't think so. Try hand ballots which in some instances they ran out of. "The administration�s wait-and-see approach is the right one" I am v. happy with his pronouncements yesterday. The US doesn't have to align itself with Mousavi, but we do with people who want their votes to count. And that is what BO statement said. Wasn't so "wait and see" on Saturday...remember I posted that article ... And my comment was if he was happy, I guess I would be too.

Back to healthcare for a moment.... (Evelyn) I doubt v. much if we get Euro-care. (Me) Damn straight we won't. That would mean every player would get much less of the pie, esp docs, so it won't happen. It's possible some form will happen, but I'll bet so riddled with loopholes as to be almost not worth it except for the ability to make the statement that something was done. But then again, in 1999 when the Prospective Payment System for nursing homes was put into effect, a variety of entities experienced some negative effects (mass job losses/facility closings/limitations in patient care/manipulation of patient care to ensure maximum reimbursement) all for the common good of saving Medicare money in the end. Eventually, facilities figured out how to work the system along with there being much tweaking on the part of Congress because some of the cuts in reimbursement turned out to be quite draconian. One of the things that I think it achieved though to some degree was to reign in the billing excesses from the fee-for-service days. At the same time, that created some scenarios regarding maximizing reimbursement that I found quite disillusioning as an altruistic clinician. I went to a meeting one night about healthcare reform and watched this. I mentioned it very briefly here a couple of months ago. It was very interesting to see how various countries utilize healthcare. As you can read (and see if you watch it), they aren't perfect systems, but people are helped and in general it costs less to provide that care proportionally than here. I highly recommend watching it. It's only an hour. (Watch Online link at top of page). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

From today's Philly Inquirer; these guys conducted a poll 3 weeks ago: Iran vote may be accurate An independent effort to take the pulse of the country's electorate found that Ahmadinejad was poised to win reelection handily. By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a ratio of more than 2-1 - greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election. While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead. Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, pre-election polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, the field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our pre-election survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, a member of the second-largest ethnic group in Iran, after Persians. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad 2-1 over Mousavi. Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youths and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, and 18- to 24-year-olds were the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad. The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud. Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad in our poll simply reflected fearful respondents' reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four of five Iranians - including most Ahmadinejad supporters - said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly politically correct responses in a largely authoritarian society. Indeed, consistently among all three of our surveys over the past two years, more than 70 percent of Iranians also expressed support for providing full access to weapons inspectors and a guarantee that Iran will not develop or possess nuclear weapons, in return for outside aid and investment. And 77 percent of Iranians favored normal relations and trade with the United States, another result consistent with our previous findings. Iranians view their support for a more democratic system, with normal relations with the United States, as consonant with their support for Ahmadinejad. They do not want him to continue his hard-line policies. Rather, Iranians apparently see Ahmadinejad as their toughest negotiator - the person best positioned to bring home a favorable deal, rather like a Persian Nixon going to China. Allegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran, and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world. Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent - with the grave consequences such charges could bring - they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit that researches attitudes toward extremism. Patrick Doherty is deputy director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The groups' poll consisted of 1,001 interviews, and its margin of error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. This appeared in the Washington Post.

It may be, but according to this, just before the election Ballen indicated it he thought it could be much closer, with a run off. I guess not having a lot of confidence in his own poll? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/iran-pre-election-polling_b_214452.html This is the liveblog via Twitter of that event she mentions. The first half dozen lines refer to the election. http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/06/08/liveblogging-iran-pre-election-public-opinion-results/

I had read elsewhere that the outcome could be so as Ahmadinijad could've lost Tehran, because of the concentration of younger, more educated voters who tended to be the opposition supporters, but won the outer regions since there's less of that demographic there. I suspect this is their equivalent of our 2004 election in many ways, but we didn't turn violent when Kerry lost (surprisingly to many).

Somehow I get the feeling The Liberal Left doesn't like PM Netanyahu. Why do they always side with the Palestinians? This is only a select, but very vocal, bunch of self-loathing Jews and/or Israelis that the media loves to publish as reprsentative. Read Deshowitz on the subject.

What got me from the article in The Nation was that the author was a professor at Ben _Guerion university in Israel. *I* say, he's not being v. loyal Anyway, I have a problem , as you know ,with people who aren't loyal to their patria and criticize it abroad any chance they get. The Nation as a whole is v. critical of the Israeli cause. Read Deshowitz on the subject. Where? The poll that The Philly paper quotes is one that was discussed last night. But i think it was taken in May. In the last two weeks (they said) Moussavi gained popularity. I have that PBS Healthcare show on my DVR from last year! IMO we have to take "baby steps" with expanded health care. It will improve incrementally...like Medicare has. Government run care isn't that great, I can tell you from experience. And the services mostly deal with people who are healthy. The guys at the VA have a hard time getting adequate care etc. Competition always helps.

Dershowitz on Neve Gordon: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1162378347880 Competition always helps. No, it does not. Examples: telcoms and cable companies. You see your rates go down...ever????

