Ladies and Gentleman, meet Congressman Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia's District 4
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Expected CMS Nomination Is Next Step in Health Care Debate
A White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the administration plans to nominate Donald M. Berwick to become the new administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
A clinical professor of pediatrics and health policy at Harvard Medical School, Berwick founded the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in 1991 to identify and foster best practices in medicine that would save lives and reduce suffering.
If confirmed, he would take over the long-vacant CMS post as the agency prepares to impose hundreds of billions of dollars of Medicare cost reductions mandated by the new health care overhaul law, as well as undertake an expansion of Medicaid.
The top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee signaled that Berwick would face tough scrutiny at his confirmation hearing.
CQ Politics
Bryant: TRANSPARENCY IN STATE GOVERNMENT
In my travels around Mississippi speaking to various groups, I have seen that the voters are demanding more openness and transparency in government. Groups like the Tea Party movement are calling on elected officials to open up the process to include more public participation. As our Founders clearly stated, and elected officials need to better understand, government closest to the people governs best.
As the former State Auditor, I have always believed that the more transparent a government entity is, the more accountable it is to the taxpayers. In my first week of being sworn in as Lt. Governor, I proposed webcasting the Senate proceedings so taxpayers could see their government in action and hold their elected officials accountable. The Senate unanimously approved this innovative, open-government measure. That same year, I formed the Senate Ethics Committee. Through this committee, one of the most comprehensive ethics reform in nearly twenty-five years passed both chambers. Among many things in the bill, required all elected officials to file their ethics reports online.
Those measures did not pass without a struggle. But it is successes like these that make the fight for more openness worth it.
Now in the legislature, the fight for more openness, more accountability and more transparency continues to rage.
Reformers in the capitol have been pushing legislation aimed at adding more oversight to government agencies that hire outside attorneys. Nicknamed the Sunshine Attorney Act, this legislation basically says that when the anticipated fee for legal services exceeds $500,000, the contract with the private lawyers has to be approved by the Personal Service Contract Review Board. This legislation is not aimed at one person or state agency. Not only does this bill bring sunshine to the process of hiring outside counsel, it’s simply good government. After passing the Senate, SB 3059 unfortunately died in House Committee and never came up for a vote.
Lastly, the Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation making those who violate the open meetings law pay their own fines. Again, I have a simple belief that people blatantly violating the open meetings law should be personally responsible for their violations. As it stands now, because of a procedural move in the House of Representatives the taxpayer will continue to pay the bills for officials who disobey our current Open Meetings Law.
The Mississippi legislature should be making Mississippi one of the most open and accountable states in the nation. People throughout Mississippi have been calling for a more open government, and it’s time members of the legislature hear their call.
Christian Charity: Social Justice and the Good Samaritan
By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
Charity—a loving spirit concretely expressed in unselfish good deeds to one’s fellow man—is a primary Christian duty. Nobody who has read the New Testament can come to any other conclusion.
In his parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37), Jesus explains what it means to love one’s neighbor as oneself. When the Samaritan happened to encounter a man who had been badly hurt by robbers, he compassionately ministered to the man’s needs. This was in stark contrast to two other men who already had seen the wounded man and left without helping him. The vivid contrast was made even more stark by the fact that the merciful man was a Samaritan, whom Jesus’ own people, the Jews, despised as religious inferiors, while the heartless men who ignored the victim’s plight—a priest and a Levite—came from the ranks of the religious elite.
The good Samaritan gave what he could to help the wounded man. He first took care of him himself, and then, when his own pre-existing commitments necessitated his departure, he paid an innkeeper to nurse the man back to health.
In this famous parable, Jesus illustrated, with exquisite (and typical) brevity and simplicity, the two forms of Christian charity: first, assistance provided personally and directly to another; second, rendering assistance indirectly by donating one’s own property to those who have the time and skills to tend to those in need, in lieu of our own hands-on assistance.
