Don Ardell's Wellness Perspectives on Sex, Religion & Politics

The Council for Secular Humanism Rescues Florida From Theocratic Politicians

As a supporter of church/state separation, I was delighted that the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH) won a court victory over state politicians who pander to religious voters last week. The very idea of such funding was an outrageous and until now successful ploy by right-wing fundamentalists in this benighted state to compel all taxpayers to support religious indoctrination. It always seemed a gross violation of the Florida and US Constitutions; the state's 1st District Court of Appeal has now affirmed this perspective. 

The case involved Florida taxpayer funds going to faith-based substance abuse transitional housing programs in Florida prisons. The CSH termed this Christian religious indoctrination and the appeals court concurred - reversing a lower court ruling that allowed the practice. 

Under Jeb Bush and his fellow Republican successor, Governor Charlie Crist, payments were made to faith-based organizations for social services. Prisoners of Christ and Lamb of God Ministries received public funds to provide faith-based services (e.g., prayers).  Does anyone else think these are weird names, or is it just me? Why would any prisoner want to be imprisoned by Christ, anyway?  And Lamb of God? What's that about? Prisoners taught to behave like sheep? 

Florida statutes contain a No-Aid provision concerning religion - it's written into the Florida constitution. Let's all be grateful that CSH, based in New York but serving the US Constitution throughout the nation, has rendered a superb service for all Floridians, religious as well as secular.

Want To Reduce Or Stop Global Warming? Support Global Family Planning!

The leaders of the world are about to gather in Coperhagen to debate the nature of and ways to slow global warming.  All manner of topics are on the table - except the only one that could dramatically slow and possibly reverse the progression of global warming. That, as you might sense from the title of this piece, is zero population, in my opinion and a vast number of scientists who have studied strategies for arresting global warming and a host of other world problems.

It should go without noting but I will to be sure I'm understood: There is no harm in seeking commitments from developed and other nations to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gasses, perhaps by five or more percent by 2012 (compared with 1990 levels).  But, this and other targets under review are of less consequence than the population control approach.  Unfortunately, the poisonous menace of religious dogma keeps this logical approach off the table, at least so far.  In fact, most national leaders fear mention of the topic.  What a tragedy.

The omission of population control in general and contraception and other forms of birth control in particular should be addressed as a first item of business in Copenhagen.  The US should enlist other secular nations to advance consideration of family planning increases, with a focus on the education and attendant liberation of women in developing countries. If not, we should all start preparing for the consequences - financially, educationally and emotionally. It's going to get ugly.   

There is solid evidence that birth control is cheaper than any "green technology."  Nothing else will do more faster or with less expense.  A report entitled "Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Costs" estimates a one ton reduction for each 7 dollars spent on family planning.  Since we add 90 million tons a day of nasty stuff (not an official scientific term) according to Al Gore, and the cost of eliminating a single ton with global emission reduction approaches is $32, it seems inconceivable that governments continue to permit religious forces to block family planning strategies. Consider that the Report authors also estimate "that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended."  Just education alone could do wonders to slow global warming by bring about a future with fewer emitters.

The entire matter is rather basic.  Fewer people will emit fewer tons of carbon dioxide.  Of course, fewer people also will lead to what Robert Green Ingersoll said, "less alms for the outstretched hand of superstition," but in my view, that, too, would be a very good thing.  

Cheers.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Tiger Woods - The Latest Casualty Of An Unrealistic Standard Contrary To Human Nature

Next to religion, golf seems to me one of the silliest ways to waste time ever invented.  Unlike religion, golf does not have toxic side effects that poison the waters of liberty, destroy human faculties for reason and incite tribes into murderous assaults against each other.  But, it is not harmless if, due to years of dedicated training, natural ability and favorable circumstances, the golfer excels and achieves celebrity status.  Tiger Woods has done that and more - he has reached not only a billion dollar level of wealth from golf-related income - he has attained a deity-level of fame.  The public demands a great deal of posturing from its fabled celebrities.  And therein lies a big hazard.  

Celebrities are expected to follow the moral codes that religious and other social pressures extol.  A married celeb of the male gender is at special risk. Mr. Woods, like other celebs, must face the ultimate sand trap - fidelity.

