Arkansas Blog

Beautiful photo and thank you Gerard and Leslie for a job well done this week.

Iconoclast takes apart Boozman's votes. Just who does Boozman represent? Churchianity, a gang of
mental institution wannabes, and a very small group of billionaires who want a socialized highway
around NWA?

He voted to cut student loans by 50% then has the audacity to show up at UA events (while White was there) promoting scholarships (he voted to cut) and the innovative programs the UA was hosting.

Iconoclast is clicky.

Beautiful. We camped at Petit Jean a couple weeks ago, and it was nothing short of splendid. We're pretty lucky around here.

DON'T CLICKY if you are an animal lover....IMO we have raised a generation, or two, of
sociopaths/phychopaths....people with no soul or core values, what is causing this sickness
in our society today??

eL,,,glad you took your Lady out last night, means she is feeling good. Enjoyed the word pic of
papa shucking the MUDBUGS but did they suck the heads?? that is the best part,,,where all
the fat is...kinda like the wingnuts.

.......speaking of vacations, Max always sends us such glowing reports from far and near but
have any of you ever had a real disaster strike on a long awaited, planned for vacation??
lost luggage, lousy hotel, missed connections, awful weather, awfuler food????

Thanks Gerard and Leslie, great job....Max better watch his p's and q's.

>>Enjoyed the word pic of papa shucking the MUDBUGS but did they suck the heads??<,

No head sucking at Panda. Not that there are rules against it, just that they are Thais.

OK, we're headed to Mt Magazine soon for our 25th AND rumor (and Google) indicates the food at the Lodge restaurant in a word SUCKS. I know the original chef quit in a huff over "interference" from bureaucrats. Anyone with experience up there? We obviously didn't make this selection for the food, but the hot tub on the deck over looking the valley...

THANKS in advance for your opinions!

Larry - I think "sucks" is a bit harsh. The food is not great, but you're a senior citizen on a bus tour, it's passable. The wine list only stocks Arkansas wines. The breakfast at the restaurant is pretty good if you order off the menu. It you rent a cabin, the kitchens are adequately equipped to prepare your own meals. That is probably your best bet. The view is magnificent. We stayed there last year during a tremendous wind storm, so it was pretty wild to sit in the hot tub on the back porch during that. I was amazed to see broadband fiber-optic Internet service at the cabins. Have a great time on your 25th.

I can't decide which state park I like best. Petit Jean, Mount Magazine, Mount Nebo, Devil's Den... they're all fantastic.

Oops, that should say IF you're a senior citizen on a bus tour...

Larry, we've made three sojourns to Mt. Magazine since the park opened and we love it. Each time we rented a cabin (they're so cool) rather than a room in the lodge. Since the cabins have great, fully-equipped kitchens, we prepared our own meals for the most part. Have had the evening meal at the lodge once, however, and while it's no Ashley's or Brave's, we found it pleasing enough to the palate.

But, hey, bud --- ya don't climb to the top of Mt. Magazine to eat. You go there to sip some good wine, to engage in some serious reading, to gaze at the stars, and to reconnect to your soul. And, Larry, get this 'cause it's real important: If you're a REALLY good boy, say JUST the right things, and make ALL the right moves, ya just might even get a little lovin'. Of course, it being your 25th and all that, the lovin' should come as a guaranteed part of the package!

The Drudge Report has a link to the details of Speaker Pelosi's proposed fines for people who fail to purchase health insurance at any time during a taxable year.

Misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

Felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.

The insurance regulations will be enforced by the IRS.

Does anyone think this is a good idea? I don't.

Having reviewed comments on some of the earlier threads today, I saw a lot of posts by trolls that reminded me of this gem by Steve Klingaman in Salon: "In the crusade against Obama administration efforts on behalf of economic recovery and health care reform, we encounter lies, damn lies, and Republican talking points." His article is entitled "Hated Roosevelt, Hate Obama: Paleoconservative Persuasions." Click blue name for link.

>>The Drudge Report has a link to the details of Speaker Pelosi's proposed fines for people who fail to purchase health insurance at any time during a taxable year.<<

I find it difficult to accept anything which emanates from the Drudge Repport.
If we are going to have insurance reform with the caveats BOTH parties say they want

1. No pre existing conditions exclusions
2 universal coverage so ERs and public hospitals (the majority) no longer have to treat no-pays

then universal coverage will need to be enforced. If there is a requirement similar to Germany's universal
coverage and we DON'T enforce it what use is it?