As a thought experiment, let’s imagine the story of the good Samaritan taking a different twist. Let’s suppose that the Samaritan, upon spotting the badly wounded man, also sees a rich man walking by. Let us then suppose that the Samaritan is a big, powerful man who intimidates the rich man into handing over enough money to pay for the wounded man’s care. The man in need would still receive the help that he so desperately needs, but would the Samaritan still touch our heart, and would he have acted selflessly? Would we remember him as a paragon of Christian virtue and charity?
Jesus had not demanded that the Samaritan take money from strangers on the street by threat of force. That wouldn’t feel right, would it?
The obvious difference, of course, is that in Jesus’ parable, the Samaritan acts voluntarily—out of the goodness of his own heart—whereas in my hypothetical, counterfeit version, the Samaritan engages in an ersatz pseudo-charity by forcing someone else to pay for the good deed that the Samaritan wants to be performed. Is it true charity to be generous with other people’s money?
This is the murky moral territory onto which many Christians stray in the name of “social justice” or the social gospel. The desire to help those in need is laudable, but the means often employed by advocates of “social justice” are not.
Many Christians commit a fundamental error when they call for government to redistribute wealth to the poor, the sick, the needy. Government necessarily introduces the additional factor of compulsion into the equation, as government employs organized force.
If we wouldn’t justify an individual collecting funds for the poor by threatening passersby, then how do we justify government using the threat of fines or imprisonment to extract property from some to give it to others? In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “It is strangely absurd [to suppose] that a million human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind (or liberate) each of them separately.”
This isn’t to say that no collective action should be taken to minister to the poor. Indeed, many churches and various private-sector charities are doing praiseworthy work for those in need, and they merit our financial support. The common factor, though, in these nongovernmental organizations is that participation is voluntary. Nobody compels you to belong to a certain church or contribute to a specific charitable organization. It is your prerogative and choice.
By all means, be charitable. But don’t mix charity with compulsion. Jesus never did.
Charity—a loving spirit concretely expressed in unselfish good deeds to one’s fellow man—is a primary Christian duty. Nobody who has read the New Testament can come to any other conclusion.
In his parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37), Jesus explains what it means to love one’s neighbor as oneself. When the Samaritan happened to encounter a man who had been badly hurt by robbers, he compassionately ministered to the man’s needs. This was in stark contrast to two other men who already had seen the wounded man and left without helping him. The vivid contrast was made even more stark by the fact that the merciful man was a Samaritan, whom Jesus’ own people, the Jews, despised as religious inferiors, while the heartless men who ignored the victim’s plight—a priest and a Levite—came from the ranks of the religious elite.
The good Samaritan gave what he could to help the wounded man. He first took care of him himself, and then, when his own pre-existing commitments necessitated his departure, he paid an innkeeper to nurse the man back to health.
In this famous parable, Jesus illustrated, with exquisite (and typical) brevity and simplicity, the two forms of Christian charity: first, assistance provided personally and directly to another; second, rendering assistance indirectly by donating one’s own property to those who have the time and skills to tend to those in need, in lieu of our own hands-on assistance.
As a thought experiment, let’s imagine the story of the good Samaritan taking a different twist. Let’s suppose that the Samaritan, upon spotting the badly wounded man, also sees a rich man walking by. Let us then suppose that the Samaritan is a big, powerful man who intimidates the rich man into handing over enough money to pay for the wounded man’s care. The man in need would still receive the help that he so desperately needs, but would the Samaritan still touch our heart, and would he have acted selflessly? Would we remember him as a paragon of Christian virtue and charity?
Jesus had not demanded that the Samaritan take money from strangers on the street by threat of force. That wouldn’t feel right, would it?
The obvious difference, of course, is that in Jesus’ parable, the Samaritan acts voluntarily—out of the goodness of his own heart—whereas in my hypothetical, counterfeit version, the Samaritan engages in an ersatz pseudo-charity by forcing someone else to pay for the good deed that the Samaritan wants to be performed. Is it true charity to be generous with other people’s money?
