Why Pets Are Important (BevnTempe)

tnr

Most of us have or used to have a pet.  Most of us have lost a pet.  It hurts – bad.  It’s like losing a member of your family, which it really is.  Below are a couple of articles that describe why pets are so important to us.  We all have our own personal stories – please feel free to share with all of us.  I really miss Murphy, my 75 lb pure white Samoyed.

“Whether it is a cat, dog, turtle, bird, fish, or iguana – pets can become a very important part of the household because they provide plenty of advantages to their owners. In fact, a lot of studies have already confirmed the various emotional and health benefits a pet can offer. Here are a few of the good things a pet can give you. For one, your animal companion can easily relieve you of stress. Whenever you come home from a tired day outside, you will have your pet to hug. You will be provided with comfort and your fatigue will simply evaporate. You can also tell your pet anything you want because it will not talk back nor tell others what you said.

Additionally, animal companions are great for those who are single or who are living away from their families. Your pet can easily alleviate your loneliness, can be great source of enjoyment, and can even provide protection. Another thing, your cat or dog can be of great help if you are sick or at the recovery period of an illness. Your pet can allay your depression and feelings of self-pity. If you have kids and you let them take care of an animal, they will be able to learn responsibility and they will surely grow up to be caring individuals. Of course, pets are tested and proven to be great playmates for children. Moreover, pets can be helpful to old people as well. The need to feed them and give them a walk will encourage seniors to engage in physical activity, thus promoting their health. As you can see, there are overwhelming facts to support the importance of pets. So, it is imperative to learn how to protect them the best you can. 

Source:  www.petsforsafety.com

“•Pets teach children to be better communicators and more successful. Interviews with the CEO’s of the Fortune 500 companies indicate that 95% of them had pets growing up as children.

•Studies on outcomes of persons who have suffered from a major heart attack show some interesting facts. First, having a pet at home is as important to their outcome as any single medication.  Second, having a pet at home to pet and talk to has been shown to be as important as having a spouse at home!

•Pets have often been referred to as a "social lubricant".   Ever notice how it is so easy to greet and talk with someone on a walk if they have a pet.

•Did you know that petting a dog or cat lowers your blood pressure?”

Source:  www.im4pets.com

Advertisements

124 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

124 responses to “Why Pets Are Important (BevnTempe)

  1. Bev I think you’re preaching to the choir with this thread. I think all of us except for the Colorado Curmudgeon have/had pets! Thanks for the post Bev.

  2. tonyb39

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/us/politics/11nominees.html?th&emc=th

    “Kagan Nomination Leaves Some Longing on the Left”

    “WASHINGTON — The selection of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be the nation’s 112th justice extends a quarter-century pattern in which Republican presidents generally install strong conservatives on the Supreme Court while Democratic presidents pick candidates who often disappoint their liberal base.

    What kind of difference is Elena Kagan likely to make on the court if she is confirmed?

    Justice Antonin Scalia, addressing a law school event last fall, is viewed as the Supreme Court’s conservative leader. Liberals want one of their own.

    Ms. Kagan is certainly too liberal for conservatives, who quickly criticized her nomination on Monday as a radical threat. But much like every other Democratic nominee since the 1960s, she does not fit the profile sought by the left, which hungers for a full-throated counterweight to the court’s conservative leader, Justice Antonin Scalia.”

  3. tonyb39

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-10/the-problem-with-elena-kagan/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsL1

    “The Problem With Elena Kagan”

    “Obama’s high-court pick is young, smart, and liberal, and should be confirmed, argues Peter Beinart. But she should apologize for banning military recruitment at Harvard—a major blunder.

    So it’s Elena Kagan. Is anyone surprised? I sometimes think Barack Obama has developed a computer program for deciding who to nominate for top jobs. His choices are always so damn rational. When he needed a running mate, he began with his greatest political vulnerability (his weakness among aging lunch-pail Democrats) multiplied it by his greatest governing vulnerability (his lack of experience in Washington) and voila: Joe Biden. It didn’t matter that, given Obama’s legendary discipline and Biden’s legendary indiscipline, the two men weren’t natural pals. In Obama-land, there’s no time for sentiment. When the prez chose Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state, he instantly screwed dozens, if not hundreds, of foreign policy wonks who had alienated the Clintons by signing on to his campaign. The message was clear: In this administration, appointments aren’t about loyalty; they’re about business.”

    • dnd

      “Obama’s high-court pick is young, smart, and liberal, and should be confirmed, argues Peter Beinart. But she should apologize for banning military recruitment at Harvard—a major blunder.”

      The editorial brain trust at the Daily Beast needs to do a little research. Kagan did not ban military recruitment at Harvard. It was banned before her tenure there. She reluctantly allowed it. Reluctantly because of the Solomon bill that forbade federal funding to campuses that banned military recruitment. She wasn’t against it, she was against the bill. And she was against don’t ask don’t tell.

