Imagine thousands of people were sneaking into Phoenix Suns games without tickets. The management would quickly crack down on the "undocumented spectators." Security personnel would engage in "profiling" - singling out younger male fans wandering around without obvious seats. They would want to see some "papers" - ticket stubs. Those lacking documentation would be deported out of the arena, or, in some cases, arrested.

Suns owner Robert Sarver seems to think that the rules that apply to his for-profit local monopoly should not apply to the state of Arizona. After a unanimous team vote held at his house, Mr. Sarver ordered his players to wear "Los Suns" jerseys during last night's Game 2 of the Western Conference semifinals. The move is an explicit protest against the new immigration law, which Mr. Sarver says calls into question "our basic principles of equal rights and protection under the law."

The mangled Spanish jerseys (a literal translation would be "Los Soles") were first produced four years ago as part of the NBA's annual "Noche Latina" marketing campaign. Saskia Sorrosa, NBA senior director of Hispanic marketing, explained that "Noche Latina is an opportunity for us to thank the Hispanic community for their support and showcase how their pride and passion impact our teams and players." The campaign attempts to tread the fine line between marketing and pandering to a demographic that makes up an estimated 15 percent of the NBA fan base.

Suns General Manager Steve Kerr said the point of the jerseys was not to make "a huge political statement" but to "celebrate the diversity that exists here in Arizona." Yet diversity is not at issue, criminality is. Arizona's immigration law is not, as its frenzied detractors seem to think, a legal form of ethnic cleansing. It simply seeks to put into effect the existing federal laws that the Obama administration is either unwilling or incapable of enforcing.

With 70 percent of Arizonans backing the tough immigration stance, the Suns risk alienating a significant number of fans. ESPN asked whether it was appropriate for the Suns to "take a stand against the Arizona immigration law" in an online poll yesterday. Fifty-seven percent in Arizona answered no, slightly higher than the 55 percent negative response nationally.

It's never a good idea to mix sports and politics. A sports team should be a focus of unity in a community, not a source of division. Sporting events should be a refuge from politics, a safe haven from the growing partisan divide. Teams should not be used as sounding boards for the personal political views of the team owner or players. Sports franchises are granted monopoly privileges in their communities and in return assume special responsibilities. One of them should be to stick to the sports arena and stay out of the political arena.

So while millionaire athletes become walking billboards for a political cause, the state of Arizona might want to review the terms of its relationship with the Suns. If Mr. Sarver wants to use his team to push a political agenda, perhaps citizens can push back. Imagine Phoenix residents channeling the spirits of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. by turning up en masse to Suns games, sneaking in without tickets, demanding special services like free food and access to box seats, overtaxing arena security and ruining the game for the people with tickets. They can call it a celebration of diversity.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/06/amnesty-for-illegal-phoenix-suns-fans/

http://news.yahoo.com/video/local-15749667/19585803

guess that those folks u speak to r really convinced that Obama's war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a "legal" war....

and no....I don't think the outrage was just about Bush...it was about a nation frustrated once again at a prolonged fight.... and shame on those Bush warmongers for giving up the fight!

The guy got off light....I'd would have sent one of those pitbulls abused by Michael Vick after him!!!

The man PROMISED to change the way things were done in Washington.

Washington said HA HA HA....Obama joined them in the laugh

Major campaign promises.... lost and forgotten once elected...

Transparency and Ethics....promise broken/look at the way health care was done...more backroom backpatting and dividing up the loot than mobsters. Tax cheat nominees accepted. Conflicts of Interest nominees accepted.

Lobbyist will not work in my administration....another good one

Called for the elimination of earmarks....Obama could have had the guts to veto the first bill with earmarks.

Guantanamo and the Patriot Act....Dick C is grinning ear to ear and chuckling

That is only the short list....

Any discussion about the players in the financial meltdown has to lead back to CONGRESS not doing it's JOB of regulating. Someone needs to put ALL of those Congressman that made statements about the soundnes of Fannie/Freddie loans on the hot seat. Those loans are at the core of what really happened and what created the environment in which Goldman could limit losses and profit.

Well, u shot yourself in the foot with that one....at least etch a sketch work is ones on work but Obama's teleprompters r programed by someone else.

well, to democrats I'm sure it does.

i swear some of the things you people come up with to defend........

Report: Health overhaul will INCREASE tab

Health and Human Services experts say plan falls short of controlling costs.

Thurs., April 22, 2010

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs. It also warned that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15 percent of hospitals into the red and "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The mixed verdict for Obama's signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts.

In particular, the warnings about Medicare could become a major political liability for Democratic lawmakers in the midterm elections. Seniors are more likely to vote than younger people and polls show they are already deeply skeptical of the law.

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.

"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise — health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine coverage for seniors.

The health care law, passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

CBO: Millions could be penalized
A separate Congressional Budget Office analysis, also released Thursday, estimated that 4 million households would be hit with tax penalties under the law for failing to get insurance.

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any reforms.

The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans.

In addition to flagging the cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and other providers as potentially unsustainable, it projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular program. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent, as the plans reduce extra benefits that they currently offer. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36726295

So costs are going up....translate to mean premiums are going up...but hey, there is the POSSIBILITY of some savings in 2020....now, I'm sure that everybody that pays premiums can hold out till then.