This is the murky moral territory onto which many Christians stray in the name of “social justice” or the social gospel. The desire to help those in need is laudable, but the means often employed by advocates of “social justice” are not.
Many Christians commit a fundamental error when they call for government to redistribute wealth to the poor, the sick, the needy. Government necessarily introduces the additional factor of compulsion into the equation, as government employs organized force.
If we wouldn’t justify an individual collecting funds for the poor by threatening passersby, then how do we justify government using the threat of fines or imprisonment to extract property from some to give it to others? In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “It is strangely absurd [to suppose] that a million human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind (or liberate) each of them separately.”
This isn’t to say that no collective action should be taken to minister to the poor. Indeed, many churches and various private-sector charities are doing praiseworthy work for those in need, and they merit our financial support. The common factor, though, in these nongovernmental organizations is that participation is voluntary. Nobody compels you to belong to a certain church or contribute to a specific charitable organization. It is your prerogative and choice.
By all means, be charitable. But don’t mix charity with compulsion. Jesus never did.
Clones are people, too?
It appears that the drive to place an abortion ban on the 2011 ballot in Mississippi has been successful. I don't believe in abortion, personally. And I may come around to participating in the discussion, yet again. But at present this one is getting filed under "Here We Go Again". Don't we know the ultimate ending to this already?
I have to admit I was taken aback by one part of the proposal.
So, now we are protecting clones too? That one made me giggle a little. First we don't want science to create life, because that's God's job. But, if they do, then we'll love them just the same.
Abortion opponents in Miss. clear petition bar
Read the rest at The Sun Herald
Under the proposal, a person would be defined "to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the equivalent thereof."
So, now we are protecting clones too? That one made me giggle a little. First we don't want science to create life, because that's God's job. But, if they do, then we'll love them just the same.
Abortion opponents in Miss. clear petition bar
Abortion opponents have enough signatures to put an anti-abortion proposal on next year's ballot, making Mississippi the second state in the nation where the initiative has reached that point.
In 2011, voters will be asked to support a ballot initiative that would give unborn fetuses human rights in the state constitution. A similar proposal goes before Colorado voters this fall.
Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann said Thursday the petitioners got more than the minimum 89,285 signatures required to get the initiative before voters.
The grassroots effort had the support of Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant, who recorded a telephone message that was sent to thousands of Mississippians urging them to sign the petition.
Under the proposal, a person would be defined "to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the equivalent thereof."
Keith Mason, co-founder of Personhood USA, a group formed to support similar initiatives across the country, said Mississippi was chosen because "it's the most pro-life state in America."
Mississippi has one of the nation's toughest abortion laws, requiring the consent of both parents for minors and a 24-hour waiting period and counseling before all abortions.
Michele Colon, a social justice activist and a former National Organization for Women board member, said a campaign to oppose the measure would be launched. Colon said she will work with a coalition of groups on community outreach.
"It's unconstitutional. It's harmful legislation against the women of Mississippi regarding their reproductive health care," Colon said.
Read the rest at The Sun Herald
AP: Another Louisiana oyster-harvesting area closed
by Associated Press
BATON ROUGE, La. — For the third time in a week, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals has closed an oyster harvesting area because of an outbreak of illness.
This time, it’s “Area 13,” west of the Mississippi River in southern Jefferson and Lafourche parishes.
Last Wednesday, the department closed an area in Plaquemines Parish because of a norovirus outbreak in Mississippi. On Thursday, part of St. Bernard Parish waters were closed to mollusc harvest because of another outbreak.
Both of those areas are east of the Mississippi River and more than 60 miles from the latest area closed.
MBJ
BATON ROUGE, La. — For the third time in a week, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals has closed an oyster harvesting area because of an outbreak of illness.
This time, it’s “Area 13,” west of the Mississippi River in southern Jefferson and Lafourche parishes.
Last Wednesday, the department closed an area in Plaquemines Parish because of a norovirus outbreak in Mississippi. On Thursday, part of St. Bernard Parish waters were closed to mollusc harvest because of another outbreak.