Fidelity comes easily to black vultures, but it is contrary to human nature.  It's a wonderful thing if, somehow, a human male either pulls it off (fidelity, that is) or at least does not get caught "transgressing" from the "no one else, ever" norm associated with marriage.  (Why in hell gays want to bring this burden down upon themselves is a mystery that eludes me - though I think they should be allowed to do what they like, even if it's self-destructive.)  We know, from the never-ending outing of disgraced politicians, that the male's chances of marital bliss are not "Las Vegas odds" good.  The reality is that deeply entrenched, non-negotiable desires of males shift with the passage of time.  With initial love and excitement, they will promise anything - including fidelity, and believe in said promise.  But nature is more potent than early intentions.  It is simply unlikely that males are capable of enduring lust of an exclusive nature for their wives over time.  A mate may still be good company over the years as both evolve, but based on changed opportunities, circumstances and modified preferences of one kind or another, ingrained early ancestor-fueled desires for some other caveman's woman is going to override religious teachings - and one's own professed code of exclusive commitment.  

Tiger Woods is a better golfer than anyone else on the planet, but he is still a human male with characteristics that evolved over millions of years. Don't look for fidelity-related changes anytime soon, for celebrities or the rest of us instinct-driven males.  

  

Phony Baloney Balloon-Boy Deja Vu - Be Skeptical of Belgian Tall Tale

The infamous Terri Schiavo case is in the news again, brought back into the media with the alleged recovery of consciousness of a man in a vegetative state for 23 years - all the while utterly motionless. 

The recovery, however, is something less than what you might consider a "recovery."  In fact, it is probably nothing whatsoever.  No recovery and no genuine communication.  The communicating by the patient is, in fact, what is called facilitated communication.  A third party is doing it FOR the patient. 

Can you believe this is a major news item?

If you really do believe that, I want to offer you a special deal on the Golden Gate Bridge. 

Facilitated Communication or FC is the sleigh of hand junk science fad being sold to the media to explain an alleged ability of a young Belgian youth 23 years in a vegetative state to communicate.  Naturally, the parents want to believe in a miracle or a scientific breakthrough.  Parents want to embrace any kind of hope, even if not religious extremists like the Schiavo family in Florida.  The claim in this case started with the use of a new CAT scan technology.  Unfortunately, dig a little deeper and the tale is almost certainly a weird combination of fraud, voodoo and wishful thinking.  In the Belgian case, the only one doing any communicating is the nurse who guides the finger of the comotose patient.  She should be arrested, prosecuted and sentenced - and her trickery widely exposed as soon as possible. 

Let an independent third party, or several forms of non-biased experiments be run and there is little doubt but that tests will show fraud at work that has so far bamboozled the media.  On the other hand, a cynical view is that media managers know it's all a scam (a book is in the works along with TV specials - and no doubt T-shirt sales).  The only reason the FC ruse is tolerated for a moment is for ratings purposes. 

What do YOU think? 

Two Suggestions For President Obama From A Speech Writer Waiting To Be Enlisted In The Good Cause

On October 12, 2009, Charles Gibson interviewed President Obama on ABC-TV about health care reform. Mr. Gibson served Mr. Obama a "gotcha" question, to wit: "Mr. President, will you and your family give up your current health care program and join the new universal program that the rest of us will be on?" 

While I did not watch the interview, I learned about it from exultant conservative bloggers who gleefully noted what they called "Obama's stony silence." As noted, I do not know if the president fumbled the question, but really, what could he say? Any president or member of Congress would have to be some kind of secular saint to agree to do such a thing, since their health plans are indeed gold-plated - and cost next to nothing, thanks to taxpayer subsidies for high officials. 

However, I have a suggested response for Mr. Obama consideration, just in case this query is posed again, which it surely will be. Here is what I think he should say, more or less: 

"Life is NOT fair, as most people have realized for some time. The president and members of Congress enjoy many benefits unavailable to the populace. Other presidents and Congressional leaders created systems that favor citizens elected to high public office. Maybe they should not have done so, or the people should have insisted such entitlements be eliminated. Maybe it is time for changes in health plans beyond those reforms under consideration. 