.

There was talk here the other night of E-cigarettes. Wednesday of this week, USA TODAY had an interesting "debate" on the subject. Here is the newspaper's view:

E-cigarettes pose risks
Our view: Is it safe to 'vape'? Problem is, no one knows.

Maybe you've seen them at shopping mall kiosks, at truck stops or on the Internet. They're called electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes for short. They contain no tobacco but are shaped like a cigarette, operated by a battery and give smokers vaporized hits of nicotine, the addictive substance in traditional smokes. The product, on the U.S. market since 2007, could be the best thing since the nicotine patch to happen to smokers who want to quit, or it could be another public health hazard dressed up in new-age clothing.

Nobody knows. And that is precisely the problem. All the public has to go on now is the word of the product's marketers. Before consumers inhale something that gives them "vapes" of highly addictive nicotine, they might want an independent authority testing the product to see what's in it. But soon after the Food and Drug Administration tried to assert its authority over e-cigarettes by detaining some shipments at the border, two distributors sued, claiming that the FDA has no power to regulate the product as a drug-delivery device.

While both sides await a federal judge's ruling, e-cigarettes are on the market (kits with the e-cigarette and nicotine cartridges generally sell for $70 to $150). And contrary to the old adage, what you don't know can hurt you. Among the reasons to be wary:

(1) Most e-cigarettes are made in China, the source of lead-tainted toys and melamine-laced dog food. Need we say more about the need for oversight?

(2) When the FDA randomly tested the nicotine cartridges, it discovered carcinogens and a toxic chemical found in anti-freeze. Still, the most worrisome ingredient is nicotine itself. The FDA strictly regulates it in patches, gum and other smoking-cessation products, and it has banned nicotine lollipops and water. E-cigarettes deserve to be treated like other nicotine-delivery devices.

(3) E-cigarettes come in flavors - from traditional menthol to chocolate and strawberry - that might lure curious youngsters and prompt them to move on to the real thing. Distributors say their product is for adults only, but who's to stop young people from buying it? Only a few locales have banned sales to minors.

(4) Despite protests from the Electronic Cigarette Association that its members don't make claims about helping smokers quit, plenty of sellers make far more outrageous health claims. In recent weeks, one marketer claimed e-cigarettes reduce the risk of heart disease and touted an endorsement by a physician-and-nurses group. Another website, which says it reviews e-cigarettes, went them one better: It claims, based on a 1942 study, that an ingredient in e-cigarettes could prevent flu and other respiratory diseases.

It is conceivable e-cigarettes might be a valuable tool for weaning some smokers away from a deadly habit. But without the testing and clinical trials opposed by marketers and their allies, no one will ever know.

Taking the opposite position on E-cigarettes was Matt Salmon, a former Republican congressman from Arizona who is now president of the Electronic Cigarette Association. Here is his view:

A much-needed alternative
Opposing view: E-cigarettes offer a science-backed substitute for combustible tobacco.

By Matt Salmon

By the time you're done reading this column, combustible tobacco smoking will claim four more American lives - and a total of 440,000 lives this year.

Electronic cigarettes - battery-operated products that deliver an inhalable nicotine vapor - offer a much needed alternative. Since 2007, nearly 1 million committed smokers have tried electronic cigarettes, known widely as e-cigarettes, to make the transition to a vapor alternative, while preserving their personal pleasure. E-cigarettes are attractive to committed smokers because smokers can use them in locations where smoking is inconvenient or prohibited. And because these products only emit a nearly odorless vapor, they are more publicly acceptable to non-smokers.

Now, committed smokers and e-cigarette manufacturers are under attack. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has threatened to take action against e-cigarettes that would, in essence, take the product off the market, denying committed smokers the freedom to choose a science-backed and better alternative to combustible tobacco.

Electronic cigarettes are not drugs, nor are they sold to cure any disease or affliction. Therefore, the FDA has no authority to regulate or ban them as drug-delivery devices. But by attempting to mislabel them as medical devices, the FDA wants to force manufacturers to spend as much as $1.5 billion on clinical research, drug trials and FDA fees for potential marketplace approval. We are not large drug companies capable of this type of investment, and the FDA knows it.

President Obama just signed a landmark law giving the FDA authority to regulate virtually all aspects of tobacco products. We understand that to protect the public, some form of regulation may be necessary and would welcome regulation under the new and more reasonable authority.

