The reasons for the child not to visit his father have been kept private. Due to this we don't know if others would find the reasons valid or not. We also know nothing of the judge's personal bias. Not all abuse is physical, and not all children have articulate means to define abusive behavior.

You Know the Best thing about Palin? She drives the Left Nuts....for that alone she will always have my support...

Its interesting the amount of intellectual elitism exhibited by the Obama supporters on these Forums.

I would take an extremely intelligent undereducated politician over an overly educated indoctrinated politician any day...

At Army Base, Some Violence Is Too Familiar
By MICHAEL MOSS and RAY RIVERA
Published: November 9, 2009

FORT HOOD, Tex. — Staff Sgt. Gilberto Mota, 35, and his wife, Diana, 30, an Army specialist, had returned to Fort Hood from Iraq last year when he used his gun to kill her, and then took his own life, the authorities say. In July, two members of the First Cavalry Division, also just back from the war with decorations for their service, were at a party when one killed the other.

That same month, Staff Sgt. Justin Lee Garza, 28, under stress from two deployments, killed himself in a friend’s apartment outside Fort Hood, four days after he was told no therapists were available for a counseling session. “What bothers me most is this happened while he was supposed to be on suicide watch,” said his mother, Teri Smith. “To this day, I don’t know where he got the gun.”

Fort Hood is still reeling from last week’s carnage, in which an Army psychiatrist is accused of a massacre that left 13 people dead. But in the town of Killeen and other surrounding communities, the attack, one of the worst mass shootings on a military base in the United States, is also seen by many as another blow in an area that has been beset by crime and violence since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began. Reports of domestic abuse have grown by 75 percent since 2001. At the same time, violent crime in Killeen has risen 22 percent while declining 7 percent in towns of similar size in other parts of the country.

[…]

Col. Edward McCabe, a Catholic chaplain at Fort Hood, said signs of fatigue and other strains are “rampant” on the base. “The numbers of divorces I’ve had to deal with are huge, the cases of physical abuse,” Colonel McCabe said. “Every night in my apartment complex some soldier and his wife are screaming and shouting at each other.“

[…]

Though his family says the Army was supposed to be checking his apartment for guns and alcohol, that Sunday he [Staff Sgt. Justin Lee Garza] put a pistol to his head and pulled the trigger. His mother later listened to the message.

“They said, ‘Sorry, we don’t have a counselor for you today,’ ” Ms. Smith said. “ ‘If you don’t hear back from us by Monday, give us a call.’ ”

Evangelist Who Took Child ‘Brides’ Is Sentenced to 175 Years
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 13, 2009

TEXARKANA, Ark. (AP) — Tony Alamo, an evangelist, was sentenced Friday to 175 years in prison for taking under-age girls across state lines for sex.

Mr. Alamo, 75, was convicted in July on a 10-count federal indictment. Judge Harry F. Barnes of Federal District Court said Mr. Alamo had abused his status as father figure and pastor and threatened the girls with “the loss of their salvation.”

“Mr. Alamo, one day you will face a higher, a greater judge than me,” Judge Barnes said. “May he have mercy on your soul.”

THE EVANGELIST OFFERED A BRIEF STATEMENT TO THE COURT PRAISING GOD, THEN ADDING, “I’M GLAD I’M ME AND NOT THE DECEIVED PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.” [emphasis added – Where4]

Mr. Alamo’s lawyers said they planned to appeal the sentence.

The evangelist will stay in Texarkana pending a Jan. 13 hearing in which Judge Barnes will decide whether Mr. Alamo’s victims deserve restitution from him. Mr. Alamo will then go to a federal prison, the judge said.

A woman Mr. Alamo took as a child “bride” at age 8 challenged him from the witness stand on Friday to submit himself to God’s judgment. Reading from lined notebook paper, she said Mr. Alamo had torn her family apart and described how she shook uncontrollably when he first molested her.

“You preyed on innocent children,” she said, staring down Mr. Alamo, who wore yellow prison scrubs and a windbreaker for the hearing.

“You have the audacity to ask for mercy,” she said. “What mercy did you show us?”
As he did throughout his prosecution, Mr. Alamo accused his victims of lying.

US seeks to seize 4 mosques, tower linked to Iran
By ADAM GOLDMAN, Associated Press Writer Adam Goldman, Associated Press Writer – 21 mins ago
NEW YORK – In what could be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, federal prosecutors sought to seize four U.S. mosques and a New York City skyscraper owned by a Muslim organization suspected of being controlled by the Iranian government.

Prosecutors on Thursday filed a civil complaint in federal court against the Alavi Foundation, seeking the forfeiture of more than $500 million in assets.

The assets include bank accounts; Islamic centers consisting of schools and mosques in New York, Maryland, California and Houston; more than 100 acres in Virginia; and a 36-story Manhattan office tower. Confiscating the properties would be a sharp blow against Iran, which the U.S. government has accused of bankrolling terrorism and trying to build a nuclear bomb.

[…]
U.S. attorney's office spokeswoman Yusill Scribner said there are no allegations of any wrongdoing on the part of the tenants or occupants of the properties, which will remain open.

Prosecutors said the Alavi Foundation managed the office tower on behalf of the Iranian government and, working with a front company known as Assa Corp., illegally funneled millions in rental income to Iran's state-owned Bank Melli. A U.S. Treasury official has accused Bank Melli of providing support for Iran's nuclear program, and it is illegal in the United States to do business with the bank.

U.S. officials have long suspected the foundation was an arm of the Iranian government. A 97-page complaint details involvement in foundation business by several top Iranian officials, including the deputy prime minister and ambassadors to the United Nations.

"For two decades, the Alavi Foundation's affairs have been directed by various Iranian officials, including Iranian ambassadors to the United Nations, in violation of a series of American laws," U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a statement.

[…]

November 11, 2009, 7:30 am
‘I Believe’ License Plate Banned by Judge
By RICHARD S. CHANG

A United States District Judge has struck down a Christian-themed license plate that had been approved by the South Carolina Legislature, reports the BBC.

Judge Cameron Currie ruled that the plate was a violation of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making a law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The South Carolina plate featured an image of a cross in front of a stained-glass window, accompanied by the words “I Believe.”

“Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same,” Judge Currie wrote in her decision. “The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation.”

The license plate was approved by South Carolina lawmakers last year, and according to The Associated Press, Judge Currie singled out Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer in her ruling. And she ordered the state to cover the legal expense of groups that battled against the plate’s approval, including Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

“Some officials seem to want to use religion as a political football,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. He called the plate an “appalling misuse of governmental authority, and I am thrilled that the judge put a stop to it.”