      The takeaway? The Daily Beast is a political gossip blog. Entertaining, but not to be taken seriously. Unlike Andy Borowitz:

      “Citing Kagan’s Lack of Judging Experience, GOP Proposes Paula Abdul”

      http://www.borowitzreport.com/

  4. What exactly is the point you are trying to make tony?

  5. I’m really confounded as to the opposition coming from the left regarding Kagan. The woman has virtually no paper trail.

    • dnd

      “I’m really confounded as to the opposition coming from the left regarding Kagan. ”

      There are some on the left who are pissed that Obama didn’t nominate someone to the left of Hugo Chavez.

  6. nannymm

    “The woman has virtually no paper trail.”

    That is a large part of the problem. Her paper trail is scant; what paper trail there is, is worrisome. Her stand on the first amendment alone is enough to worry civil libertarians.

  7. Nanny got an example of what about her stand on the 1st you find troubling?

  8. nannymm

    Tony, you’re wasting your breath…. you, eprof and I are the only liberals here apparently. You and I have been told how many times now that Hillary lost and we should get over it? Hmmm…. I think some other people should get over it since they’re the ones who always bring up Hillary. But don’t mention kool aid! And if I were you, I’d be careful calling anyone an obot. But it’s would be OK if they told you your “premise lacks reality” as I was told yesterday. Or someone might tell you that your opinion “is just not true. It’s actively false.” Then again, you might get an enraged phone call. So be careful.

  9. nannymm

    In her few academic papers, Kagan evidences strong beliefs for court intervention in speech, going so far as to posit First Amendment speech should be weighed against “societal costs.”

    In a 1996 paper, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,” Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

  10. nannymm

    For liberals, the problem is her “pragmatic” approach to civil liberties and support for Bush policies. Stevens was the fifth vote in opposing such policies and Kagan could well flip that result. Few could have imagined that voting for Obama would have resulted in moving the Court to the right, but that appears to be case with the selection of Kagan.
    http://jonathanturley.org/2010/05/10/obama-to-nominate-elena-kagan/

  11. TempeBev

    At least the choir is singing the same song and is in tune.

  12. 1st is always being weighted against societal costs. Do you consider it to be absolute?

  13. On the issue of pets we sure are Bev! Little else as of late, haha

  14. nannymm

    “New York State legislators reluctantly approve budget bill with state worker furloughs”
    http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/15645/new-york-state-legislators-reluctantly-approve-budget-bill-with-state-worker-furloughs

    Governor Paterson thinks he can balance the budget on the backs of State employees. All NY State workers will now be furloughed one day a week, resulting in a 20 per cent reduction in pay. I guess it’s belt tightening time here.

  15. belt tightening time indeed, sucks for those people, 20% is a lot.

  16. nannymm

    Paul and I are among those people. But we have no intention of taking this lying down.

  17. My fingers are crossed for you nanny.

  18. geez took you long enough

  19. nannymm

    Thanks. We’ll get by but many others will have a terrible time. That’s why we’re trying to organize a boycott of NY State. We’re planning to ask people to shop out of state or online, avoid NYS operated parks and facilities that charge a fee. And state employees who are able are increasing their withholding on their w-2’s to 10 to reduce the amount of tax money the state gets. Any other ideas will be appreciated.

    • dnd

      Nanny,
      Two questions:
      1. How do you propose balancing NY’s budget?
      2. Does this mean that Patterson will only be working four days a week? Could be a good thing 😉

  20. ub

    Okay – so I did call my Mother. Happy mom’s day to all the “mothers” out there!…and I love pets.

    Surprised that dnd kept his Malamute (who remains nameless) all to himself. (how about a pic)

    not relevant my rant: I forgot my passwords, and am too lazy to look them up. Once I decide to clear this up -I am making them all the same. (which people say is a BAD thing to do) I don’t know how many freaking accounts I have that are password protected. I am overwhelmed by passwords. lol….and it’s f*&^%$ freezing here…. no snow but way too cold for spring.

    You guys get along now and be nice to each other. I need to know you are here even if I don’t show up very often.

    peace,
    ub

  21. eProf2

    Back to the first amendment: There are only a few, very few exceptions to the absolutism of the free speech provision. One is the “fire in a theatre” test. Even Citizens United was decided on the first amendment rights. Once a government agent has the ability to determine that a speech critical of government, even in times of crisis, is constitutional then everything depends on the definition of crisis and not on freedom of speech. Turley has got it right: there is a bright shining light line separating the absolute from exigencies that the SC or others might want to say is a crisis. The SC Barnett established the right to speak out against dogma such as saluting the flag right in the middle of WWII as a protected first amendment right. So, we don’t need a SC justice who thinks bending the first amendment is ok.