This process wouldn't take us off the shelf or cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and would still provide necessary safeguards. Our goal is to guarantee access for committed smokers who want the freedom of the clear alternative that e-cigarettes offer and ensure that minors do not have access to our products.

eLwood - The link from the Drudge Report eventually gets to this document -

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/JCTletter110509.pdf

It is purportedly written by a Thomas A. Barthold of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

If someone can prove that Drudge fabricated the document, his credibility will be destroyed forever.

But let's assume for a moment that the document is accurate. Do you think the proposed penalties are a good idea?

Well, I'll take the 5 years of a cot and 3 hots compared to what the repugs are offering
us today...think seeing a doc is even a jailbirds right, if the wingnuts don't take that away.
Who believes Drudge anyway?? he is so yesterday.

Why do repugs hate poor people sooooo much, unless they are cooking their meals, tending
their children, cleaning their mansions, mowing their lawns...etc. etc.
Feel like I'm reading a Jane Austen novel.

Jazzy - Thanks for your reply.

I think the document is authentic, and if I understand your response correctly, you support the imprisonment of people who willfully fail to purchase health insurance. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point.

Arkansas Blogger, can you reference that part of the bill that requires imprisonment? I can't find it anywhere.
There is so much misinforamtion out there.

For a little entertainment this evening I suggest going further down the blog to "Vance Trial: UPDATE" posted Wednesday night. Many of the posts were on that same evening, but early on Thursday Coco posted and there has been a war of words going on there ever since--first with Doigotta and then others joined, myself and Sister included. Maybe you've seen it and just chosen not to get involved, but I thought I'd point it out to those who haven't been going back and following it.

I want to say thanks to the AT Blog for keeping us well informed about what is happening in the courtroom at the Vance trial. Great job!

>>But let's assume for a moment that the document is accurate. Do you think the proposed penalties are a good idea?<<

I got into a mini-debate or discussion with a local circuit court judge over that one. I was the devil's advocate and questioned whether, constitutionally, the Feds can require anyone to sign/agree with a contract that is no more than a contract of coercion. The judge said I raised a good point but what about
auto insurance? I reminded the good judge whom I've known for 30 years that in Arkansas you need not buy auto insurance IF you can prove financial responsibility, that is, the ability to meet the minimum state requirements that are outlined in any minimum state approved insurance policy which would be basically to have about $50,000 in liquidity available to you and always drive alone.

But let's assume for purposes of achieving the goals BOTH parties have agreed upon outlined in my 2 points listed above, how are they to achieve those two simple goals without fines and penalties?

No, I do not approve of imprisonment for failure to buy insurance. Likewise I do not approve of punishment for possessing a harmless, wild-growing weed such as mj.

I agree it's sad to see Pelosi, IF the allegations are true, fall to the level of Republicons who want full jails and prisons so their buddies in the privatized prison industries can grow richer. Law and order is a desirable goal but it begins at the top.

There are viable alternatives. Offer the very rich the option of providing their own care. We have so few of those it's meaningless just as a large majority of Arkies would have a real problem putting their hands on $50K and those who can realize it's more realistic to buy an insurance contract.

So, to counter your question:

HOW do we achieve the two goals both parties say they want to achieve if
the uninsured are not penalized for failure to join in?

If all are required to buy insurance AND assuming the market laws of supply and demand work then insurance would cost less for all concerned.

.

from http://www.politifact.com :

"It is a significant exaggeration to say that the Baucus bill's "health care mandate will require imprisonment and fines for Americans who can't afford to purchase insurance or pay hefty government penalties." It won't "require imprisonment and fines" - those are simply two of the options for enforcement, and experts say that neither a prison term nor a fine anywhere near that high is likely to be used.

"The official responsible for the Patients First release acknowledges that his headline overstated what the Joint Committee on Taxation chief of staff said, but the release does accurately report the penalties in the body of the text. The notion that one could go to prison for not buying insurance is certainly attention-grabbing, but based on past patterns of prosecution, the likelihood of it happening is extremely small."

kizzy - Good question. According to the document, those provisions are contained in HR3962: Affordable Health Care for America Act, Sections 7201 and 7203.

I'm searching for an authoritative copy of the legislation containing those amendments, but sometimes it takes Congress a few days to update their Internet versions. Some versions of the bill "as introduced" on Oct. 29th are available, but they do not contain Speaker Pelosi's amendments.

