On a more important note:

 

There was a monumental, historical step taken yesterday in the People's House. There were sooooo many issues involved that we could do three hundred blogs (not that we could not find three hundred blogs on the subject over this calendar year) on the two thousand pages of legislation. And each blog could take a different angle.

 From a strategic standpoint, I believe that Pelosi went through with the vote knowing that she had the votes.  How far left can you take the legislation without losing so many Dems that it would all go for naught? 

And she probably thought she had 218 votes and was a little surprised to find a couple extra.

I also believe that the 39 who 'flew the coop' did so with permission from the top leaders for political reasons.  Nobody was blind sided in this vote.

 One who voted against this historical piece of legislation was Representative Kucinich. I believe that he suffers from something I call the "Nader Syndrome"; a form of mental illness that injures the left greatly along with the rest of our nation.

If the piece of legislation is not perfect, well we can not and will not vote for it.

We must have honor.

We must have sticktoitiveness at all times to our values.

We must never compromise with the infidels.

Well guess what? There are over 300 million people in this country. And only 435 people can represent the millions in the People's House.

And we have the third greatest area of any country in the world.

Which means that Montana's health issues vary greatly from New York City's health issues.

Now, we could have had the best legislation for our national health care problems, in my humble opinion, by simply enacting one sentence into law:

Hereinafter, all citizens of the United States of America qualify for Medicare once they reach the age of 21.

There. Kucinich would have signed on to this bill. But it would have been defeated by one or two hundred votes.

Now the fact is that the Senate will not sign onto everything contained in the two thousand pages. As a process, it will be more than interesting to see how this plays out in this undemocratic Upper House of Congress. Think about it. The Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Vermont, Alaska, Maine, Hawaii and New Hampshire comprise less than twelve million people.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

But these states get twenty two percent of the votes in the Upper House of Congress. Four percent of the population gets a twenty two percent vote.

California, Texas, NYS and Florida have a combined total of almost one hundred million people. One third of our entire population lives in four states and they get eight percent of the vote in the Senate.

What is is, and what is not is not. If you believe in our Constitution, then this is the structure of things.

North Dakota has different concerns from NYS.  But despite the fact that ND has one fortieth of the population of NYS, it has an equal vote.

Well you get the idea. A Dakota Democrat has a different take on things than a NYS Democrat.

Now Minnesota is kind of a middle state. We have nine times the population of North Dakota but only a quarter of the population of NYS.  But we are lucky to have two of the most liberal senators in the nation.

I believe that we as citizens must make our voices heard. We must communicate with our elected representatives.

But I think we have to step back a little from pronouncing Max Baucus as satan incarnate. I think we have to give a little slack to Senator Lincoln from Arkansas. These people will help get our Federal Judiciary straightened out. They are more likely to vote for important COLA legislation for the poorer among us. Later on they may help us in a number of different areas involving important. legislation.

There are life and death issues here folks. We will get no cooperation from repubs; although there might be a couple of exceptions involving the Senators from Maine.

The Democrats are our only hope. There are fifty eight Democrats and my favorite socialist from Vermont. Hahaha. That is it. I do not count on Lieberman for much of anything.

And there is the problem of cloture or modern filibuster that is correctly pointed out in Café blogs  on occasion. But it becomes confusing at times.

The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a 3/5ths of the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators elected and sworn), brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. (For changing of senate rules the pre-1975 rule of a super-majority of senators present, i.e. 67 senators at most, is still used).[9

 I think the confusion comes into play with the anticipation of a filibuster along the lines discussed in Wiki's short discussion.

Forty one senators can, at times, stop legislation in its tracks. So if all forty repubs and Lieberman work together, they could stop Health Care reform.  Now at that point, I would vote to keep Lieberman out of any leadership position...hell I would vote to kick his ass out of the Democratic Caucus altogether.

But if legislation comparable to the legislation passed last night gets through the Senate, THERE IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE OF CLOTURE.

Representatives from the People's House meet with representatives from the Senate and come up with one bill. A vote is then had in the House and in the Senate.  In order to pass that revised bill in the Senate, the Dems need fifty votes along with the vote by the Vice-President.

So what we need, in order to get health reform in this country, is almost any health bill passed by the Senate that can then be revised later on in Conference.

In order to complete the first step in health care reform in over 45 years, further compromises must be made. Then there will be chess games played after the Senate puts together its bill.

LET US PRAY.

This addendum has nothing to do with anything really but it caught my eye and I wondered what you thought about it:

"Do I condone the mention of Hitler in any discussion about politics?" said Cantor, who is the only Jewish Republican in Congress. "No, I don't, because obviously that is something that conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful."

In a climate where Republicans who criticize Limbaugh come crawling back on their knees (see TPM's "Forgive Me Rush" photo feature), Cantor's office has pointed reporters to the story, emailing the link to Glenn Thrush's post on Cantor's remarks.

It's worth noting that Limbaugh made the comment in question -- "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate" -- on Aug. 6. Cantor at the time did not respond publicly to calls from Jewish groups to condemn the remarks

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/cantor-says-tea-partys-dachau-photos-inappropriate-takes-issue-with-limbaugh.php?ref=fpb

I do not like Representative Cantor. I have seen his appearances on cable. Usually he just repeats the talking points of the RNC...hell he is the RNC. It never occurred to me that he was Jewish.

But I did not know that he was THE ONLY JEWISH REPUBLICAN in the House of Representatives. I find that so strange. I mean there are no Black Republicans in the House, since that fellow from Oklahoma quit politics. 

And I had thought that the Christian Right had accepted the Jews on this strange logic surrounding the end of times and such.

And I know there are hundreds of thousands of conservative Jews in this country; hell look at Michael (The Weiner) Savage.

 

I just found this interesting is all.  And that ends my reading from the Hebrew Text for today.