[The NYTimes article includes a picture of a similar Florida license plate that was banned last year – Where4]

During my service in the Army, religion wasn't brought up. We really didn't care, we had a job to do. I'm sorry your daughter was unhappy, but I don't think religion had much to do with it.

[...]
Against the wishes of his parents, relatives said, Major Hasan enlisted in the Army after graduating from college and entered an officer basic training program at Fort Sam Houston, Tex. He was commissioned in 1997 and went to medical school at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., a selective and tuition-free program.
[…]
Around 2004, Major Hasan started feeling disgruntled about the Army, relatives said. He described anti-Muslim harassment and sought legal advice, possibly from an Army lawyer, about getting a discharge.

But because the Army had paid for his education, and probably because the Army was in great need of mental health professionals and was trying to recruit Arab-Americans, he was advised that his chances of getting out were minuscule, relatives said.
[…]
In recent years, he had grown more and more vocal about his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and tortured over reconciling his military duties with his religion. He tried to get out of the Army, relatives said, and apparently believed it to be impossible, though experts say he was probably given inadequate advice.
At times, he complained, too, about harassment, once describing how someone had put a diaper in his car, saying, “That’s your headdress.” In another case cited by relatives, someone had drawn a camel on his car and written under it, “Camel jockey, get out!”
[…]
In May … he was promoted to major, and two months later he was transferred to Fort Hood, the Army’s largest post. When he arrived there on July 15, his deepest fear — deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan — seemed almost certain.
The Move to Fort Hood
In late July, Major Hasan moved into a second-floor apartment on the north side of Killeen, paying $2,050 for his six-month lease up front, said the apartment manager, Alice Thompson.
[…]
In mid-August, another tenant, a soldier who had served in Iraq, was angered by a bumper sticker on Major Hasan’s car proclaiming “Allah is Love” and ran his key the length of Major Hasan’s car. Ms. Thompson learned of it and told Major Hasan about it that night, and though he called the police, Major Hasan did not appear to be angered by it.
[…]

Complications Grow for Muslims Serving in U.S. Military
By ANDREA ELLIOTT
Published: November 8, 2009
[…]
Amjad Khan, who served in the Army for eight years and was deployed to Iraq, said he had tried to get used to the way his fellow soldiers talked about Iraqis.
“It gets to you sometimes,” said Mr. Khan, 32, from Queens, who is of Pakistani descent. “But the more personally you take things, the more you’re going to have a hard time surviving.”
For Mr. Khan, the most difficult part of his wartime service came before he was deployed, when a senior officer found his Islamic faith cause for suspicion.
“He said, ‘I have to watch my back because you might go nuts,’ ” Mr. Khan recalled.
Since Sept. 11, the nation’s military has actively recruited Muslim-Americans, eager to have people with linguistic skills and a cultural understanding of the Middle East. […]

Jesus killed Mohammed:
The crusade for a Christian military
By Jeff Sharlet
[…]As dusk fell, the men prepared four Bradley Fighting Vehicles for a “run and gun” to draw fire away from the compound. Humphrey headed down from the roof to get a briefing. He found his lieutenant, John D. DeGiulio, with a couple of sergeants. They were snickering like schoolboys. They had commissioned the Special Forces interpreter, an Iraqi from Texas, to paint a legend across their Bradley’s armor, in giant red Arabic script.

“What’s it mean?” asked Humphrey.

“Jesus killed Mohammed,” one of the men told him. The soldiers guffawed. JESUS KILLED MOHAMMED was about to cruise into the Iraqi night.

The Bradley, a tracked “tank killer” armed with a cannon and missiles—to most eyes, indistinguishable from a tank itself—rolled out. The Iraqi interpreter took to the roof, bullhorn in hand. The sun was setting. Humphrey heard the keen of the call to prayer, then the crackle of the bullhorn with the interpreter answering—in Arabic, then in English for the troops, insulting the prophet. Humphrey’s men loved it. “They were young guys, you know?” says Humphrey. “They were scared.” A Special Forces officer stood next to the interpreter—“a big, tall, blond, grinning type,” says Humphrey.

“Jesus kill Mohammed!” chanted the interpreter. “Jesus kill Mohammed!”

A head emerged from a window to answer, somebody fired on the roof, and the Special Forces man directed a response from an MK-19 grenade launcher. “Boom,” remembers Humphrey. The head and the window and the wall around it disappeared.

“Jesus kill Mohammed!” Another head, another shot. Boom. “Jesus kill Mohammed!” Boom. […]

[Follow the link to read the entirety. This is a lengthy, very well-written article. – Where4]

September 21, 2007

It looks like some officials in the military just can’t grasp that fact that freedom of belief means all beliefs – even those they personally dislike.

Earlier this week, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) filed a federal lawsuit charging that Army officials violated the rights of a soldier serving in Iraq who attempted to convene a meeting of atheists and freethinkers.

The legal complaint alleges that Jeremy Hall, an Army specialist at Base Speicher in Tikrit, Iraq, was threatened by a major after Hall met with fellow non-believers.
The irony is, Hall bent over backwards to follow proper procedures. He sought and received permission from the base chaplain before posting fliers around the facility announcing the meeting.

The gathering took place on Aug. 7. It was disrupted by Major Paul Welborne who, according to the complaint, blasted the attendees and threatened to bring an action against Hall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice “and further threatened to prevent plaintiff Hall’s reenlistment in the United States Army.”

The MRFF was founded by Mikey Weinstein, an Americans United member who became concerned after his son, a cadet at the Air Force Academy, reported instances of heavy handed proselytism by evangelical Christian groups that appeared to be working in conjunction with military officials.

Since forming the group, Weinstein says he has been bombarded with stories from active-duty service personnel reporting similar problems. Hall reached out to him after the freethought meeting was disrupted.
[…]
also see:
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/press-releases/ap_milburn.html

Obama can remove him, that is his right as commander and chief. Whether or not McCrystal is in charge, the issues remain the same.

In this engagement im sure not all are religous extremists, some are simply defending their home.

We need to decide whether we are going to fight bare knuckles or to keep on the gloves. If we want to keep on the gloves, we will fail to achieve victory.

PSSSST ... Want a super deal on Sarah's book, the one that hasn't even been released yet? A local activist got an offer in the mail recently from Newsmax magazine: $4.97, compared to the list price of $28.99. And you get a free introductory subscription to the magazine with it. And who was the activist who got this special offer? Andree McLeod.