Yossarian - Then why include those penalties? Catch-22?

From FactCheck.org :

"Reducing the individual requirement penalty - The modified Chairman's Mark would reduce the 
maximum penalty for individuals above 300 percent of FPL who fail to meet the requirement to 
have health insurance from $3,800 per family to $1,900 per family.  The penalty for families 
between 100-300 percent of poverty would be $750 per person per year with a maximum of 
$1,500 per family."  
"Individuals below 100 percent FPL would not be subject to the penalty."

My comments:
If a federal prosecutor (for instance, a Ken Starr or Tim Griffin) were excessively vindictive, failure to pay the fine could be considered a violation of tax law and potentially subject to the highly unusual penalties mentioned by AB.

"But let's assume for a moment that the document is accurate. Do you think the proposed penalties are a good idea?

Posted by: Arkansas Blogger"

ArkBlog, here's my answer to your question- yes to the penalties, with an explanation.

Reading over the letter at the URL you posted, I get the impression that the range of civil and criminal penalties already exist in current federal law and are not part of the health care reform bill. In the linked letter you will see a section headed: "Application of penalties under current practice". You need to read that section. My reading of it is that existing federal law, outside of the proposed health care reform bill, has both civil and criminal penalties for the willful refusal to follow assorted federal laws. That "Application of penalties ... " section and he paragraphs leading up to that lays it out fairly clearly I think. The various penalties would differ depending on whether someone was willfully defying a legal requirement or just forgot or was short of cash, for example (i.e., willful versus negligent).

I think you will find the same civil and criminal penalty language applies to existing tax law, for example. So if you are one of the folks going around the country giving seminars and telling people they don't need to file federal income tax forms or pay taxes, that's different that if you simply filed your personal return late.

That's how I see it. I'd like a page citation in the health care reform bill if such language re penalties is actually in there (which I doubt). This whole thing is a red herring in my opinion to once again stir certain folks up.

>>It is purportedly written by a Thomas A. Barthold of the Joint Committee on Taxation.<<
Ark Blogger

"hyperbole"
On Sept. 29, 2009, a subsidiary of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity sent out an e-mail headlined, "Health Care Mandate Will Require Imprisonment and Fines for Americans Who Can't Afford to Purchase Insurance or Pay Hefty Government Penalties."

The group was referring to an exchange in the Senate Finance Committee between Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Joint Committee on Taxation chief of staff Thomas Barthold on Sept. 24, 2009. Both the House and Senate bills would impose taxes designed to prod Americans who are currently uninsured into buying insurance. Exemptions would be provided for families of limited means. The idea is that by expanding the pool of Americans paying for coverage, insurers can use the additional revenue to improve benefits, eliminate barriers for pre-existing conditions and reduce costs for others enrolled in the plans.

Initially, the Senate version would have had families above 300 percent of the federal poverty level pay $3,800 a year if they did not have health insurance. Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., later agreed to lower that amount by half, to $1,900. Backers hope that no American actually pays the tax; they want to see people spending those dollars on health insurance instead.

Still, Ensign is among those who balk at the idea. "Some people hold the Constitution pretty high in their lives, and if they believe that this thing is unconstitutional and they then say ... 'I choose not to have health insurance. I'm not going to buy it,'" Ensign said at a markup of the contentious bill. "We could be subjecting those very people ... to fines or the interpretation of a judge potentially all the way up even to imprisonment."

The bill summary that the Senate committee considered did not mention specifics about enforcement and sentencing for violations.

So, at the markup, Ensign questioned Barthold - the top professional staffer on the joint House-Senate panel that advises both chambers on tax legislation - about what penalties would be assessed.

Barthold told him that they would be "penalties under the Internal Revenue Code." Ensign asked for "the maximum penalty" for a "willful" - that is, intentional - violation. Is it "possible that somebody could go to jail over this?" Ensign asked.

Barthold answered, "Could be criminal, yes, if it were considered an attempt to defraud."

Later, several news outlets reported that Barthold delivered a hand-written note to Ensign after the hearing confirming that violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in prison or a $25,000 penalty. When PolitiFact contacted the Joint Committee on Taxation to confirm the contents of the letter, a spokeswoman said that such communications were confidential, but she pointed us to Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code, titled, "Willful failure to file return, supply information or pay tax."