Yes, my phone bill has even with AT&T. I pay less with landline, international, wireless and DSL Premium than I paid for landline alone. Remember when you paid by the minute and only called long distance in the evenings and Sundays when the rates were lower ? Some cable has gone up if you subscribe singularly, but still there are deals out there if you "bundle". Wow Dershowitz sure doesn't like Gordon. But what motivation does Gordon have when he has a job in Israel and yet hates the country?

(Evelyn) Government run care isn't that great, I can tell you from experience. And the services mostly deal with people who are healthy. Is there any way you could be a little bit more specific on what you mean "govt run"? Are you talking about Medicare? Can you be any more specific about what services aren't so hot that you may be referring to? You mention the VA, is that what you refer to? The reason I ask is basically so I can know whether to agree with you or not, or simply be informed regarding your statement about dealing with healthy people mostly. The VA is being so poorly run in many areas, but I don't know that competition would make a difference in their case per se. IMO we have to take "baby steps" with expanded health care. This is what I keep saying to people when the subject comes up.

Closing tags This is what I keep saying to people when the subject comes up Good for you! Govern run care. VA, Military. And my Native-American friends tell me the Indian Health Service is not so great either. I don't think there are any other gov't run medical services. Medicare comes from the Fed, but it's also state run and outsourced to private insurance companies in different areas of the country. . Different states cover different procedures and costs. ie...New York Medicare is a bear to deal with. My DHbecame ill in NY 8 months before he died Medicare refused to pay for the ambulance to take him to the airport from 2 wks in hospital; even with physician's orders because he was on 24 hr oxygen. I tried appealing, unsucessfully, and finally gave up and settled with the ambulance company. Some states will allow more than 2 weeks rehab in a nursing facility.; some cut you off. I'm not complaining...just explainin';-) Hey: "Life is a series of compromises"; there you are...your thought for the day. LOL

closing tag But what motivation does Gordon have when he has a job in Israel and yet hates the country? Let me be clear. People are free to criticize their country, but the man's degrees, etc., are irrelevant to me. One can be book smart and street stupid. This man and others, like good old Noam, are naive. Who is talking about goverment run care? The health care reform plans put the government into the insurance companies' role, as an alternative provider. I see no difference from one bureaucracy to another. Anyone who has ever dealt with an insurance company denying them coverage would know that.

What's the difference between Fed run and gov't run? Actually, both Medicare and Medicaid are federally funded programs with Medicaid being administered by individual states. Medicare services/rules are uniform across the country. The subsidized managed Medicares still get Fed money, not state, but yes, are managed by private insurance co's which is where differences in coverage may occur over and above the basic Medicare coverage that all are entitled to though they can limit where you get those services. Those insurance co's (not the state) can be much more limiting and makes it difficult for providers like my company to provide enough proper services or any at all if we don't have a contract with them. And yes, those plans are definitely a bear for patients and families to deal with, esp when medical issues become more chronic and comprehensive. It's very much a shame. Yes, Medicare is limited for ancillary services such as home health aides, transport, getting labs done, etc. That's why a lot of people have dual coverage with Medicaid (here anyway) because Medicaid will cover the difference or a larger chunk. Or there's the Medigap plans, too, though at least here, I think straight Medicaid is better. I think NY (straight) Medicaid pays for everything under the sun, or so it seems. I know all about how it works in rehab in nursing facilities (in many states) having worked in literally dozens all over. I could go on for days. It's not the state that dictates your stay. It's the insurance you have and facilities. The facilities do a lot of manipulation to max out reimbursement. There's a variety of reasons why one could be cut off or the converse, kept there longer than necessary. I've seen it work both ways. But that's a much longer discussion. Hey: "Life is a series of compromises"; With healthcare for sure, that's the truth.

The guys at the VA have a hard time getting adequate care etc. All because of lack of funding.

The current health care system is unsustainable. Period. We can't fix the economy without fixing health care. And the employer-based system, which is where most of us get our coverage, is unsustainable if we can't get the costs under conrol. Lots of companies are cutting back on coverage and will start to eliminate it because they can't afford it and it's making them completely uncompetitive. Many have already eliminated retiree medical coverage, meaning if you retire before you're Medicare eligible, you're shit out of luck. After working all your life. How's them apples? Did you know that the #1 reason for personal bankruptcies is lack of health insurance? People are going broke trying to pay their medical bills. These are working people. Was listening to Kathy Sebelius head of HSS talking about this the other day. She said what I've said as far back as pre-election: the public plan which doesn't have to be run by the government. You can have nonprofit cooperatives. A public plan could be offered along with private ones (competition!) through an insurance purchasing pool, where individuals and small businesses (and maybe even big ones) could opt for coverage. Opponents would have you believe that a "public plan" is the same as a government plan. Nope. Doesn't have to be.

(Dorine) I think NY (straight) Medicaid pays for everything under the sun, or so it seems. And then there's Medi-Cal . No wonder they're broke. Massachusetts seems to have a successful program. At least all the citizens are happy. Taxes go up; sure, but one has to expect that. Everyone should be compelled to buy insurance..just like car insurance for a license. Mari, my friends who retired and had to get private insurance stayed with Cobra or AARP at 50. There are many coverages..including some reasonable premiums if you up the deductible. Takes some researching. Non-profit coops seems to be taking on a life. But utimately, one has to read the fine print. *Glorious rhetoric* alone doesn't cut it.