Doncha just love it?

...
Each month in Newsmax magazine, you'll get:

* Christopher Ruddy's special insights into the liberal media
*****Morris' exclusive election analysis
* Michael Reagan's monthly column
* James Hirsen's report on Hollywood secrets and scandals
* Michelle Malkin's no-holds-barred commentary
* Bill O'Reilly tackling the tough issues
* Dr. Laura's personal advice
* And much, much more

Newsmax magazine is not to be missed.

Subscribe today!

BLAH BLAH BLAH ... By now we've all seen "Entertainment Tonight" spinning out that Levi Johnston interview where he says he's got something on Sarah. And we've seen how Palin's designated hitter, Magnum Staplegun, countered with an attack on Levi's skin poses for Playgirl magazine, which his handlers have said he's doing to make money for school and child support.

An earwig with way more time for research than the Divine Appendage forwarded these quotes from the Palin hagiography (look it up):

From Sarah's 2008 interview in Vogue magazine, about the swimsuit part of a beauty pageant: "They made us line up in bathing suits and turn our backs so the male judges could look at our butts ... I just couldn't believe it."

From "Sarah" by Kaylene Johnson, quoting brother Chuck about the Miss Wasilla contest: "I remember asking Sarah why she would enter a beauty pageant when that seemed so prissy to the rest of us ... She told me matter of factly, 'It's going to help pay my way through college.' "

Creationism, Minus a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World
By KENNETH CHANG
Published: November 2, 2009

AMHERST, Mass. — Creationism is growing in the Muslim world, from Turkey to Pakistan to Indonesia, international academics said last month as they gathered here to discuss the topic.
[...]
The debate over evolution is only now gaining prominence in many Islamic countries as education improves and more students are exposed to the ideas of modern biology.

The degree of acceptance of evolution varies among Islamic countries.
[...]
Even finding out how different countries teach evolution can be difficult, Dr. Hameed said. Saudi Arabia, for example, does not let foreigners see the biology textbooks. “We don’t have much information,” he said.

For many Muslims, even evolution and the notion that life flourished without the intervening hand of Allah is largely compatible with their religion. What many find unacceptable is human evolution, the idea that humans evolved from primitive primates. The Koran states that Allah created Adam, the first man, separately out of clay.

Pervez A. Hoodbhoy, a prominent atomic physicist at Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan, said that when he gave lectures covering the sweep of cosmological history from the Big Bang to the evolution of life on Earth, the audience listened without objection to most of it. “Everything is O.K. until the apes stand up,” Dr. Hoodbhoy said.

Mentioning human evolution led to near riots, and he had to be escorted out. [...]

(continuation of your cited article -- please note that Ms. Borders and Mr. Reed are both black candidates in this race...-where4)
[...]
The call for black unity drew sharp criticism from Ms. Borders and her closest African-American competitor, Mr. Reed, who both insisted in separate news conferences Thursday that Atlanta must not choose its next mayor based on his or her race.

"We have had two Atlantas for far too long," Ms. Borders said.

Mr. Reed called the memo "racially charged and vitriolic" and said it "dishonors the legacies" of the black and white mayors who led Atlanta through the civil-rights movement and beyond. "This campaign should be waged on the merits of each candidate, not the color of their skin," Mr. Reed said.

Ms. Norwood, an at-large member of the city council who has campaigned on a pledge to improve crime-fighting and reorganize city government said, her candidacy is based on public safety and fiscal management.

"Race," she said, "does not play a role."

The Black Leadership Forum is an ad-hoc group of African-American leaders who include Aaron Turpeau, a well-known entrepreneur who worked in the administrations of Mayors Maynard Jackson and Andrew Young. Messrs. Jackson and Young had held the office in various terms for 20 years since 1973.

Mr. Turpeau, who contributed $500 to Ms. Borders' campaign, defended the memo's message.

"You shouldn't vote solely on having a black candidate," he said. "You have to deal with the credentials and skill set first. After that, it's a feeling of pride that we've had for 35 years in this town. Ego gets important."

Liz Flowers, a spokeswoman for Ms. Borders, distanced her candidate from the memo.

Ms. Flowers said the campaign found out about the memo late Wednesday, and Ms. Borders immediately called Mr. Turpeau. "She told him that she loved him and thanked him for his support, but she was disappointed in the message," Ms. Flowers said.
—Corey Dade contributed to this article.

Write to Valerie Bauerlein at valerie.bauerlein@wsj.com

EXCERPT:
The issue of race heated up this summer, when a memo written by two Clark Atlanta University professors caused a firestorm. The message warned that black Atlantans should rally around Borders to foil a Norwood victory and maintain black political control of City Hall.

For their part, the candidates denounced and distanced themselves from the memo. The incident soured Rev. Joseph Lowery, a revered civil rights leader whose support is coveted, on endorsing either Reed or Borders.

Race puts Atlanta election on national media's radar
By Kristi E. Swartz
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

You would think the media would have election-coverage fatigue.

Between a never-ending Democratic presidential primary to an animated Republican vice presidential nominee, the press spent countless hours and big money following the 2008 election.

So why pay attention to who's going to be the next mayor of Atlanta, as national newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times have done?

"It's the first time in decades that a white candidate may be poised to win the mayoral race in Atlanta," said Sam Feist, the political director for CNN.

Feist is talking about frontrunner Mary Norwood, currently a member of Atlanta's City Council. Her chief competitors are City Council President Lisa Borders; former state lawmaker Kasim Reed; and Jesse Spikes, an attorney at the law firm of McKenna, Long & Aldridge.

Sure, it may seem easy for CNN to take a look at what's going on in Atlanta because the cable news network is headquartered there. But Feist and the bulk of the network's political shop is in Washington, D.C.

Reporter and anchor Don Lemon is preparing a segment on Atlanta's mayoral race for The Situtation Room, which will air later Monday, Feist said.

New York, Boston, Detroit, Pittsburgh and Houston also top CNN's list of interesting elections to watch Tuesday, Feist said. Houston, one of the nation's largest cities, has a leading candidate who is openly gay.

But at this point, any election can make for a great story, said Paul Levinson, chairman of Fordham University's communication and media studies department.

And whatever stories traditional media choose not to cover, there's always the blogs, YouTube and Twitter. Those outlets can quickly turn a local story into a national or international one, Levinson writes in his new book, "New New Media."

"Once something is tweeted, it's international," Levinson told the AJC. "The big media pick up on that. They are highly receptive of what's being tweeted."