The text of that section appears to jibe with the reported contents of Barthold's note. It says, "Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution." (A House Ways and Means Committee spokesman said that the same rules would apply to the House bill.)

After the hearing, Patients First, a project of the conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, issued a news release that played up the possibility that people who didn't buy health coverage could end up in prison.

The release was headlined, "Health Care Mandate Will Require Imprisonment and Fines for Americans Who Can't Afford to Purchase Insurance or Pay Hefty Government Penalties," and its first sentence referred to "a draconian health care measure under consideration in Congress that would imprison uninsured Americans who fail to pay a penalty for not buying health insurance."

We were struck by the statement that the bill would "require imprisonment and fines" for nonpayment of the tax. Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code suggests that violators would have to go to jail. It's simply one of the possible penalties that could be assessed.

When we contacted Eric Novack, the senior fellow in health policy for Patients First and Americans for Health Prosperity who was quoted in the release, he conceded the point.

"I would make the case that the headline is hyperbole, but it got people's attention," Novack said. "It is a bit of artistic license. I guess I would agree that it's a bit strongly worded."

He added that he believes the news release's larger point stands. Such enforcement of the tax would be "turning people who can't afford health insurance into criminals."

The headline would have been correct if it had said the mandate "could require imprisonment or fines."
---------------
Again, Drudge takes hyperbole and makes it into headlines. That's why I never trust anything he publishes.
clicky

I sure HOPE to get lucky on the mountain, thanks Durango!! ;>) Yes hyperbole - I should have qualified: ...sucks as "Fine Dining." Cooking wasn't on our agenda even tho' we do have a cabin... Hot tub, wine = Si!! We'll probably make do with some pate, good bread, special cheeses, fruit and maybe a nice red burgundy. Definitely having breakfast there and THANKS for the heads-up on the wine; that would have NEVER occurred to me and would have been REALLY annoyed to plan dinner there and not have a wider choice! It may be telling that no menu or wine list is available online - we were considering trying it for a couple of appetizers & salad or something and go from there.

Any other info appreciated - g'night all!

Durango -

Re: USA Today's statement vis-a-vis e-cigs, "Nobody knows," actually, a LOT of people know EXACTLY what's in 'em (if you care to wade through the voluminous information at clicky -- including a biochemist's analysis). A LOT of people.

But notice the bracketing phrases of the entire article: "Nobody knows" and "Nobody will ever know." Completely misleading as neither statement is true. (The second statement, "Nobody will ever know," is simply stupid of course. But stupid statements appeal to stupid minds.)

The FDA (hence corporate-owned MSM) WANT people to be confused and feel unsure about these products -- and least until they're owned by the FDA and big tobacco companies -- who are genuinely threatened by consumers switching to e-cigs.

The e-cigarette-forum (clicky) has thorough discussions and information (including scientific) on ALL the topics raised in the USA Today article (including the canard about the anti-freeze additive) on its exhaustive website. Among other canards. "Might lure youngsters," the "Made in China" scare, etc., etc.

Matt Salmon's statements happen to be accurate:

"By attempting to mislabel them as medical devices, the FDA wants to force manufacturers to spend as much as $1.5 billion on clinical research, drug trials and FDA fees for potential marketplace approval. We are not large drug companies capable of this type of investment, and the FDA knows it.

"President Obama just signed a landmark law giving the FDA authority to regulate virtually all aspects of tobacco products. We understand that to protect the public, some form of regulation may be necessary and would welcome regulation under the new and more reasonable authority.

I'm not surprised USA Today failed to do due diligence. It takes a lot of time to go through the e-cig forum. But if you're genuinely interested in informing yourself about these products, you'll have to do your homework since Big Tobacco (also Big Health, not ironically, since Big Pharma and Big Medicine reap BILLIONS from smoking-related health issues) wants e-cigs eliminated.

Durango -- HEAR THE INSULTING STUPIDITY BEHIND USA TODAY'S STATEMENT?

"Nobody knows what's in 'em. Nobody will EVER know what's in 'em. But WE know what's in 'em. And we don't LIKE 'em. So we're gonna mislead you on what's in 'em. Or what MIGHT be in 'em. 'Cause we don't KNOW what's in 'em. NOBODY knows what's in 'em. But YOU can't have 'em 'cause we say so."

The article you posted the other night, Durango, highlighted the brand of e-cig apparently most favored by those who've tried them all. (Vapor 4 Life).