The bill is virtually VOID of any cost containment controls at all until 2018.

So here is what really hapened.....34 million people got some type of coverage at the expense of those who already had coverage and those that had coverage premiums will go up. And a trillion dollars has been spent.

that is, until the people say we've had enough of those dreams and electe a BROWN.

I think the article does address your points and more even though not detailed directly.

"It's artificial manipulation of the market that caused this crisis, and instead of allowing these mobster run companies to fail they are continuing to prop them up."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_US_work_force_is_employed_by_the_US_Government

1 in four workers "(24%)" work for the government now....and growing.

Taxpayers have to foot the entire bill for those workers. Almost 50% of working people pay no income taxes at all. Now were r back to the conclusions in the article which is....

"The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation."

government jobs is one way...

The US economy will definitely improve if the government encourages successful businesses rather than punishing them with more taxes. The economy will improve if US government stop spending trillions of dollars that we don’t have and balance the budget.

President Bush and President Obama have been the worst managers of the world’s largest economy by adding $12 trillion dollars to the deficit. America must be led and managed by a leader who really understands the economy. Bailouts for private companies usually mean that failing companies receive taxpayer money, while their more successful competitors do not. Does that make any sense?

In the real world, investors seek to put their money where it is most valuable; that is, in companies that succeed, not those that fail. In the alternate world of government bailouts in which lawmakers spend taxpayer money rather than their own, failure is rewarded and success is punished.The total public debt now stands at $12 trillion. Interest payments on the debt cost $452 billion last year, the largest federal spending category after Medicare-Medicaid, Social Security, and national defense.

US government produces nothing for domestic consumption, nothing for international consumption, nothing but more benefits and more days off often with pay for government employees.Government “workers” as they are simply additional warm bodies occupying space and money that with ease could be spent better elsewhere.
Government spending is like throwing gasoline on the smoldering fire.

The only thing it can do is make it worse. The damage is done and it will take time to rebuild. Fix the specific things that lead to the damage occurring. Then adopt the same financial approach that a family would take after their house has burned down and they didn’t have insurance. You don’t run up the credit card bill any more than absolutely necessary and you cut all extravagances from your life. Otherwise, it will take you a lot longer to recover from the financial disaster.You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

- Sahit Muja

http://investmentwatchblog.com/what-one-person-receives-without-working-for-another-person-must-work-for-without-receiving/

what NC cared about was health care costs....and now we find out that costs will go up since the health care bill has passed.

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/271839

not a single elected official or candidate is expected to greet Obama on the tarmac after Air Force One touches down in the district of Rep. Heath Shuler – one of the 39 Democrats who voted against health care reform.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36241.html#ixzz0lzLlwDNC

And I thought sure u would find a way to throw in some blame for this to Bush....u r slipping..

McAfee antivirus program goes berserk, freezes PCs
By PETER SVENSSON

NEW YORK – Computers in companies, hospitals and schools around the world got stuck repeatedly rebooting themselves Wednesday after an antivirus program identified a normal Windows file as a virus.

McAfee Inc. confirmed that a software update it posted at 9 a.m. Eastern time caused its antivirus program for corporate customers to misidentify a harmless file. It has posted a replacement update for download.

McAfee could not say how many computers were affected, but judging by online postings, the number was at least in the thousands and possibly in the hundreds of thousands.

McAfee said it did not appear that consumer versions of its software caused similar problems. It is investigating how the error happened "and will take measures" to prevent it from recurring, the company said in a statement.

The computer problem forced about a third of the hospitals in Rhode Island to postpone elective surgeries and stop treating patients without traumas in emergency rooms, said Nancy Jean, a spokeswoman for the Lifespan system of hospitals. The system includes Rhode Island Hospital, the state's largest, and Newport Hospital. Jean said patients who required treatment for gunshot wounds, car accidents, blunt trauma and other potentially fatal injuries were still being admitted to the emergency rooms.

In Kentucky, state police were told to shut down the computers in their patrol cars as technicians tried to fix the problem. The National Science Foundation headquarters in Arlington, Va., also lost computer access.

Intel Corp. appeared to be among the victims, according to employee posts on Twitter. Intel did not immediately return calls for comment.

Peter Juvinall, systems administrator at Illinois State University in Normal, said that when the first computer started rebooting it quickly became evident that it was a major problem, affecting dozens of computers at the College of Business alone.

"I originally thought it was a virus," he said. When the tech support people concluded McAfee's update was to blame, they stopped further downloads of the faulty software update and started shuttling from computer to computer to get the machines working again.

In many offices, personal attention to each PC from a technician appeared to be the only way to fix the problem because the computers weren't receptive to remote software updates when stuck in the reboot cycle. That slowed the recovery.

It's not uncommon for antivirus programs to misidentify legitimate files as viruses. Last month, antivirus software from Bitdefender locked up PCs running several different versions of Windows.

However, the scale of this outage was unusual, said Mike Rothman, president of computer security firm Securosis.

"It looks to be a train wreck," Rothman said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_mcafee_antivirus_flaw

Wow....liberals sure take a lot of credit for stuff...except the trillions in debt they've created....