  22. nannymm

    dnd, I would suggest that NY raise taxes on millionaires, like all those wall street guys who make more in a year that most people make in a lifetime. The average pay for a state worker is only $64,000. That is far from extravagant in this state. Another suggestion (proposed by union presidents) is to fire all the high priced contractors that NY has contracts with. The work can be done far cheaper by state employees.
    NY State employee compensation only accounts for 8 percent of the state budget. This crazy plan will do absolutely nothing to balance the budget. For one thing, it is a violation of union contracts that were negotiated in good faith. The unions (CSEA and PEF) have already filed suit today. The expected costs of litigation are likely to exceed the projected “savings” from these illegal furloughs. The state will very likely lose, just as California did. Then the state will have to pay us all that back money with interest. It’s just a damned stupid move! And it is also unfair to penalize state workers only for the budget problems. We did not cause this! If there has to be some pain, let it be put on those who caused this recession: WALL STREET! And if we all have to kick in to solve it, fine. Raise taxes a bit on everyone. But don’t cut our pay by 20 fricken’ percent!!!
    And to any of you who think it’s OK to do this to state workers, how the hell would you like to get a 20 percent pay cut?

  23. nannymm

    “So, we don’t need a SC justice who thinks bending the first amendment is ok.”

    That is reason #1 why I am not happy with Kagan’s nomination. I expected better from Obama. I guess that was my mistake.

  24. eProf I’m not sure I agree with either you or Turley, it’s that sense of absolutism that one could use to rationalize what I consider to be the very wrong decision of the court to strike down campaign finance reform. And I have to ask, under your way of thinking how do you rationalize the slander exception to the 1st?

  25. nannymm

    Here’s some waste we can cut in Albany:

    “New York state legislators work approximately 60 days per year, earn a minimum of $80,000, and receive a per diem of $140 per day they are in session. There are 61 members of the Senate and 138 members of the Assembly.”
    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5796408-ny-legislature-passes-furlough-bill

  26. eProf2

    Slander and libel are well defined in SC cases with certain criteria, mostly that the burden of proof has to be so egregious that the first amendment doesn’t hold. In reality, there are very few SC cases (although there have been lower court cases giving celebrities big monetary awards when their reputations have been either slandered or libeled. See NYTimes v. Sullivan for the holding case.

  27. dog's eye view

    Good morning all. My beagle joins in greeting you. She insisted on being up and about at 7 this morning, for breakfast.

    nanny: I stand by what I said yesterday. You are entitled to grouse on this blog. You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.

    The dog’s eye bait yesterday was “all we ever get is words and promises, no real action or meaningful change.”

    Which is nonsense.

    Obama will never be the president you desire, as a liberal, but maybe he’s the best we will get in this country, at this time, with the best Congress and major media that money can buy.

    I think he’s very serious about choosing his battles and working to achieve what he can. He falls down a little on not educating the public more — many of them are listening and he really should do “Fireside Chats.”

    Last: why is this his last Supreme Court pick? There’s a better than even chance he will get a second term, and the Justices ain’t getting any younger.

    I think the left and right should dial it down. Not every issue is Armageddon.

  28. dog's eye view

    Burrito: re passwords, and I forget mine all the time too.

    An Apple store 1:1 trainer suggested coming up with 3 passwords a year, combo of words and letters, on the theory that most programs give you 3 tries to log in correctly before timing or logging you out.

    Flaw in her system is that most people won’t change all their passwords after 365 days. However, limiting the number of passwords has made life way easier for me.

  29. nannymm

    Dog’s eye, stand by whatever. I don’t give a hoot. Some of us have core beliefs and aren’t willing to settle for less without a fight. If your ideals are so flexible, that’s great for you. For me, it would never work. I have more integrity than that.

  30. eProf2

    Dog’s Eye, et. al, there is no more important nomination by a president than to the Supreme Court, especially when they might serve for twenty, thirty, or more years into the future.

    No issue is Armageddon by definition, but there are some issues such as a nomination to the court that requires some high degree of passion about it. The president has made his decision and there is no going back on it unless something comes out during the hearings that would disqualify her. I suspect the Senate will confirm her.

    However, Nanny, others, and myself are entitled to express some reservations over the current nominee. Certainly, we could all agree that passion kept Robert Bork and Harriet Meiers off the SC. Unfortunately from my perspective there wasn’t enough passion expressed when Thomas was nominated and appointed to the Court.

    One last point before departing for the day: the SC as an aggregate IS getting younger since Bush got to put his two very young conservatives on the court, including the Chief Justice, who will probably serve until, oh say, 2040 or longer.

    Bring on the passion!!

  31. nannymm

    Well said, eprof. But we’re barking up the wrong tree here. See you on FB.