I now know FOUR people (two in LR) who use e-cigs and swear by them. I knew nothing of them until recently, not being a smoker. But these are friends who've tried the patch, Chantix, everything else on the market -- without success.

Suddenly, ALL FOUR stopped smoking the day their kits arrived. Sure, they're still addicted to nicotine (just like the patch). They can lower the concentration of nicotine to zero and continue vaping e-cigs if they like. They ALL say that the e-cigs provide everything analog cigarettes do (the look, feel, manual and oral stimulation, the "smoke" -- which is actually water vapor) WITHOUT THE 4000 CARCINOGENIC CHEMICALS AND TARS PRODUCED BY ANALOG CIGARETTE COMBUSTION.

E-cigs are marketed as smoking "alternatives." Because if they're marketed as "smoking cessation aids" they are indeed subject to FDA control and banning. Chewing gum can be marketed as a smoking "alternative." Oh, wait. It already is, isn't it? Nicorette or whatever it was?

This won't be the first time our government, sadly, criminalizes a product that's more "benign" than the legal alternative -- namely cigarettes. (No, I did NOT say e-cigs are "benign," trolls.)

'Member marijuana? Relatively benign. Totally illegal and underground. Just ask any high-schooler to score for you. That's how "inaccessible" marijuana is.

Durango, dumpling, if e-cigs weren't a real threat the government wouldn't be going after them with their hysterical misinformation campaign. They'd treat them like acupuncture or herbal tea for "quitting smoking."

Difference? E-cigs apparently really do work and people's tobacco money's shifting over to e-cigs.

Tell your smoking friends to check out the forum at clicky if they want real information pro-and-con. And happy vaping!

eLwood - Thanks for your thoughtful response.

If those penalties are enacted, it will be political suicide for the politicians who voted in favor of it.

But the insurance companies that would reap the windfall could then afford to hire them as lobbyists with salaries that would make an AIG exec blush.

To those who think it's okay to punish uninsured persons with fines and prison: shame on you.

Spent a lovely weekend at the lodge on Mt. Magazine two years ago, shortly after it opened. We stayed in the lodge and ate in the restaurant. I chose dinner from the buffet (though they did have a menu as I recall) -- and breakfast -- which was pretty much like any buffet except in Vegas (those, you write home about). They had beer and Arkansas wines. Said they were getting a liquor license, but it sounds as if they haven't. Staff was wonderfully friendly.

Don't miss the drive and the views around the north rim (the side opposite the lodge). Really beautiful! And the visitors' center is also terrific and instructional -- especially if you happen to catch one of their many short lectures on the native flora and fauna.

Sex, of course, is a must-have. (Though if planning an outdoor romp, better know your flora and fauna first.)

Ark Blogger, hopefully I've demonstrated to you why the DRUDGE report creates nothing less than DRUDGERY for those in the reality community. You can see Drudge's cleverly crafted lies from a well-reasoned discussion of the erroneous screaming points they posted. But that was only for you
my friend because I consider you one of the most intelligent and informed bloggers on Ark Times/blog even though our conclusions, given the same information, differ.
G'night y'all. Big meeting tomorrow.
.

eLwood - Thanks for that. Perhaps we'll meet someday if the Times has another party for blog readers in L.R. I'll buy a round for you, and we can have a toast to politics and talk about Drudge. Cheers.

one more ditty: The Reverend Billy & the church of life after shopping.

complete with Gospel Choir.

"On the same day Cigna posted a 92 percent increase in 3rd quarter profits, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) released the following statement condemning Cigna for its opposition to health care reform.

"Cigna opposes urgently needed health care reform, and today we know why. Millions of Americans are struggling to provide health care for their families, while Cigna today reported its third quarter profits had soared, nearly doubling. For Cigna, maintaining the status is a good thing - for America, it would be a disaster."

"Our health care reform bill helps the families and businesses that need affordable health care and want to stop price-gouging by insurers."

The Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962, includes a number of provisions to prevent price-gouging and ensure premiums are reasonable. It requires publicly-disclosed justification of all premium increases before they go into effect and includes provisions, authored by Rep. Schakowsky, that require rate review of premiums so that excessive increases are denied."
http://blog.buzzflash.com/alerts/706

NOW!

'Who thinks it's okay to punish 'insurers' with fines and prison?'?'

...?!?!
"Sex, of course, is a must-have. (Though if planning an outdoor romp, better know your flora and fauna first.)"
...!!!!