State GOP denies funding anti-Norwood robocall

2:17 pm November 2, 2009, by Jim Galloway

The state Republican party says it had no hand in a robocall that went to GOP voters over the weekend, chastising Atlanta mayoral candidate Mary Norwood – not for her alleged Republican proclivities, but for her denial of them.

It was clearly an attempt to envelope Norwood in a kind of pincer movement. State Democrats last week accused her of closet Republicanism.
[..]

While not setting a timetable or exit strategy, the president said there will be clear benchmarks to measure progress, and a requirement that the Afghan government deal with corruption.

"Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable," he said. "We’ll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan Security Forces, and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistan’s economy, and its illicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals."

Obama also asked for more help from NATO and the rest of the international community.

"None of the steps that I have outlined will be easy, and none should be taken by America alone. The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or Al Qaeda operates unchecked," he said. "We have a shared responsibility to act – not because we seek to project power for its own sake, but because our own peace and security depends upon it. And what’s at stake now is not just our own security – it is the very idea that free nations can come together on behalf of our common security."

From 1996, Sarah Chayes was Paris reporter for National Public Radio. She was dispatched to a number of conflict and post-conflict zones. Her work during the Kosovo crisis of 1999 earned her the Foreign Press Club and Sigma Delta Chi awards, along with her NPR colleagues.

Sarah left reporting in 2002 to remain in the field in Afghanistan. She co-founded Afghans for Civil Society, a grassroots Afghan-American democracy building organization based in Kandahar. Among other projects, ACS rebuilt a village, launched a radio station and created a successful women's income generation project. In 2004 she left ACS to focus on economic development, and since May 2005 has been running Arghand.

Sarah's book on post-Taliban Kandahar, The Punishment of Virtue (Penguin Press, 2006) is now out in paperback.

For more background on Sarah, and articles by and about her, please visit: www.sarahchayes.net.

..........Gen. STANLEY McCHRYSTAL: Any war or conflict you enter where you are likely to lose more Americans is something worthy of very detailed debate. I know before an American soldier is put in harm's way, I hope that not just the political leadership but the American people give it a lot of thought.


NO SH!T...........

If the gloves came off, the war would be over in a month.

[...]
STEVE COLL, Author, Ghost Wars: This could not be a more complicated war. If you think about it, the United States is essentially waging a war against its own ally. The Taliban are a proxy of the government of Pakistan. We are an ally of the government of Pakistan. We are fighting the Taliban. In the end, the Taliban will be defeated strategically when the government of Pakistan makes a strategic decision that its future does not lie in partnership with Islamic extremists.

MARTIN SMITH[reporter/narrator]: The United States continues to pour money into Pakistan, $2 billion to $3 billion in military assistance and $7.5 billion in civilian aid over the next five years.

[on camera] Does it give you pause to hand them billions of dollars?

Lt. Col. JOHN NAGL: I absolutely have to hold my nose when I work with the Pakistani government. But I don't have a better alternative than continuing to work with this Pakistani government and continuing to nudge it forward toward taking more effective action against the Taliban.

MARTIN SMITH: [voice-over] On August 20th, Afghans went to the polls to choose a new president. The Obama administration had high hopes that whoever the winner, the election would validate the Afghan government.

Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, President Karzai's main challenger, ran on an anti-corruption platform.

Dr. ABDULLAH ABDULLAH: [subtitles] I want to rescue Afghanistan from a corrupt government. I want to rescue Afghanistan from a cruel government that the people don't trust.

MARTIN SMITH: But the election results were tainted by clear evidence of fraud. It was a disaster for the American project.

STEVE COLL: The United States is investing blood and treasure to support the government of Afghanistan. And if that government engaged in fraud in order to perpetuate itself in power calls into question the very basis of these American investments and sacrifices. I think it's appalling.

MARTIN SMITH: The U.N. has overseen a recount. At a time when Afghanistan most needs a government, the nation is paralyzed.

VALI NASR, Adviser to Amb. Holbrooke: We have to have an Afghan government that is functioning in Kabul. But if the Taliban have strategic depth in Pakistan, they can continue to threaten Afghanistan. And if they threaten Afghanistan, then terrorism of one form or another will be back.

MARTIN SMITH: So what does America do now? Are more troops the answer? Or should the focus shift eastward to the tribal areas of Pakistan?

Col. ANDREW BACEVICH: There seems to be some presumption that Afghanistan is jihad central, that if we can simply succeed in pacifying Afghanistan that the problem of violent Islamic radicalism goes away. It won't. All we care about is that al Qaeda not use the place as a sanctuary, and you don't have to occupy the country in order to prevent that from happening.

MARTIN SMITH: Proponents of a counterinsurgency war, on the other hand, argue for a much larger deployment.

Lt. Col. JOHN NAGL, U.S. Army (Ret.), Fmr. Adviser to Gen. Petraeus: By classic counterinsurgency measures, success in Afghanistan would require 600,000 counterinsurgents. We're well below half that right now.

MARTIN SMITH: [on camera] Are you saying there have to be more American troops on the ground?

Lt. Col. JOHN NAGL: Initially, there need to be more American troops on the ground. The long-term answer, and our exit strategy, is more Afghan troops on the ground.

MARTIN SMITH: [voice-over] In late August, General McChrystal submitted a grim assessment to President Obama, warning that America is in danger of losing the war if more troops are not sent. He requested as many as 40,000.

[...]

MARTIN SMITH: President Obama put the troop request on hold. His administration is split over the way forward.

[...]

MARTIN SMITH: McChrystal says he welcomes the debate.

Gen. STANLEY McCHRYSTAL: Any war or conflict you enter where you are likely to lose more Americans is something worthy of very detailed debate. I know before an American soldier is put in harm's way, I hope that not just the political leadership but the American people give it a lot of thought.

[...]

Col. ANDREW BACEVICH: If we do indeed have a full-court press application of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, certainly more American soldiers are going to die. And I think it's very, very important to be absolutely certain that thereó that no alternative exists. And I think the people who insist that it has to be done through counterinsurgency have not seriously examined all the alternatives.

Lt. Col. JOHN NAGL: The president has said ó correctly, in my eyes ó that this is a necessary war. What we learned on September 11th was that vipers can grow in ungoverned spaces and that in a globalized world, they can harm us. This is a war that America needs to win. But there are no guarantees here.
[...]

[...]
In Lahore, Clinton told university students that their government had little choice in taking a tougher approach.

Dozens of students rushed to line up for the microphone when the session began. Their questions were not hostile, but showed a strong sense of doubt that the U.S. can be a reliable and trusted partner for Pakistan.