However, for now, the system does favor those elected to certain high offices. Take the presidency, for example. In this job, you get many perks, including a bigger airplane on call at your service 24/7 than the aircraft enjoyed by most Americans. Members of Congress don't get airplanes or a really nice house fully furnished with a home office as I do, but they do, as your question recognizes, receive generous health insurance plans. I don't think the folks who manage to get themselves elected to highly contested seats (only two available) in the US Senate from each state or the 435 accomplish the same in districts across the land will be anxious to sigh up for the basic plan we want everyone to have. Perhaps this question of fairness relative to health care benefits should be revisited in political campaigns to come. Until a consensus for changes in Federal health plans is realized, I'm going to accept the current plan granted to me by the Congress. Meanwhile, I'll continue to work as hard as I can to make greater benefits, even if not quite presidential (or Congressional), available to everyone else. 

Does that answer your question?

On another matter, let me start by noting that I am a liberal. I am also an Independent who voted for Mr. Obama, and not only because I was horrified at the presence of a moron reactionary on the other side's ticket. I liked Obama during the long campaign and fully expected REAL change. I've been disappointed, a lot, so far. I expected more support for women's rights and gay rights, even though I'm not female or gay. I thought Obama would rebuild a figurative wall to keep separate church and state, but instead he gave us Rick Warren at the Inaugural and expanded rather than halted faith-based funding of religious charities. 

But what really runs chalk across my blackboard is the president's habit of ending most speeches with the ludicrous phrase, "God bless America." What the hell does that mean? Which god? How does a god bless a country? What happens if we ever, somehow, got blessed? What does that mean, anyway? If Obama does not ask for God to bless America, does that mean we won't be blessed? How many times does he have to say those words to get the blessing? How many blessings do we need? Have these matters ever been explained and, if so, by whom and what did he/she or it say?

I'd like to know what YOU think. Any comments?

The Tax Exempt Status of the Catholic Church Should Be Revoked Immediately

Injecting itself aggressively into the health-care debate, the Roman Catholic Church in America has emerged as a major political force with the potential to upend a key piece of President Barack Obama's agenda.

Peter Wallsten, Catholic Church Emerges as Big Player in Health-Care Fight, Wall Street Journal, November 10, 2009, p. A4.

An amendment to the House-passed health bill bars anyone who receives a tax credit from enrolling in a plan that covers abortion.  This ban is the result of an intense lobbying campaign by Catholic churches across the nation.  The church worked behind-the-scenes while publicly mobilizing supporters at the grassroots level. 

Political activism by the tax-exempt Catholic Church reached an odious level five years ago when Catholic bishops declared that they would not grant communion to the Democratic nominee.  While free-thinkers and others are not bound or intimidated by dogmas thought ridiculous by other than true believers (who unfortunately number in the millions), to candidate John Kerry and other Catholics, this was a big deal. 

Why would the church threaten its most prominent member at that time? The bishops did so because Catholic Kerry dared to support a woman's right to make a choice regarding abortion.  This choice was of course enabled for all women in this country in 1973 when the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalized the procedure.  

The nation has been embroiled in legal battles between the forces of theocracy and secular governance for many years, and there is no end in sight.  Politicians at present are largely composed of believers and supporters of religious encroachment on separation of church and state.  IRS rule violations are common; religious leaders know they can get away with ignoring rules forbidding partisan political activity and other campaigning that injects religious beliefs into public policies.  The Catholic Church is the worst offender.  What a shame our presidents since JFK have not seen fit to instruct cabinet members and others in government, including the Commissioner of the IRS, to act swiftly when church groups meddle in public policy while insisting on keeping their tax-exempt status. 

In 1960, candidate Kennedy spoke to church leaders in Texas.  Imagine how Catholic bishops and other Catholic lobbyists would respond today to the late president's remarks delivered in 1960.  The following words are from JFK's speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion on September 12, 1960.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

I myself believe in an America that will not allow tax exempt status for a Catholic Church that acts as a political force.  I therefore believe that the IRS should immediately strip the church of this undeserved privilege. No religious body should be allowed to impose its will upon the general populace.