Both of those areas are east of the Mississippi River and more than 60 miles from the latest area closed.
MBJ
The Foundry: Don’t Be Fooled by Obama’s Offshore Drilling Announcement
The increased economic activity from heavily-populated developing nations like India and China indicates that the demand for oil is likely to increase well into the future. The least we can do is step aside and let companies determine whether these projects are economically feasible.
President Obama said in his announcement today that “This is not a decision that I’ve made lightly.” It should have been. Offshore drilling will create jobs and increase energy supplies without cost to the taxpayer. It will create revenues for financially strapped state governments and increase revenues for federal governments. Unfortunately, we won’t realize many of these benefits because this decision was more about getting “drilling” in the headlines than in our nation’s waters.
The Foundry
President Obama said in his announcement today that “This is not a decision that I’ve made lightly.” It should have been. Offshore drilling will create jobs and increase energy supplies without cost to the taxpayer. It will create revenues for financially strapped state governments and increase revenues for federal governments. Unfortunately, we won’t realize many of these benefits because this decision was more about getting “drilling” in the headlines than in our nation’s waters.
The Foundry
Legislation to stop bullying in schools? What a load of crap!
On occasion, Senator Terry "I've got a game show host's voice" Burton sits in. He too has a background in radio so I get the voice deal. I sometimes expect to here him use the phrase, "But Wait! There's More!"
This morning the good Senator had a guest on the show whose name I did not catch. The young lady was speaking in support of legislation to stop bullying in our schools. She of course, had a program, a set of steps on what students should do and, although I didn't hear it said, I'm sure she would be more than happy to work with students and schools and legislators to set up this wonderful program.
When confronted, the young lady suggested students do four things. I don't remember them all, but the gist of it was to step back, stop and think, something else, and "make peace".
What a load!
What this young lady--who incidentally sounded like she may have been just out of her teens--is advocating is nothing more than steps needed to ensure that the child is bullied repeatedly.
I have my own suggestion:
1. Step back--just shy of arm length is preferable. You want to be able to touch the bully.
2. Grit your teeth--Think of absolutely how embarassed this person has made you at this precise moment, think of how absolutely PO'd you are at him/her.
3. Ask yourself--Ask yourself one question, "Where am I stronger, my arms or my legs?"
4. Use the rage--This step is one that allows you to use your own talents and judgement on how best to use them. Based on the answer to the question in step three you can:
A. Use your arm strength to swing your arm at a high rate of speed planting your fist firmly under the nose of the bully with as much force as possible. (Note: If using this tactic, depending upon the size of the bully, it may be necessary to repeat the step several times.)
B. Use your leg strength to kick, placing your foot firmly in the genital area of the bully. (Note: If using this tactic, the confrontation is immediately over.)
5. Immediately leave the bully lying on the floor and report to the authorities of the school. If not at school, then report to your parents to receive a pat on the back for standing up for yourself.
Parents, if you are teaching your children to step away and "make peace" then you are part of the problem. Our country is raising a generation of wusses. And now we have some legislators wanting to make it an official practice. We are quickly deteriorating into a country of "poor me's" looking for someone else to bail our ass out of every situation that is uncomfortable.
Feel good utopianites looking to legislate us into a heaven on earth are the reason we will likely never again see the type of grit and determination from our citizens that we saw from the generation that won World War II. It is the "go along, get along" mentality and feel good BS that is furthering that decline.
I understand that not every kid has the ability to stand up for themselves in this way. But, how many people have developed other talents as a result of bullying? How many people have developed a quick wit as a result? How many people have developed the fortitude to stand up and not take no for an answer that has led to some of the worlds greatest innovations? We have all had to deal with bullying in its many forms in the past and we all, no matter our age, will have to deal with it in the future.
Bad things happen. Good people deal with it. This is part of learning.
Teach your kids to take responsibility for themselves and their own lives. Because, if we're all sheep. Then who is protecting the flock?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)