(Mari) Did you know that the #1 reason for personal bankruptcies is lack of health insurance? Yes! Lots of companies are cutting back on coverage One of the big selling points of my company to employees (and quite unheard of anymore I think), was the no-cost to us insurance. That changed the beginning of this year. I had the best plan so I had to start paying. If I'd dropped down to the lower plan, I wouldn't have had to, but then some things would've been limited. Many have already eliminated retiree medical coverage Is this like a medical pension of some sort? I also saw that bit from Sebelius the other day and wasn't so sure about all that. It's something I need to read and understand more about. I keep coming back in my head to public basic care for all and for more complex issues, private coverage.

(Evelyn)Everyone should be compelled to buy insurance..just like car insurance for a license. I agree. my friends who retired and had to get private insurance stayed with Cobra or AARP at 50. COBRA is only good for 18 months. Major Medical AARP for 50-64 is not available in NJ (or many other states). They only offer hospital indemnity insurance--just covers room and board, nothing else. Here's another kicker that more people are just waking up to: If you have your child under your employer health insurance, most plans will only let you cover the child until age 19, unless they're a full time student in which case you can keep them on until age 25. Presumably, after college or high school they can get coverage under *their* employer. But in this economy? Only 25% of college grads this year have found jobs. The big hole in relying on employer-sponsored coverage is that . . . you have to have an employer!;-) I have so many friends whose kids are in this boat. *Glorious rhetoric* alone doesn't cut it. No, of course not. But let's see the plan first. I applaud O for giving this a top priority. I hope he can succeed where Hillary and Bill could not because they lacked consensus 15 years ago. But now, more are on board. Will still be a tough slog and I hope to God it's not so watered down once every special interest group gets its fingerprints on it. Insurance companies hate it.

Everyone should be compelled to buy insurance..just like car insurance for a license. Proof of insurance is required to get plates, permits, renew your license, etc., yet I'm required to buy "uninsured drivers" insurance here as well. When I had COBRA coverage, it was only for one year. Maybe it has been extended, which would make sense given the situations. If finding (and getting) insurance is soooooooo easy, then why are more than 40 million Americans doing without. I don't think it is because they can't read the print of any size.

When I had COBRA coverage, it was only for one year. Maybe it has been extended My son was out of a job for 2 yrs and kept COBRA (guess who paid?;-)) (Karen)then why are more than 40 million Americans doing without. I don't think it is because they can't read the print of any size. Many don't want to pay anything; esp the young....who are never sick. They ran into that prob in Mass. That number is inflated, I hear. The folks who really needed it get Medicaid. It's the ones who fall in between the cracks that we want to insure. I'm not for subsidizing folks who make three digits or even $88K (Mari)Major Medical AARP for 50-64 is not available in NJ (or many other states). Move! It's cheap...doctors hate it like they do Medicare, because they don't reimburse enough. In most big cities doctors only take quota of Medicare. I had a hard time finding a Primary Care Physician when I moved 2 yrs ago. (Mari)The big hole in relying on employer-sponsored coverage is that . . . you have to have an employer!;-) I have so many friends whose kids are in this boat. Yup...was like that when my sons graduated too. And we bought hospital insurance for them from Allstate. Older son went on 'n 'on'n on to grad scholl and we paid too. (somebody)hope he can succeed where Hillary and Bill could not because they lacked consensus 15 years ago. But now, more are on board. It was v. dictatorial & it lacked details. V. obscure. This WH crowd is more savy (read: not nearly as arrogant;-) Both sides are smarter:-))) Sorry this is so long...but I'm the only one around:-(((((

Last time I was eligible for COBRA several years ago, I believe it was 18 mos. I didn't take it as I couldn't afford it. I wasn't workin'!! (Evelyn) doctors hate it like they do Medicare, because they don't reimburse enough. And HMO's. Make your posts as long as you want. I don't scroll through. ;-D

Everyone should be compelled to buy insurance..just like car insurance for a license. I disagree. I think it is every citizen's right to have health care coverage for free. Let the Gov. legalize pot and sell it. Let us raise cigarette taxes, and alcohol taxes and use that money for it. Let the superfluous pay for the necessary.

I had health coverage for free. Which was OK, as long as you're healthy, or one can't afford otherwise. I'm all in favor of medical care for the underserved. Now I want " choice" vs regimentation; I don't mind paying "fee for service". Nothing beats "choice", let me tell you.

And that will probably happen. In Europe with socialized medicine, there are still private clinics one can go to if you want to pay. There is a choice.

(Moon)there are still private clinics one can go to if you want to pay. My friends in UK take out private insurance for "choice": treatment, doctors, hospitals. Not cheap, but remember what I said about "compromises". Cut back somewhere else.

The cut back should be me cutting back all the money I pay for health insurance.

Many don't want to pay anything; esp the young....who are never sick...That number is inflated, I hear. If that helps you sleep at night... I'm always amazed at the beneficence of those who never had to pay for their health insurance.