One woman asked whether the U.S. can be expected to commit long term in Afghanistan after abandoning the country after Russian occupiers retreated in 1989.

"What guarantee," the woman asked, "can Americans give Pakistan that we can now trust you — not you but, like, the Americans this time — of your sincerity and that you guys are not going to betray us like the Americans did in the past when they wanted to destabilize the Russians?"

Clinton responded that the question was a "fair criticism"[...]

We have a bigger problem then Afganistan it's Pakistan with it's nuclear weapons, we have to make sure that Pakistan remains stable, I do not know what would happen if we withdraw from Afganistan would our departure destablize Pakistan. Is there another way to ensure the stability of Pakistan,

Much ado about nothing, imho!

There was never a need for me to quote the Korean, that was not the contex of my post you moron!

I will not work the google for you...

Fox is just one among the many medias has gone WTF in regards to the award.
Many media people around the world realize that Obama did not earn this reward and some media (not just Fox) really don't think he ever will be what most think a the Nobel committee is hoping for.

I am late for the gym...lol
...
I think this win is a Farce..Anyone who thinks that someone is deserving of an award for accomplishing nothing relative to the award is probably the same person who thinks that kids should get a trophy just for participating, who cares if they sat on the bench and their team lost every game...

hows this for crazy...i didn't care for Seinfeld when it started. I've now realized the error of my ways.

I was a Republican and Bush supporter up until the day the United States invaded Iraq. On that day, I was ashamed to be an American. Now, with Obama in the White House, I can be proud once again. As far as having once been a Republican, well, seeing what a group of fools and buffoons the leaders of that party has become, I figure it is likely I will always be ashamed of that.

But I don't see all that many atheist's arguing about religion, the Qur'an, Allah, and Muhammad with Muslims. Why is this?

Editorial
Sinking with Mr. Rangel
Published: October 8, 2009

It is time for Democrats in Congress — who once justifiably complained about the corruption of the Republican majority — to demonstrate to Americans that someone in that august body has ethical standards.

Instead, House Democrats have again shielded Representative Charles Rangel from his serial ethical messes and ducked their responsibility to force him from the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, maintaining her tunnel vision on behalf of a powerful colleague, led the majority to defeat the Republicans’ latest call to depose the New York lawmaker. She does the nation no favor.

Two of her Democrats broke ranks and voted against Mr. Rangel, but far more need to face up to the obvious: the chairman’s gavel weighs increasingly like a millstone as new disclosures surface about Mr. Rangel’s ethical gaffes and official misdeeds.

The most recent was the congressman’s postscripting more than $500,000 to his assets disclosure last summer, essentially doubling his net worth to somewhere between $1 million and $2.4 million. This joined a lengthy docket of bizarre-to-outrageous behavior that was supposed to have been fully investigated by the House by last January, according to Ms. Pelosi’s initial estimate.

Mr. Rangel’s accumulating missteps and Ms. Pelosi’s refusal to force him to step aside only compound the spectacle. Here is the nation’s chief of tax-writing legislation clinging to power even as his flaws as taxpayer and lawmaker grind slowly and mysteriously through the House ethics committee.

The congressman clearly violated House standards in using his official letterhead to solicit donations from scores of business and foundation leaders for a City College of New York center named for him to house “the inspirational aspects of my legacy.” One oil executive pledged $1 million to Mr. Rangel, who insists there was no quid pro quo in his defending an off-shore tax loophole worth tens of millions to the donor.

Mr. Rangel admitted an “irresponsible” slip-up in his failure to pay taxes and disclose $75,000 in income from a Dominican villa on which he enjoyed an interest-free mortgage. Closer to home, the congressman was allotted four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem by a politically savvy landlord — a boon worth an estimated $30,000 a year. The ethics panel is supposed to be studying whether that violates House gift rules.

The Republicans, of course, were chortling at the electioneering value of their resolution that Mr. Rangel’s problems have “held the House up to public ridicule.” It’s hard to blame them. But they better beware — public ridicule is as easily applicable across the aisle and across the Capitol, where Senator John Ensign’s troubles in job hunting for his cuckolded former aide may eventually merit an ethics investigation.

Speaker Pelosi won her gavel with a promise to “drain the swamp” of the corruption afflicting the previous Republican majority. She has delivered on some of that promise, creating a new ethics oversight office. But protecting Mr. Rangel as chairman is a grave misstep that can only hand the ethics issue back to her opponents.

I just happen to believe that the last thing we need is a Hardcore Zionist giving the president guidance. It happens to be the problem over there. The Hardcore Zionists are the antagonists ... they are the problem.

They are the ones pushing for genocide of the Palestinians. If one digs deeply enough it is evident. They are the ones who have been pushing the way the land is stolen from the Palestinians and then later settled.

I'm just not getting a good feeling about this guy.

I have a right to voice my concern and state why I consider it as such.

I don't think it's a good choice…

I think he's going to be a problem if OBAMA plans to listen to him in any way when it comes to dealings in the Middle East related to Israel and the Zionist regime.

Having Rahm Emanuel whispering good things about Israel in Obama's ear is not a good thing at all ... it's a f*cking disaster waiting to happen.

Turns out "instantkarma620" (Message 34) is correct ...
“Many consider the Chief of Staff (aka, the co-president) as the second most powerful position in Washington.
Emanuel is a pro-Israel hardliner who will manipulate the President (and others) to do what's best for Zionist Israel and not the USA. It won't take long to see this...all you have to do is pay attention to Emanuel's actions once he gets into the White House.”
Exactly ... did anyone notice that in this whole thing with Iran, there still has been no mention of IAEA inspections for Israel? Wouldn't it be pertinent to have inspections on ALL "nuclear" sites in the Middle East? Why is Israel being excluded?
…
Rahm Emanuel is not good for the Oval Office ... no, no, no!!!!

Well ... name-calling doesn't change the way I feel about Rahm Emanuel

Did you have a traumatic incident with a Dradle in your childhood or something? You turn every thread into your personal antisemitic crusade....