An Honest Congress Would Be A Miracle

Robert Ingersoll was asked for his opinion of miracles in the 1870's.  His reply included an assessment of "miracles" described in the bible, followed by a parable of sorts.  A portion of Ingersoll's response, taken from "Sixty-Five Press Interviews with Robert G. Ingersoll" (AAP, 1983), went like this:

"All the miracles recorded in the New Testament could have been simulated.  A fellow could have pretended to be dead, or blind, or dumb, or deaf.  I want to see a good miracle.  I want to see a dog with one leg, and then I want to see the other leg grow out."  Next, Ingersoll offered a humorous parable:

"Two men were disputing about the relative merits of a salve they had for sale.  One of the men, in order to demonstrate that his salve was better than any other, cut off a dog's tale and applied a little of the salve to the stump and, in the presence of the spectators, a new tail grew out.  But the other man, who also had salve for sale, took up the piece of tail that had been cast away, put a little salve at the end of that, and a new dog grew out, and the last heard of those parties they were quarelling as to who owned the second dog.  Something like that is what I call a miracle. 

If someone could come up with a salve or other remedy for an honest Congress, I, too, would give some respect to the notion of having witnessed a miracle.  The Congress today is a disreputable institution.  The approval rating is 25 percent - lower even than that of George W. Bush at the end of his sorry eight-year reign of ruin. On Friday last, former Louisiana congressman, William Jefferson, was sentenced to 13 years in prison for taking bribes.  Congressmen and women all take bribes, in my opinion, but they are legal when called campaign contributions from special interest lobby groups.  Of course, they all insist that contributions of thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars in no way influences their voting, but you have to believe in biblical-level miracles to buy that.  Other former Congresspersons currently in prison for chicanery of one sort or another include Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Bob Ney and James Traficant. 

Yes, given the nature of the campaign fund-raising norms or system of legal bribery that exists today, a House of Representatives with 435 honest and a Senate with another 100 honest members would, I belive, satisfy even "the great agnostic" and skeptic Robert Green Ingersoll that a miracle had occurred.

I have an idea that would facilitate a somewhat MORE honest Congress, and such a consummation would not require a miracle to come about. 

I suggest that the president appoint and the Congress endorse the establishment of a non-partisan committee to vet the ethical qualifications of all candidates for Congress.  The independent committee would develop an efficient method to assess the ethical quality of everyone elected to the House and the Senate of the United States, and assess any ethical charge brought against said member.  If found not to be ethical, the member would be expelled. 

That is my REAL wellness suggestion of the day.  It is the first in a series of REAL wellness suggestions that will appear at this space from now until the end of time or until I die, whichever comes first.  Your comments about this and/or future suggestions are warmly, lovingly and earnestly encouraged.  All comments will be listed at the site. 

All the best.  Enjoy your life - it's the only one you're going to get so make the most of it.   

A Commentary on the "Curb Your Enthusiasm" Episode When Larry David Inadvertently Peed On Jesus

Sometimes art not only imitates life - it pokes fun at it and shows how ludicrous humans can be when religious dogma, learned piety and superstition raise their ugly heads. The latest evidence for this assertion is seen in the dustup by theocrats that want blasphemy rules in this country. They would love to stifle freedom of speech that offends their sacred symbols. Never mind that large numbers of Americans do not regard their "sacred" objects with any reverence whatsoever, nor do they wish to be compelled to behave as if they did.

I'll tell you about the controversy in a moment, though I suspect you might be aware of it from the reactions of cable news and Right-Wing talk radio screechers. Fortunately, this particular controversy has a positive side. (I like to put a hopeful spin on everything.) The bright side is that the Christian Right reaction to the "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode dramatizes the likely consequences if a United Nations resolution entitled, "Combating the Defamation of Religion" is adopted.

Americans beware - Islamic fundamentalists seek not only to blow us up but also to muscle us into abandoning modernity - they want to strip your First Amendment rights to speak freely. The "Defamation" initiative at the UN could restrict your liberty to offend religious sensibilities. The Islamists have plenty of supporters among fundamentalist theocrats in America, who likewise would love to stifle speech that offends Christian sensibilities.

If successful, the UN effort by Islamists would have consequences injurious to valued privileges we enjoy based on our own constitution's Bill of Rights. The resolution proposed would have the effect of spreading Sharia and other religious law throughout the Western world and would block criticism of Islam - and other religions, no doubt Scientology among them.