  32. nannymm

    Now here is something Obama is saying that I can wholeheartedly agree with.
    “With all the talk of drug violence on the Mexican border “spilling over” into the United States, the Obama administration today points out something that few other policymakers have been willing to say out loud: Those problems wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the tremendous appetite that Americans have for those drugs.”
    http://washingtonindependent.com/84451/white-house-americans-to-blame-for-our-drug-problems

  33. Eprof,
    And the campaign finance part of my question? And frankly I really think your response to my liable/slander argument really backs up my side of the argument, not yours.

  34. nannymm

    If you read the article, you will see that once again Obama diagnoses the problem correctly but then proceeds to prescribe the wrong treatment.

  35. dog's eye view

    eprof and nanny: Do you think this is the only Supreme Court nomination that Obama will get?

    He’s got financial market regulatory reform and climate change/green technology on his plate, plus immigration system reform at some point.

    Plus a horrible oil spill in the Gulf.

    Is this the time to wage an ideological war over the future of the Supreme Court?

    Over a well-qualified woman who serves as Solicitor General?

    Passion is important, but strategic thinking will get you a long ways too. (NOTE: I am not saying Obama has no passion. Am quite sure he does. But generally being ruled by passion alone comes to a bad end.

    Although it can be great for viewership and page views, in the short term.)

  36. I read the article, I didn’t see any prescription for the drug problem mentioned at all. It did say that the admin in not for legalization. I did read an article the other day in the Times where the admin is shifting the focus to treatment and prevention and away from the criminal aspects of the so called War on Drugs. What is you want the President to do in regard to the drug problem?

  37. nannymm

    Legalize and tax pot for starters.

  38. I’m all for that, think we can get it through congress?

  39. dog's eye view

    What meat grinder would you have Obama stick his head into next?

    Because it looks like he and his administration have plenty to do already, without looking for more fires to flare.

    It’s impossible to keep drugs out of this country when there is such an insatiable appetite for them.

    And maybe our National Guard could eventually help defend the borders against drug smuggler and narco state types.

    I’d say decriminalization or even legalization can wait its turn.

  40. dog's eye view

    re legalizing and taxing pot: it would be fascinating to see what Kentucky legislators say about that. Or even well-reasoned alternative newspapers, because legislators often won’t address such hot topics.

    Marijuana is apparently a huge cash crop, and its prevalence and the market for it has got to have occurred to some as an industry to support.

    Huge business in central and northern California too.

  41. nannymm

    Dod, we have no idea if Obama will get another SCOTUS pick. But what we do know is that he is unlikely to ever have the majority that he has now in the Senate.
    “Is this the time to wage an ideological war over the future of the Supreme Court?”
    Yes, I think it is. No matter what else is going on, SC appointments can shape the court for more than a generation.
    I am well aware that Obama has a lot on his plate. But he chose to run and we elected him. I expect him to do the job. The primary reason I voted for him was because I did not want a repug to make any more SCOTUS nominations.
    And as for that “horrible spill in the Gulf, ” Obama still is for more off shore drilling. Sheeeesh!!!

  42. nannymm

    Meat grinder? Good heaven, Dog! Politics is a meat grinder! Obama stuck his head into the day he chose to enter the political fray, as did every other politician. We hired them and we pay them to make the sausage. If they can’t stomach it, they need to get the hell out of the way and let someone else take over.

  43. nannymm

    I find it quite amazing that so many who criticized Bill Clinton for compromising with the right now are willing to turn a blind eye to Obama even though he has taken the compromise position to a level that even BC never thought of.

  44. What are you talking about? How did we get from Kagan, to the war on drugs, now to Bill Clinton? Sorry but it just seems like you’ve got a list of gripes and you’re running through em.

    On a sweeter note, frozen M&Ms, yummy.

  45. nannymm

    Brian, I’m trying to point out that Obama is doing the same thing Clinton did, only more so.
    As for the idiotically named “war on drugs,” it was just an article I saw and thought I’d share… something we all do here every single day. I actually started out that post by pointing out where I agreed with Obama. You see, I don’t hesitate to praise him when I think he’s doing something right. Nor do I hesitate to criticize him when I think he’s wrong, unlike some peeps….

  46. dog's eye view

    eprof: good post, and I agree on the longterm impact of Supreme Court picks.

    I also appreciate your civil answer to my question, and taking it seriously.

    Who criticized Bill Clinton for compromising with the right?

    I thought Bill Clinton was a terrific president, effective and cerebral during his first 6 years; embattled after that.

  47. nannymm

    “frozen M&Ms”….
    Do they make sugar-free M&M’s?

  48. We got health care reform, we’re getting finance reform, we’re getting energy reform, we’re getting immigration reform. That strikes me as a damn fine first term.

    BTW I think it’s fair to say Justice Ginsberg will retire in the near future, I suspect at the end of the current term.

  49. nannymm

    Oh yeah! I thought this thread was about the importance of pets? Aren’t you being a bit peevish, Bri?

    Bev, I couldn’t agree more with the points you make in this thread. It was an interesting read but still a hard topic for me. I’m still crying for my Sly…..