Belated Joke of the Day...
What kind of condoms do snakes use?

Anacondoms!

Bad Jokes, Lord I Love 'Em... Bad Jokes, Can't Get Enough of 'Em...

Bejeesus -

Anacondoms.

You are a terrible human being.

(BLUSHES. STAMMERS)

I think I love you.

My first thought upon seeing the great photo at the beginning of this thread: Wow, great sunset shot. But something's been bugging me and the more I think of it, I believe it's a sunrise shot. Wouldn't you be looking east (or north) to the river from the mountain?
Can anyone settle this earth shaking question so I can get back to the more mundane things in life?
Do I want to punish health INSURERS who write a policy and sweep the premium out of your bank account every month, only to change their minds if you get sick next year or the year after? I mean, really, surely we shouldn't force them to lose money here and there because they couldn't accurately predict that you would become a health deadbeat.

Well, Doi --

It really IS a sunset shot. NOT a sunrise shot.

Go up there. Check it out sometime. Look how the river flows.

Much as I hate to contradict Norma, the photographer himself says that the photo is a sunrise shot. Go to the 'enjoyarkansas' link under the photo to read his comment.

Yer entirely welcome for the Mt. Magazine info, Larry, and good luck, sport! Be sure to see Miss Norma's post about the north rim, by the way; I forgot to tell ya about that. And, she's right about sex, too. It's an absolute MUST on the mountain.

And Miss Norma, thank you for your post about e-cigs. I was hoping you were in town last night and that you'd respond --- in your usual informed way--- to the USA TODAY debate. I'm sending your clicky around to the few remaining friends I have who still smoke. I'd like to see 'em make the switch.

The e-cigs story tells us many things.

On the anti-smoking side, we see that removing the second-hand smoke argument doesn't end the urge to prohbit another person's desires. We also see that eliminating much of the carcinogenic material (and presumably, much--though not all!--of the risk) from smoking doesn't change the intensity of their opposition. They're still against it. I wonder what they'd make of my co-worker, who I saw lighting up in the office for the first time last week.

On the pro-smoking side, we see that it's not about the taste or the enjoyment for the hard-core smokers. They're junkies getting their fix. We also see that the health dangers of nicotine alone do not convince them to consider quitting.

I find both extremes pretty funny.

Love in the mountains. Ah, yes. Thrills in the hills.

Reminds of the time way back when me and a willing vixen were doing it IN the Sylamore Creek (It was more pristine back then) only to be surprised right after the moment of extremis by a large group of horseback riders crossing the creek on a previously unnoticed trail a little ways upstream. We demurrred in deeper waters behind a rock and no one seemed to comprehend the scene.

They must not have noticed the pile of clothing on the bank.

That little tableau always presents itself in my mind anytime I get near Blanchard.

My first comment upon seeing the pic was "pretty sure that's looking downstream, hence sunrise... THANKS for all the encouragement for Sex on the Mountain, info, and stories (esp 24fps - we had a similar experience on Illinois Bayou about 12 years ago!!). We're gearin' up...

Don't forget about the Special Election near Petit Jean. The 4th State Senate District is up on December 8.

Click here for more information on the district and on the candidates -
www.electioninfo.wordpress.com

John A., knowing that you're a poetry lover, I'm wondering what you think of these entries to a Washington Post competition asking for a two-line rhyme with the most romantic first line and the least romantic second line:

(A) My darling, my lover, my beautiful wife:
Marrying you has screwed up my life.

(B) I see your face when I am dreaming.
That's why I always wake up screaming.

(C) Kind, intelligent, loving and hot;
This describes everything you are not.

(D) Love may be beautiful, love may be bliss,
But I only slept with you 'cause I was pissed.

(E) I thought that I could love no other
-- that is until I met your brother.

(F) Roses are red, violets are blue, sugar is sweet, and so are you.
But the roses are wilting, the violets are dead, the sugar bowl's empty and so is your head.

(G) I want to feel your sweet embrace;
But don't take that paper bag off your face.

(H) I love your smile, your face, and your eyes
Damn, I'm good at telling lies!

(I) My love, you take my breath away.
What have you stepped in to smell this way?

(J) My feelings for you no words can tell,
Except for maybe 'Go to hell.'

(K) What inspired this amorous rhyme?
Two parts vodka, one part lime.

HEY, WHO SAID POETRY IS BORING?