Both Mr. Letterman and CBS tried to get control of the story Friday, with representatives of Mr. Letterman’s company making a point — which they said he should have raised during his confession of the plot’s details on Thursday’s show — that his affairs with his employees had all taken place before he married his longtime girlfriend, Regina Lasko.
CBS executives declined to comment on the record and released an official statement that the network was cooperating with the investigation. But representatives of Worldwide Pants noted that CBS does not employ Mr. Letterman, and CBS representatives affirmed that point.
That distinction seemed to be made to underscore that Mr. Letterman was not subject to any of the CBS policies regarding harassment on the job. Worldwide Pants does have a policy. A spokesman issued a statement that read: “Dave is not in violation of our policy and no one has ever raised a complaint against him.” The spokesman said the policy “does not prohibit relationships within the company — only that they cannot be tied to an employee’s performance.”
[…]
Debra S. Katz, a civil rights lawyer who specializes in sexual harassment cases, said it would be “reckless” for CBS not to conduct an internal investigation.
“CBS is definitely going to have to speak with him and find out who he had relationships with,” she said. “They’re going to have to reach back and see if these women think that the relationships were welcome.”
[…]
Beyond any potential legal trouble, there is the open question about how fans will receive Mr. Letterman, who has long used his stance as a sarcastic comic commentator to ridicule the behavior of politicians and celebrities. “Today, The L.A. Times accused Arnold Schwarzenegger of groping six women,” he once said in a monologue. “I’m telling you, this guy is presidential material.”
The audience seemed to respond Thursday night: “The Late Show” ratings increased about 20 percent over his average. …
[…]
Robert Thompson, a professor of television and popular culture at Syracuse University, said that barring any sexual harassment complaints from Mr. Letterman’s unknown number of former sexual partners, “The Late Show” could skate by.
“His core viewers are not the kind that are going to say, ‘He did what? I’m never going to watch again.’ He was not the host of a Disney Channel talk show,” he said.

(Shining of light into the recesses is a good thing, even for Chairmen Charlie Rangel don't you think).

GOP Chooses Rep. Boustany, Co-Sponsor Of So-Called ‘Death Panel’ Provision, To Deliver Obama Rebuttal...

Just maybe if all bills were a bit more comprehensible and clear some representatives wouldn't be able to hide so much PORK between the lines of bills. JMHO

This is one of the really tragic things about the "discussion" or rather, RANTING about the health reform initiative. Indeed, it's been dropped, due to nothing BUT the "death panel" BS. I'm mad at the cowardice that has led to dropping this, as far as the White House is concerned, but even madder that the "right" has caused this and done so using rhetoric CLAIMING to "save" elderly people. I really hate the fact that MY advocates cave so easily, but I hate even more the fact that people are so easily pushed by ridiculous rhetoric that they could cause such an easy cave. ...

Here’s video of Jindal testifyin’ at New Chapel Hill Baptist Church:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_7cHJFq9aA&feature
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MutccNIX7cQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axF40xMpzEg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wt3OmdEHzg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zdl4snoIBE&feature=related

Obama closed with 'God bless you, and God bless America'

Guess its time to start tearing down another possible GOP 2012 candidate.

By Andrew Romano | NEWSWEEK
Published Dec 13, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Dec 22, 2008

Although critics have questioned the governor's motives—Hindu activist Ramesh Rao recently wrote that "Jindal knew well that [conversion] was the only way, as an Indian-American Hindu, he could achieve his political ambitions"—his deeply Catholic views, including a "100 percent" opposition to abortion "with no exceptions" for rape, incest or health of the mother, undoubtedly anger more voters than they attract. "If I wanted the aesthetics without the inconvenient morality," he wrote in 1998, "I could become Episcopalian."
…Aware, it seems, of the searing national spotlight, the governor avoids abortion, gay marriage and intelligent design in favor of less combustible topics like "the coarsening of our culture," the future of the GOP and, of course, bipartisanship.

Rev. Gaddy's Letter to Gov. Jindal on the use of taxpayer funds to travel to church services

For Immediate Release
Contact: Ari Geller - Director of Communications

The following is Rev. Gaddy's letter to Governor Jindal regarding the use of taxpayer funds to travel to church services.

September 1, 2009

Governor Bobby Jindal
State Capitol
P.O. Box 94004
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9004

Dear Governor Jindal,

I write to you as both the pastor of Northminster Baptist Church in Monroe, LA and as the president of Interfaith Alliance, a national organization dedicated to protecting the boundaries between religion and government for the good of both institutions. The Baton Rouge Advocate's recent report on your official travel to church services around the state funded by taxpayer money is of great concern to me for several reasons.

If you were traveling to these churches to worship with the various congregations, you should have paid your own expenses to get there as did the other worshippers. If you were traveling to these churches for the purpose of sharing your personal faith and encouraging faith in others, state funds absolutely should not have been used to pay your expenses. Indeed, in that instance, your state-funded actions were a violation of the United States Constitution's promise of religious freedom which has been a critical contributor to the vitality of religion in our nation. If you were traveling to these churches for political purposes, you should not have been there in the first place, regardless of who funded the travel.

I know that you told the Advocate these trips were about providing you the opportunity to talk to citizens. Why during a service of sacred worship? And, why only in churches? I believe you can find venues other than houses of worship to have official meetings, so that all citizens have an opportunity to hear from you - and for you to hear from them.

Governor Jindal, it appears that you owe the people of Louisiana an apology and the treasurer of the state a reimbursement of at least $45,000 in addition to whatever money was spent in the period not covered by the Advocate's investigation. No taxpayer money should have been used for your travel.

I am well aware of how elected officials welcome opportunities to make public appearances at houses of worship. However, as I am sure you know, an invitation to a public official - sought or offered - to speak at a house of worship raises questions for both the official and, ultimately, for the house of worship. Indeed, your use of a house of worship for political purposes can jeopardize its legal identity. Federal tax laws place restrictions on what houses of worship can and cannot do in relation to politics.

As a person who cares deeply about the integrity of houses of worship and the influence of the Louisiana state government, I urge you to be careful about using your elected office as cover for an event that has more to do with politics than it has to do with governing.

For the sake of religion, please do not politicize houses of worship in Louisiana and rob those of us who minister there of the credibility that allows our faith to be a healing force in our state and across our land.

Sincerely,
Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy
President, Interfaith Alliance
Pastor for Preaching & Worship, Northminster Church
# # #
The Interfaith Alliance celebrates religious freedom by championing individual rights, promoting policies that protect both religion and democracy, and uniting diverse voices to challenge extremism. Founded in 1994, the Interfaith Alliance has 185,000 members across the country from 75 faith traditions as well as those without a faith tradition. For more information visit www.interfaithalliance.org.

Gaddy trades barbs with Jindal over taxpayer-funded flights to churches
By Robert Marus Thursday, September 03, 2009
MONROE, La. (ABP [Associated Baptist Press – Where4])
[…]
In reaction, a Jindal spokesperson accused Gaddy and the Interfaith Alliance of being out of touch with Louisiana.