  50. “If you read the article, you will see that once again Obama diagnoses the problem correctly but then proceeds to prescribe the wrong treatment.”

    Silly me for seeing that as a slam.

  51. nannymm

    “We got health care reform, we’re getting finance reform, we’re getting energy reform, we’re getting immigration reform. That strikes me as a damn fine first term.”

    All of which either are or will be watered down in Obama’s unending (and fruitless) quest for bipartisan support, something he will never get from these rethugs.

  52. nannymm

    She isn’t retiring at the end of the current term, Brian. Maybe next year….

  53. I think she will retire after this term, I don’t think she would want to leave the court right before the start of the presidential election season, just a feeling on my part.

  54. I agree with you 100% that he put too much effort into gaining bi-partisan support. How ever it doesn’t IMO warrant the rage against this president that you seem to be expressing.

  55. nannymm

    Brian, you think I slam poor Obama too much, right? Well, frankly, I think you and dog don’t slam him enough. In fact, I don’t think you EVER slam him. No matter what, you either agree with him or make excuses for him. I remember a time when you were so sure that he had some secret plan to get a public option into HCR. Well, it didn’t happen. I, also, recall when you were so convinced that he’d end DODT, close Gitmo, and end the wars. Well….. HE HAS NOT DONE ANY OF THOSE. But that’s OK with you. Poor Obama! He’s got so much on his plate! Give me a break!

  56. Lucky me, I have a client appointment, have a good afternoon peeps.

  57. nannymm

    It isn’t rage, Brian. It’s frustration and disappointment!!! I feel like he has broken far too many promises! And as a result, he is hurting this country and the Democratic party. He has taken the liberal/progressive wing of this party for granted. He has supported far too many Bush policies regarding war and terrorism; he gives away far too much without obtaining any benefit at all; and NOW he has nominated a woman who may move the SC even farther to the right. So, yes, I am very unhappy with him. I’m frustrated and disappointed, angry even. But you and dog seem not to care. Maybe if YOU expressed some genuine disappointment and frustration with his policies once in a while instead of always trying to defend him, Tony, eprof, and I wouldn’t need to try so hard to get you to see reason. It seems to me that you all gush whenever he does something you like (so do I) but then you just ignore and make excuses for everything else. Why is that?

  58. dog's eye view

    Has Obama disappointed me on some fronts? Yes. But he’s achieved a great deal of what he is able to do, in this political and economic/social climate, in his first year (first year, for God’s sake).

    Do I want to slam him in public?

    No thank you. There are plenty of people who live to do that, and many get paid for it.

    Has it ever occurred that you might hear more of our views if you weren’t usually on the attack? Your advanced psychological training might provide some examples of group behavior there.

    It would seem that all the blog regulars eventually voted for Obama, and that we all have our own personal views on how he’s doing.

    Last, I see Justice Ginsburg stepping down too, in time for Obama to replace her. She’s as much as said so, on several occasions. (Will hunt for why I thought so; think it’s an LA Times story …)

  59. dog's eye view

    I have to scoot; check back later.

    But a last thought: think of how our Congress and media are so careerist now. Very resistant to change. We have a lot of inherited seats in both institutions.

    Cable news, campaign consultants, activist groups who fundraise massively — lots of people make beaucoups bucks off political polarization. What’s good for them is making actual governance much harder.

    Do you think you could get civil rights legislation through in this atmosphere?

    You have to go for the attainable, and that takes a lot of judgment too.

    Shoot for the stars, but be reasonable in your strategy and expectations for the near future.

  60. nannymm

    “Has it ever occurred that you might hear more of our views if you weren’t usually on the attack? Your advanced psychological training might provide some examples of group behavior there.”

    That is factually false, dog. You drop in here and again but you miss a lot. I am not usually “on the attack.” As for my training, this is a blog. I’m free to express my opinion. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. You are, of course, free to respond as you like. You may not want to “slam” him in public; that’s your choice. I, however, believe that in a democracy we have not only a right but also an obligation to speak out when we disagree with our politicians. You apparently think it’s only OK to disagree with the opposition. That is one of the things I detested most about the “bushies.” So you do whatever you want and I’ll do this same. I’m not an Obot. And I despise Kool Aid.

  61. tonyb39

    “What exactly is the point you are trying to make tony?”

    Brian,
    The simple point i was trying to make this morning, before work called, was the President has ignored Liberals again and went with the politically safe choice.I like so many Liberals want a Liberal Scalia on the court, not someone who doesn’t have a paper trail.I want to know exactly where a potential SC justice stands on the issues i care about! The President has huge Dem majorities yet you wouldn’t know it by his actions!! Obama continues to be hugely disappointing..Remember how Liberals were thrown under the bus on the public option,simply more of the same..

  62. tonyb39

    “Has it ever occurred that you might hear more of our views if you weren’t usually on the attack? Your advanced psychological training might provide some examples of group behavior there.”