Fair warning, Larry. Cove Lake is probably a little chilly this time of year. Might take a LOT of "gearin' up . . ."

Doi -
Cove Lake is ALWAYS a little chilly, no matter what time of year!
Magazine holds a very special place in my heart. My kids practically grew up on the mountain.

Larry, be sure and keep an eye on the sky for the hang gliders!

I copied this from the Wed open line, posted by Coco:

This point you made stands out as the best in my mind..."What makes posting this blog any different in action than those nurses/docs, etc. who were recently prosecuted for looking into Pressly's medical files?''

The difference is that this horrible information has already been made public by having its day in court. Anyone and everyone who reads a paper, watches the news, keeps up with a blog, etc., can have access to this information, horrific as it is. It's the truth, and they're in a trial. That matters.

But the people at the hospital, especially the person (medical records clerk?) who accessed the file 12 times -- they werent responsible for bringing that information into the courtroom. And I think it's a fair assumption that they read and saw things that, for the sake of Ms Pressly's parents, will never, ever see the light of day. If they dont come out during the trial, they won't.

the people at st vincents were snooping, probably so they could have something exciting and interesting, inside info, to tell their friends. Voyeurs of a certain type even.

Thats the difference. if there are any attorneys here, you're welcome to correct me. My kids always do.

I read that article in the New Yorker about the case of the house fire - did the state of texas execute the wrong man, based on what he allegedly told another prisoner? Now that he's already dead, the other prisoner is having serious memory problems. I think he also decided he was bipolar. In other words, dont take HIS word for it and kill anybody on the basis of what he says --- Oops, too late.

i got the feeling that the man who was executed had never had hope of making much of a life for himself or advancing up the career ladder or even providing a better future, or trying to, for his kids than what he had for himself. He gave up on hope a long time ago, having never seen it work.

But never mind the New Yorker article. Different case, would be interesting to see the same writer tackle this one when it's over.

someone else made reference in this thread (I hope, not the other open line for Fri) to the war of words between Coco and ..... I forget. Doigotta? Im working and watching the football game. I tell you one thing right now, I dont believe that is the real Coco Chanel posting on here. Especially since she's dead.

Caint we all just get along? Or agree to disagree at some point? i enjoy the spirited debates but not the name-calling and personal attacks.

Tina, I'd prefer to call my part of it a debate. But, yeah, it did degenerate into a war of words and I figured I'd said my piece. In my defense, I left unsaid later, after I'd chilled a bit, a thing or two I'd have been tempted to point out to someone in the heat of a private conversation. In part, I demurred because I began to think it was possible that Coco might be related to Anne Pressly.

Norma - Yes, that is the sunrise from the cliffs at Stout's Point. A bit of trivia: that section of the park is actually owned by the Episcopal Diocese of Arkansas, and they lease it to the state for public access.

The sunset is on the other side of the mountain, on Red Bluff Drive.

Durango,

Those little couplets warmed the cockles of my sorry little heart, and I thank you for posting them.

Just before I read that, I'd been thinking about a song which starts with a reversal of the WaPo's contest, the Drive-By Trucker's "A World of Hurt", written by Patterson Hood, which starts with:

Once upon a time, my advice to you would have been to go out and find yourself a whore
But I guess I've grown up, 'cause I don't give that kind of advice any more

And eventually gets around to:

It's great to be alive.

They're my favorite current band for a damn good reason.

You can read the entire lyric here: http://www.drivebytruckers.com/lyrics_abaac.html#hurt

Tina, I was the one that pointed out the "war of words" earlier on this blog. In fact, at one point in the war I said basically the same as you did about the differences between what the St. Vincent employees did and what posting the information on the blog did (See below)

"I also differ with you on the idea that the AT Blog posting information that was disclosed in court testimony is the same as breaking HIPAA laws and prying into a person's medical records. It might be tasteless as you suggest but certainly not illegal."

I also mentioned in my last post on that thread that I thought Coco might be related to or a friend of Anne's. Doigotta obviously felt that way too and stayed out of the debate after the first few posts. I stuck to it because it was nice to have a thoughtful debate for a change for someone who wasn't a troll.

Speaking of trolls, I think DBI was right the othe night when he said that Catfish had used the banned for life word. I haven't seen any post from CE since then!

My mistake! (And I so seldom make them.) I thought the photo was taken on top of Mt. Magazine. Instead, I see it's from Petit Jean. Which is like this totally different mountain and stuff.