“This political group opposes putting crosses up in honor of fallen policemen, has attacked the National Day of Prayer and advocates for same-sex marriage, so it's not surprising that they are attacking the governor for accepting invitations to speak at Louisiana churches,” Melissa Sellers said in a statement responding to the letter.

She also said Jindal accepts invitations from local churches to speak, and he tries to take the opportunity to meet with local elected officials when he has church engagements.

The governor has risen to national prominence in recent months and is widely believed to be considering a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.

Gaddy released a statement saying Jindal’s response avoided the question of whether he should reimburse the state or not -- and smacked of a misunderstanding of the First Amendment’s religion clauses. […]

Jindal defends tax-funded church visits
Associated Press Staff reporter
September 4, 2009

BATON ROUGE - Gov. Bobby Jindal is defending his visits to churches that are paid for with taxpayer money.

Jindal said on Thursday that the Sunday church visits are "absolutely appropriate." He was critical of a national group that questioned the trips, noting that the Interfaith Alliance's has previously accused the Bush administration of failing to include enough religions when observing events such as the National Day of Prayer.

Jindal said Interfaith Alliance's criticism comes from a group "thats concerned about the president's prayer breakfast."

"So, it doesn't surprise me that they're concerned about the governor going to church," Jindal said.

The Monroe pastor who is the head of the Interfaith Alliance has said the trips should not be paid for with state tax money. The Rev. Welton Gaddy said the trips blurred the constitutional line between church and state.

The Advocate of Baton Rouge has reported that Jindal's church trips, aboard a state helicopter, cost taxpayers $45,000 between March and July.
Copyright © 2009, WGNO-TV

If you can not say the possibility does not or did not exist then how can you say that there was any deception obviously based on the wording of the text the nature of the proposed system considering costs and supplies they determined that this was a very real possibility...no deception except for those silly enough to believe that the Government doesn't make cost based decisions,,,,,,,apparently there were some similarities between the proposed bill and some VA policy
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358590107981718.html.

So why are some people upset?
[A:] Some social conservatives say stronger language is needed to protect seniors from being pressured into signing away their rights to medical treatment in a moment of depression or despair.
The National Right to Life Committee opposes the provision as written.
"I’m not aware of ‘death panels’ in the bill," said David O’Steen, executive director of the group. "I’m not aware of anything that says you will be hauled before a government bureaucrat. But we are concerned … it doesn’t take a lot to push a vulnerable person — perhaps unwittingly — to give up their right to life-sustaining treatment." http://sweetness-light.com/archive/never-existing-death-panel-gets-dropped

_______________________
Brookeville, Md: I resent this effort to force this down my throat. Yes, I know it is supposed to be voluntary, but given the incentives for physicians to provide this sort of information to their patients, it would be done. Why is this any of a physician's business? I just see this as money-grubbing by doctors taking advantage of people when they are at their low-point in life.
Alec MacGillis: This is basically a more strongly-stated version of the argument that Gingrich and others, including Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan in the story, have made: that end of life planning is all well and good, but there shouldn't be an incentive for doctors to encourage it. The Gundersen folks and others would argue in response that because end of life planning does help so many families, everything should be done to encourage the practice, including paying physicians to take the time to do it. That's the debate.
_______________________
Arlington, Va: Missing from your (very good and interesting) story was the price tag of this provision. Sen. Grassley put it at $8 billion. That is an incredible amount of money for end-of-life counseling. It compares to more than 12 percent of what the federal government currently spends on education and the schools. So what were the plans for this $8 billion? Classes? Public service TV and radio ads? Home visits to discuss dying?
Alec MacGillis: I'm pretty sure that that figure is greatly overstated, because you're right, it would be hard to see how that much could be spent on reimbursing docs for hour long chats. I'm pretty sure that the estimates of the provision's cost put it around $2 or $3 billion over 10 years, not nothing but not so much in the context of a $1 trillion bill. And of course then there's the factor that Palin et al are warning about: would the provision actually save money by getting more people to reject expensive end of life care?
_______________________
Bonanza, Oreg.: My brother-in-law is borderline mentally handicapped and epileptic. His mother/caretaker is 84 years old and is not always well informed. The senate bill stipulates that nurses and physician assistants will be trained by the government as end-of-life consultants authorized to write cessation of life-sustaining treatment orders at the end of one consultation. I read the bill and I did not see any safeguards for the mentally impaired, people who change their minds or for those whose condition improves. Isn't this cause for concern?
Bud Hammes: No, the bill does not do the things that concern you. Believe me, if it did, I would be against it too.
The bill simply says if a patient on Medicare wants to discuss future care plans with his or her physician, the physician is entitled to a payment. The physician discussion will be guided by his and her duty to the patient and his or her professional training, not by anything created by the government.
I would suggest you might look at the statement regarding advance care planning and disability at this website: www.polst.org.
Patients do change their mind and do improve. This happens and their plan is then changed. Remember doctors and nurses are really dedicated to taking care of sick people. An advance directive is a tool to help with care, and it is used to this end.

If there was no merit behind the end of life section and it could not be misconstrued than why all the hoopla. Why did he Finance come forward and say ok we eliminated it its gone, argument over?

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts12943004.aspx
USA Right Attacks British NHS as Death Panels For Old
Posted: 8/14/2009 519 AMThe loon Right in America are using the NHS as how Evil Universal health care is & how Old people dont get full or proper health care & even helped incouraged to die to save money !
[...]

IN WISCONSIN, A PIONEERING PROGRAM

The Unwitting Birthplace of the 'Death Panel' Myth

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 4, 2009

LA CROSSE, Wis. -- This city often shows up on "best places to live" lists, but residents say it is also a good place to die -- which is how it landed in the center of a controversy that almost derailed health-care reform this summer.

The town's biggest hospital, Gundersen Lutheran, has long been a pioneer in ensuring that the care provided to patients in their final months complies with their wishes. More recently, it has taken the lead in seeking to have Medicare compensate physicians for advising patients on end-of-life planning.

The hospital got its wish this spring when House Democrats inserted that provision into their health-care reform bill -- only to see former Alaska governor Sarah Palin seize on it as she warned about "death panels" that would deny care to the elderly and the disabled. Despite widespread debunking, those warnings have led lawmakers to say they will drop the provision.

"It's really distressing," hospital official Bud Hammes said. "These things need to be addressed."