    Hi Dog,
    Your a very smart person,but this is rubbish!! Nanny is simply putting her disappointment with the President out there for the world to see,same as i do..Love President Obama when he’s doing good things like the bailouts and the Stimulus package,but on things like Healthcare and Financial reform,trade policies, he has yet to shine for me!The President always seems to cave on anything that requires a fight and usually that means throwing Liberals under the bus..I don’t believe there’s value for the country not criticize in public the leaders we vote for..Holding their feet to the fire is the only way were going to get the Hope and Change we voted for..

    “I’m not an Obot. And I despise Kool Aid.”

    This is my truth too….

  63. nannymm

    Love you, Tony! 😀

  64. tonyb39

    Right back at ya Nanny!!!

  65. dog's eye view

    Tony: I was very disappointed at no single payer with Healthcare. Of all of us on this blog, that would probably have helped me the most, in all honesty.

    Democratic congresscritters showed their stripes on that one, and it was ugly. They were beyond corporatist, most of them. I suspect Obama would handle that one differently, if he had it to do again.

    What is actually obtainable is up for conjecture. Recall how close the final vote on the watered down bill. It’s a starting point.

    Real change is incredibly hard. Personally, politically, systemically.

    I don’t think Obama “always caves” and takes the line of least resistance on issues, as you and nanny might. I don’t think he’s looking for more Everests to scale, either.

    Could a liberal with a long, long list of cases to read through and debate be confirmed in our political environment? With the GOP playing to the basest of their base?

    Where 45,000 Americans annually die for lack of health insurance/medical care, and what passes for healthcare reform barely made it through?

  66. TempeBev

    I put it together with you in mind, Nanny.

    You guys are having a great debate. Great reading.

  67. nannymm

    Well, thank you very much, Bev. I go out to Sly’s grave everyday. I just can’t believe how much I still miss him…

  68. Beau Biden Hospitalized After Suffering ‘Mild Stroke’: Vice President Son Recovering In Delaware Hospital

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/11/beau-biden-hospitalized-v_n_571514.html

  69. nannymm

    “Where 45,000 Americans annually die for lack of health insurance/medical care, and what passes for healthcare reform barely made it through?”

    I think that’s because Obama left it all up to Congress and let them screw it up. He was unwilling to take a stand until he knew exactly what he could get. And by then it wasn’t a lot because he allowed the rethugs so much time to frighten people with tales of death panel and socialism. Obama’s failure to engage in the process led to the insanity that transpired last August. He fucked up! We could have and should have had a far better bill if only he had LED. HCR should have been passed BEFORE the August break. But our Pollyanna president was too busy searching for that bipartisanship he didn’t get then and never will get.

  70. dog's eye view

    Do think of Sly and other beloved missed pets. (Bingo!) Maybe tomorrow we can actually discuss pets! (Mine is doing improbably well on her new heart med; it’s borrowed time but I’m amazed at her condition now vs. December.)

    Thinking a little more on tony’s, nanny’s and eprof’s comments, and thinking how I do hear a lot of people tell me that Obama does not go far enough in what he attempts.

    So will listen to civil arguments with a fresh ear.

    This has been an unusual year in history, though. So many problems came knocking at once, lots of them foreseen, some not.

    You do play sports differently if you are playing to win versus playing not to lose.

    My point, though, is that the perils posed by losing are unacceptably steep. Not forever, but for this year in particular and for the forseeable future.

    Perhaps demographics — the Teabonics crowd aging out to the Capitalist Paradise in the sky — will give us a more level playing field.

    For now, you’re stuck on the shit-strewn field we have got.

  71. tonyb39

    “Tony: I was very disappointed at no single payer with Healthcare. Of all of us on this blog, that would probably have helped me the most, in all honesty.”

    Dog,
    Me too..I said the President always caves because with Dem Majorities like this, that haven’t been seen since the 60,s seems to me he could fight and win a more liberal agenda if he would adopt a balls to the wall attitude towards the Republicans and yes to some in his own party..Just when will the Liberals have this chance again? I freely admit,i was easier on President Clinton,but look what he was up against in the congress..If the President had less Democrats in Congress i could understand his conciliatory approach, but this is not the case…

  72. nannymm

    “For now, you’re stuck on the shit-strewn field we have got.”

    We’re only stuck there because Obama and the Dems need to get a backbone. And because too many voters are willing to accept crumbs.
    I’m not among them.

  73. tonyb39

    Nanny,
    I understand and feel for you about Sly..I miss my mom’s dog Pepper,thought of him at the bottom of my pool on Mother’s Day,poor thing.Pepper was 17 and i turned my back for no more than a minute..

  74. dog's eye view

    Do you remember what it felt like to live through George W Bush’s two administrations? How we were just passengers, and he was going with his “mandate” to represent his base, period? Full speed ahead, into folly? If you weren’t with us, you were against us?