The 192-nation Assembly is set to vote on Resolution 62/145. Fortunately, the US is on record as opposed to this resolution, stating that "defamation-related laws have been abused by governments and used to restrict human rights around the world, and sometimes Westerners have been caught in the web." Want an idea of where this kind of resolution leads? Consider these cases:

• An Afghan student is on death row for downloading an article about the role of women in Islam.
• In December 2007, a court sentenced two foreigners to six months in prison for allegedly marketing a book deemed offensive to Aisha, one of the Prophet Muhammad's wives.
•  A British teacher was sentenced to 15 days in jail in Sudan for offending Islam by allowing students to name the class teddy bear Muhammad in November 2007.
• In February 2007 in Egypt an Internet blogger was sentenced to four years in prison for writing a post that critiqued Islam.

Kevin Hasson, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, termed the UN resolution an affront to human rights law.  He was quoted as follows: "The whole idea of the defamation of religion is a Trojan horse for something else. When you talk about defamation, you talk about people being defamed and people being libeled, but ideas can't be defamed. Ideas don't have rights - people have rights." He said the resolution is a shield for Islamic fundamentalists who retaliate against perceived offenses and want to make Islamic Sharia law the law of the land. He said the resolution passes under the guise of protecting religion, but it actually endangers religious minorities in Islamic countries. (Source: Jennifer Lawinski, "U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution Curtails Free Speech, Critics Say," Fox News, October 06, 2008.)

The foreign governments promoting blasphemy legislation have little use for democratic rights, as is the case with the Right Wing religious extremists in this county who want to shut down criticism of their religious sensibilities.

Which brings me back to the delightful Larry David episode that has O'Reily and Catholic apologists in a stew bordering on a hissy fit.

Bill O'Reilly, Bill Donahue and Deal Hudson (the Fox bloviator and two professional Catholic PR lobbyists, respectively) claim not to be amused by what I consider hilarious scenes in a recent episode of HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm." The scene makes fun of simple-minded believers, the type long infamous for perceiving images of Jesus, Mary and/or Joseph (or all three) on cookies, building walls, clouds and so on. In case you have not watched "the episode," I can offer a little background, since I was watching when it first aired.

In the half hour sketch, Larry David is shown to have a bit of a urinary problem. Due to medication gone awry, his urinary trajectory has the force of a fire hose, and this is why a droplet flew up from the toilet to land under the eye of a Jesus painting. The woman whose home Larry was visiting, along with her equally devout (and quite frankly, moronic) daughter visit the bathroom after Larry departs, see the "tear" under Jesus' eye, and believe it is a sign, a miracle and some kind of message - and drop to their knees blessing themselves, all as choral church music soars. I fell off my chair laughing - but then that might be due to the effects of 12 years of Catholic education.

Anyone not amused by all this has, in my humble if proudly sacrilegious opinion, a serious religious addiction and a sorry sense of humor. As I suggested earlier, I believe that O'Reilly and the two Catholic lobbyists fall in this category, unless of course they, too, laughed their arses off but later decided to play outraged in order to fire up their base and generate a larger audience and/or more donations from the faithful. Consider these factors:

• Larry David makes fun of everybody, particularly himself.
• With David, nothing is sacred. My sentiments, exactly.
• Larry's peeing on Jesus was accidental. Besides, it was only a little drop. And what's Jesus' picture doing next to the crapper, anyway? Should he not be hung in a more prestigious location? Don't these people have a chapel somewhere, like right off the kitchen or something?
• No real pee was used nor was the "real" Jesus harmed in any way during the filming of the episode.

Is it even possible to be overly critical about or sufficiently disrespectful of an institution that has given us the Crusades, promoted slavery, unleashed the Inquisition, advocated bigotry against Jews and gays, discriminates against women, fosters child abuse and a delusional belief in miracles and expectations of a vague but wondrously lovely afterlife, not to mention meatless Fridays? (I still resent no hot dogs on Fridays when I was a kid.) Don't religions deserve all the mockery we cynics can marshal against them?

I recommend you tune in to "Curb Your Enthusiasm" every chance you get and hope (but don't bother praying) for the defeat of blasphemy resolutions from the UN and conservative propagandists. 