President Obama's health-care initiative was nearly consumed by the furor over that provision, and Republicans continue to argue that the legislation would ration care for the elderly. The debate has underscored how fraught the discussion is on end-of-life care in a country where an optimistic ethos places great faith in technology and often precludes frank contemplations of mortality. That tendency has a price tag: A quarter of Medicare costs -- totaling $100 billion a year -- are incurred in the final year of patients' lives, and 40 percent of that in the last month.

But the controversy has had most resonance where it arguably took root, in this town of 52,000 where nearly everyone of a certain age has an advance-care directive.
La Crosse became a pioneer in addressing end-of-life questions in the mid-1980s, after Hammes, a native of the city who has a doctorate in philosophy from Notre Dame, arrived at Gundersen as the director of medical humanities, charged with educating resident physicians about ethics. He noticed a "troubling pattern," he said, in which family members struggled to make medical decisions, such as whether to continue dialysis after a stroke.

"We'd turn to the family and say, 'We need your input. If your mother or father could speak now, what would they tell you?' And the family would say, 'If we only knew,' " said Hammes, 59. "I could see the distress. They were going to have to live with themselves, with the worry about making a mistake. This was unacceptable."

The hospital began urging families to plan while people are healthy. For those who want help writing a directive, a physician will discuss the powers and limits of medicine and explain to family members what it means if they agree to serve as the "health-care agent." They will also help people define the conditions under which they would no longer want treatment. Hammes said people often define this as "when I've reached a point where I don't know who I am or who I'm with, and don't have any hope of recovery."

The directives are power-of-attorney forms that protect physicians and family members against liability, and the hospital makes clear to its doctors that they are expected to follow them. Today, more than 90 percent of people in town have directives when they die, double the national average.

The reliance on directives has an impact on the type of care people receive: Gundersen patients spend 13.5 days on average in the hospital in their final two years of life, at an average cost of $18,000. That is in contrast with big-city hospitals such as the University of California at Los Angeles medical centers (31 days and $59,000), the University of Miami Hospital (39 days, $64,000) and New York University's Langone Medical Center (54 days, $66,000).

Those disparities are not explained just by the hospital's end-of-life philosophy. Under Medicare formulas, Gundersen and other Upper Midwest hospitals receive lower reimbursements. The high-spending hospitals argue that they are also dealing with a more diverse and costly patient base.

Gundersen and other Upper Midwest providers are also less costly in general, partly because they follow a model of integrated care where doctors work closely together to minimize waste. At Gundersen, doctors receive a salary instead of being paid for each procedure they perform.

But locals say the city uses less health care in large part because of how people view the end of life. Some of this may be rooted in the down-to-earth sensibility of their German and Scandinavian forebears. (Hammes said his late mother, who had dementia, was a "pragmatic German" who thought that paying to keep herself alive was a "waste of her money.")

Mostly, though, locals say it is because Gundersen and the town's other hospital, Franciscan Skemp, have urged planning. "People here have their feet planted in the ground," said Barbara Frank, a retired teacher. "They're no-nonsense sorts of people, without a lot of illusion. That was the fertile soil upon which it was planted. But there's no question it was helped by the two medical centers taking the lead and saying, 'This is a good thing for you to do.' "

She and her husband, Donald, a retired train engineer, signed a directive 10 years ago, when they were in their 60s. "You increasingly realize that they're not going to make an exception in your case. We all die, and we want to do so with the most dignity and most control," she said. "It seemed a no-brainer. And it spares our children from making those decisions."

Over time, the practice caught on. "People talk to people who talk to people. They say, 'Do you have one?' 'Yeah,' or 'I have to get that done,' " said Ann Kotnour, a nurse whose 89-year-old mother is receiving care at home for her advanced Parkinson's after signing a directive in 2001 saying she did not want aggressive measures taken.

Financial planner Jeff Lokken's parents had met with their children and doctors in the mid-1990s to draw up directives, a step that was helpful a few years later, when he and his siblings needed to decide whether to keep their 77-year-old father on a ventilator after heart surgery. The living will also helped when his mother's health failed when she was 82. "There needs to be a conversation. In our case we had good conversations," he said.

But Gundersen staff members say those conversations take a lot of time -- a good hour, plus follow-up talks to alter directives as medical situations evolve. And Medicare does not reimburse doctors for the time spent on such discussions.

Backed up by a few other hospitals, Gundersen set out to change the federal rules to reward end-of-life planning. A Gundersen administrator testified on Capitol Hill last fall, and, with the help of a lobbyist, reached out to lawmakers such as Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.).

After sporadic bipartisan attempts in recent years to add consultation payments to Medicare, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) submitted legislation this spring, with several Republican co-sponsors, that included a provision to reimburse doctors for consultations. A few months later, House Democrats tucked similar language into their health-care reform bill -- a legislative triumph for the small hospital in La Crosse.

Then the uproar began, capped by Palin's "death panel" remark. Gundersen officials and town residents were aghast. "It's totally absurd," Frank said. "It's just the opposite -- it's giving you a choice of how you want to be treated."

Gundersen officials were particularly upset when Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), whom they had considered an ally, said that the government should not "pull the plug on Grandma" and that the provision would be dropped. They were also dismayed when the provision was criticized by former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who had been open about how much he appreciated the end-of-life care his father-in-law received at Gundersen.

Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) admires Gunderson generally but said it erred in pushing for Medicare to cover consultations. "It's right and proper for Gundersen to innovate in these directions, but it's a wholly different thing for the federal government" to endorse end-of-life planning, he said.

Gundersen officials are still fighting to keep consultation payments in the bill, with support from Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who has become a leading advocate for such planning. But this week, word came that the White House is willing to drop the provision. The hospital officials are even less hopeful about more ambitious terms they sought to add -- changing Medicare payments for end-of-life care so that they are based not on the procedures a patient receives in the final months but on whether care complied with the person's wishes.

No matter what, they will keep trying to get payment for consultations into future legislation. "The [directive] itself doesn't really matter very much -- it's the clearly expressed belief and shared understanding that it represents," Hammes said. "The family members have to believe that what they do is not only legally right, but personally right. If Mom said, 'Don't do this or do do this,' it's much easier for them to say, 'I'm doing a loving thing,' and it's a decision you can live with."

The discussions do not promote less aggressive care, he said: "We're not trying to talk them into anything. We're trying to understand their values and goals, and tell them what medical science can and can't do." But many people do settle on less care. "In our community," he said, "people don't want to die hooked up to machines."

Is there a difference between referencing one's daughters and in using them in an advertising promotion without the parents' permission?