    I think Obama realized the damage the country took for that, and tried to restore bipartisanship.

    It did not work with healthcare. His own party barely came through.

    He absolutely should have sold the public on the broad outlines and worked with Congress to put them into place. That delay allowed the “death panels” idiocy we suffered through.

    I see why he didn’t act “unilaterally”, although he might do it differently given what happened.

    He taught Constitutional Law. He likely believes in Congress’s role in developing legislation and the system of checks and balances. We’re not a monarchy a la W’s reign of error.

    Congress was not up to it.

    Lesson learned.

    I agree Obama should communicate more with the American public directly, and should request network airtime (our public airwaves!) to make the case for important legislation.

    And not take the wrong lesson from that early dust-up, where having the president address schoolchildren led to conservatives wailing about indoctrinating them with socialism.

  75. Why this has denigrated into a Clinton vs. Obama discussion is beyond me. But hey if you find it fun knock yourselves out, for me boring as hell.

  76. dog's eye view

    Tony: so sorry about Pepper. 17’s a good long life, though. What a sad thing.

  77. I think considering how difficult it was to get the current health care bill through the hill to have expected the prez to pull a rabbit of a hat smacks of political immaturity, talk about drinking the kool-aid.

  78. nannymm

    Oh, Tony, I’m sorry to hear about Pepper. It’s just so damned hard, isn’t it?

  79. dog's eye view

    He the Messiah, Brian. And the Democratic majority is monolithic.

  80. nannymm

    Political immaturity? Ha! What Obama did was either political cowardice or political malpractice! He let Congress fuck it up because he was too hands off. The longer he let it go on, the worse it got and the less we ultimately achieved in the final bill. By the end of that mismanaged process we had to consider ourselves lucky to have gotten a bill at all. But you can’t see the many mistakes Obama made? You’re either wearing blinders or you’re the political neophyte.

  81. nannymm

    Messiah, my ass! He’s screwing up more than he’s saving.

  82. dog's eye view

    Got to go out again.

    I wish Democratic voters voted in primaries and mid-terms as much as Republicans do.

    That is something that has to change. It’s a real structural problem.

  83. Well better to have let Congress fuck it up and get half a loaf than him fucking it up and getting no loaf at all. So I guess he did learn from history right?

  84. nannymm

    “He taught Constitutional Law.”

    So why the hell doesn’t he show more respect for the first amendment? Why is he considering a change to Miranda? Why has he continued so many of the Bush era programs? Why did he support an extension of the Patriot act? Why did he back down on trying KSM in Federal Court in Manhattan?
    Oh, hell! Why do I even bother! You just can’t see it. Obama talks a good game and then pursues a Bush-light agenda. For God’s sake!!! He signed a bill allowing people to carry GUNS in National Parks!!!! That’s right wing crazy!!!!

  85. nannymm

    “Well better to have let Congress fuck it up and get half a loaf than him fucking it up and getting no loaf at all. So I guess he did learn from history right?”

    Good heavens!! That’s cowardice! Obama had the country behind him! He had political capital by the boatload! He let his fear of failure get in the way and he squandered it! Can’t you see that????

  86. “Can’t you see that????” No because I think you’re wrong, but hey if you want to keep on this tract knock yourself out.

  87. And btw Nanny before you start question anyone else’s liberal credentials you should take at look at some of your own affiliations before you go challenging anyone else on that score. No self respecting liberal I know would dare be spending a weekend with one of the biggest homophobic organizations that I can think of, The Boy Scouts. There’s a fine legacy of intolerance and hate!

  88. TempeBev

    Have to agree with Brian’s view of the Boy Scouts. We refuse to donate to United Fund because money goes to the BS’s. As far as I know, the Girl Scouts are OK.

    • dnd

      Bev,
      Are you kidding me? Those evil Girl Scouts contribute to our national obesity crisis. Those cookies are addictive. Especially the thin mints. Ummm, thin mints. And the Trefoils dunked in milk.

  89. nannymm

    I don’t agree with the Boy Scouts position on gays, as you well know. However, they do a lot of good for young boys in my community and I’m proud to help with that. I make no bones about my opposition to their stand against gays. My grandson is a Scout; it was his choice. I’m there to support him. If you don’t like it, I don’t give a shit, Brian.

  90. Nanny you’ve been looking to pick a fight since yesterday, why I have no idea.

  91. nannymm

    “before you start question anyone else’s liberal credentials…”

    I’m not questioning anyone’s liberal credentials. But, hey, I was informed yesterday that you aren’t liberals. Can you all make up your minds?

  92. nannymm

    I’m not the one looking for a fight, Brian. I just don’t agree with you and dog and dnd. Nothing new there…. You were the ass who called me at home like an insane maniac to scream at me that you were too angry with me to talk to me. And then you hung up. So who is looking for a fight? That was one crazy response to a little comment about Kool Aid. Did I hit a nerve?