If the UN resolution passed, would Richard Dawkins have been allowed to write, "Without religion a good man may do good things, and a bad man may do evil things. But for a good man to do evil things you need religion." What a loss this would have been - almost as regrettable as the loss to our humor index if Larry David had been intimidated by the UN and never went ahead with his delightful episode when he (accidentally) left a couple ladies convinced that Jesus had shed a tear in their bathroom.

Let's All Engage In A Bit Of Joyful Blasphemy

Robert Green Ingersoll said, this crime called blasphemy was invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able to take care of themselves. It is an epithet bestowed by superstition upon common sense. It is one of my favorite sentiments, along with this statement by Robert A. Heinlein: Of all the strange 'crimes' that human beings have legislated of nothing, 'blasphemy' is the most amazing - with 'obscenity' and 'indecent exposure' fighting it out for the second and third place.

Where do you stand on this matter? Do you support the tradition that we must not be allowed to discuss certain topics, or that criticism, parody or irreverence toward certain "special" issues should be forbidden?  Personally, I am deeply attached to freedom of speech, so I resist any attempt by individuals, governments or institutions of any kind, including religions, to proclaim certain topics off limits.

The term blasphemy, not surprisingly, is most often invoked by religious authorities to ward off criticism, challenge or irreverence about their beliefs, practices or policies. In many places and different times, offending a religious sensitivity would bring punishments, often of the most horrid nature.

For these reasons, I think it's wonderful that the Center for Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism are sponsoring a "Blasphemy Day" awareness campaign to promote resistance to any and all blasphemy enactments, whether public or private. The campaign Celebrate Blasphemy Day 2009 is designed to encourage free expression while making a mockery of the whole idea of such a thing as blasphemy.

Are you curious about how blasphemy is defined? Here it is, from Webster's: Blasphemy, a noun, is the act of denying or scoffing at God or God's alleged attributes. Well, scoff away, I say.

What could be more fun in dealing with this concept than a contest to poke fun at it. And that is precisely what the Center is offering - a contest. You might want to enter. To do so, simply make up a phrase, poem or statement that would be or would have been considered blasphemous. The only rule: Entries must be 20 words or less.

You won't be able to quit your day (or night) job if you win, as only five T-shirts are on offer. However, according to the sponsor's enticements, "the first place winner will also receive a mug imprinted with the winning phrase, recognition in Free Inquiry magazine, general publicity and, naturally, eternal damnation."

Submit entries to blasphemycontest@centerforinquiry.net

Dr. Don Ardell Rumored To Be Named Chairman Of President Obama's Death Panel

On August 14, the 500th edition of the ARDELL WELLNESS REPORT (AWR) was distributed.  From now on, AWR's will be written and released whenever the muse strikes, not weekly as has been the case for the past ten years.  And none too soon.  I have it on good authority that I am in line for an important new federal assignment - and I am going to need every waking hour to manage this awesome new opportunity.  

If "Obama-care" passes, I believe I will be offered the chairmanship of the Administration's innovative new death panel.  While the president has not promoted this feature of his reform proposals, most Americans are aware of the death panel idea thanks to a certain highly regarded Republican ex-governor who knows of wondrous things, as if guided by a higher power - or something.

As Chairman of the Obama Death Panel, I'll probably be entitled to a huge salary, a big office and lots of perks, but these baser incentives do not compel me to accept the position. I will step up to answer the call to serve because I see it as my duty.  The mission of the Obama Death Panel under my leadership will be to exploit every cost-saving potential in euthanizing the old and disabled.  Basically, we'll be pulling the plug on grandma - and we're not going to do any favors for grandpa, either.   Our work will save a bundle on Medicare. 

Who would object to giving patients opportunities to learn about options for "care" at the end of their lives?

However, since I AM a grandpa, some provisions for exemptions of certain kinds of geezers will be enacted. Anyone who favors open discussion of politics, sex and religion will be given favorable status, provided of course opinions expressed in these arenas conform to views embraced by decent, God-fearing Americans. Don't worry - as a certified reader of this blog, I'll put in a good word for you when you're summoned to appear before my panel.

I expect the death panel will be charged with identifying additional cost savings - look for incentives for abortion, infanticide and native deportations. Yes, native born deportations - why limit deportations to aliens?  The real savings will be in removing unproductive citizens who do not support the American way, love Jesus, watch Fox News, fly the flag and respect the true patriots left in this country, like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.  

All the best.