  93. D said he’s not a liberal, he spoke for himself only, and you did question other people’s liberal credentials. And I quote;
    “Tony, you’re wasting your breath…. you, eprof and I are the only liberals here apparently.”

    Now tell how that isn’t a rather “tea-baggish” approach to politics?

  94. nannymm

    Tea-baggish? Now that’s what I call mature.

  95. You can disagree with us all you want, but when you start hurling names at people who are genuinely your friends and questioning their “liberal credentials” I think you’ve crossed a line, especially after I told you how offended I was by your kool-aid remark, then to return to it, pretty damn hostile in my book!

  96. nannymm

    Think whatever you will, Brian. I haven’t appreciated many remarks made by you but I just let them go. I’ve had enough of this bullshit. I’m out of here.

  97. nannymm

    For the record, you didn’t TELL me; you SCREAMED at me. You also refused to listen to anything I had to say. AND I apologized to you TWICE here on the blog but you refused to accept my apology. So kiss my ass. I’m out of here.

  98. My puckerer is in the shop for repairs.

  99. tonyb39

    Good evening all,
    First off,Pepper died a year ago January.I felt terrible as he was 17 with wobbly legs and was my mom’s dog.He had a nice life and was really getting bad,i just couldn’t make myself put him down..

    Nanny,
    I agree with you so much politically and really enjoy reading you,don’t stay away.I also think it’s so important to criticize are elected official’s.You are a vital member here to all!

    Brian,
    In my reading here,i don’t think Nanny means to question anyone’s authenticity as a liberal.I think she is trying to get the folks here to see the need for this President to put forth a Liberal agenda and that so far its been lacking..I get her so much,criticism is good,it will only help us become better..I understand mid-term concerns now,but since the beginning of his term this President has concerned himself with bi-partisanship and not enough good old fashioned Liberalism..IMO

  100. Tony my point is we have seen almost nothing that says Kagan is not a liberal.

  101. tonyb39

    Brian,
    Your right! I posted that Peter Beinart piece this morning and he says no question she’s a liberal.I think its also interesting Jeffery Tubin said after knowing her for i think 20 years he doesn’t know her politics..

  102. You know one the reasons repugs are often so much more successful at getting their agenda through congress is they don’t claw at each other as if they are the enemy. We’d be much better off in the long run if we attacked the real enemies, the Mitch McConnels of this world, not this president, it gets us nothing.

  103. tonyb39

    “We’d be much better off in the long run if we attacked the real enemies, the Mitch McConnels of this world, not this president, it gets us nothing.”

    Brian,
    I agree we should attacking the likes of Mitch McConnell,but i disagree that we are attacking this President. We disagree with his conciliatory approach to almost every issue confronting him. This President has huge majorities,let him act like he does!! Republican’s are repugnant,Dems are different,we have a big tent,all opinions allowed..This may weaken us in some respects,but it strengthens us in other ways..

  104. Tony I agree fully that the president wasted too much effort on trying to get repugs to join in. But acting like this president hasn’t furthered the progressive agenda is absurd, no president since LBJ has had more success in doing so and I defy you or anyone else to prove me wrong.

  105. tonyb39

    Brian,
    Well, I guess if your talking about getting a Healthcare bill passed,technically your correct,but i sure wouldn’t call it a progressive healthcare bill..Its again the Romney care from Mass..Better than nothing for sure,a victory politically,but National healthcare,nope..Saves money,i don’t believe it,boon to private Insurance corps,yep..Still,not stupid here,would today’s crop of Republicans even give Romney care to the US,nope,thankful,yet disappointed..

  106. dog's eye view

    It’s been a lively discussion today!

    Now to cook a scallop dinner. Back soon.

  107. expanded child health care
    hate crimes law
    equal pay
    higher fuel standards
    higher pollution standards
    expanded protected federal lands by over two million acres.
    expanded vets health care

  108. i love scallops, bay or sea dog?

  109. Oh yeah, I forget nuclear arms reduction treaty. And appointed the first hispanic to the high court.

  110. dog's eye view

    Scallops are wild Japanese scallops, frozen, from Trader Joe’s.

    Whether they were yakuza in their free range life, I cannot say.

  111. tonyb39

    Brian,
    Not arguing with anything on your list of accomplishments by this President,still it doesn’t negate any of liberal left wing of the parties concerns or criticisms..

  112. I didn’t say it didn’t but I draw the line at name calling when people take a different stance.

  113. dog's eye view

    Rereading Bev’s wonderful post about pets:

    I swear my beagle(s) = 40 pounds of Prozac.

    Who is to feel terrible when you have someone wagging to see you, dragging you outside into the fresh air to meet other petwalkers, someone who is never blase about dinner, someone who will snuggle up (to protect you — yeah, right!) at night?

    Pets are among the hardest working animals in our world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s