Literally the least you can do.

Still, better than doing nothing. It seems to have helped before.


"Emergency Response teams from the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) are distributing tents, relief supplies, and humanitarian assistance to people displaced by the flooding. In Balochistan, UNHCR has delivered 4,000 tents, 2,700 plastic sheets, 2,200 kitchen sets, and 4,000 plastic mats to the most devastated areas. The organization has partnered with mGive to allow mobile contributions. Anyone in the world can now text the word "SWAT" to 50555 to give $10, which helps provide tents and emergency stipends to displaced families. When prompted, reply with "YES" to confirm your gift."

From and for other ways: http://www.thenation.com/blog/154063/how-help-pakistan


Have been reading Richard Price's "A Multitude of Sins," a short story collection, one of which mentions "pointless acts of pointless generosity"--such as saving a butterfly, even if for only a brief time, from a parking lot--and then makes an argument for doing them anyway.

That reminded me of this pic I took recently with my camera's phone, when, walking around McCarren Park in Williamsburg, M. found a dying butterfly and decided to move it off the sidewalk, out of the way of oncoming foot-traffic.

"I am, for instance, a person who stops to move turtles off of busy interstates, or picks up butterflies in shopping mall parking lots and puts them into the bushes to give them a better chance at survival. I know these are pointless acts of pointless generosity. Yet there isn't a time when I do it that I don't get back in the car thinking more kindly about myself. (Later I often work around to thinking of myself as a fraud, too.) But the alternative is to leave the butterfly where it lies expiring, or to let the big turtle meet annihilation on the way to the pond; and in doing these things let myself in for the indictment of cruelty or the sense of loss that would follow. Possibly, anyone would argue, these issues are too small to think about seriously, since whether you preform these acts or don't perform them, you always forget them in five minutes."

Possibly, but I don't get the feeling he would have written about it if he truly believed that.

You've got your tax cuts in my bailout! (or: Where's My Bailout?)

Comments posted to an article in The Nation about unemployment and the White House's jobs summit thing:

Joblessness? What's the big deal? Why don't we just spend 100 trillion dollars and pay everyone in America $1,000,000 per year! Problem solved!
Isn't liberal economics fun?
-Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2009 @ 09:09am

Or cut 100 trillion in taxes to Steve Forbes and Citgo...and we can all get jobs writing for a magazine or working on an oil rig?
Isn't conservative economics fun?
-Posted by Mask at 12/02/2009 @ 09:26am

look at post #2 and #3...this is essentially the nation anonymous web postings boiled down to two opposing sides...
and this is how we rant, over and over and over, forever...
it's a wonderful life!
-Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 09:30am

The first rule of Health Care Reform is you don't talk about Health Care Reform. (In honor of Teddy-bear Kennedy, R.I.P.)

The second rule of Health Care Reform is you DON'T TALK ABOUT HEALTH CARE REFORM!

No, I still will not talk about health care. But below is a surprisingly, from The Nation anyway, funny piece we all might enjoy in the current tumult.
















Your Questions About Health Care Reform Answered

by Christopher Hayes on 08/11/2009

Ok, so there's been a lot of misinformation about proposals to reform the health insurance industry and provide (near) universal coverage. Understandable! It's complicated stuff. Herewith, I'll try to answer some questions

1) Is it true that all of the bills currently proposed would end the practice of "rescission," whereby health insurance providers refuse to treat customers who've paid their premiums simply because they've become ill?

No! That's a common misunderstanding. Actually, all of the bills would ban incisions, that is, they would legally bar surgeons from performing surgery until a panel of twelve gay illegal immigrant government bureaucrats unanimously signed off on the procedure.

2) Is it true that health care reform would ban insurers from refusing to insure people because of pre-existing conditions?

Wrong again. To get rid of health inequality, the bills actually mandate that every American be given a pre-existing condition. A National Illness Commission, with academics appointed from Harvard, Reed College and Berkeley, will evaluate each citizen, and based on their demographic profile, choose their malady. Each disease or syndrome is scored on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most severe. White christian men will receive pre-existing conditions of 8 or higher. Black people, "wise latinas," and ACORN members will be exempted.

3) I heard the proposals currently under consideration provide seniors with option of free counseling sessions under Medicare, where they can discuss a living will and end-of-life care.

That's a huge misconception. The bills require all senior citizens (who are non union members) be euthanized on their 70th birthday. Under section 278(c)ii all last rites will be performed by Jeremiah Wright using a Q'uran.

4) I've heard the bills being proposed would require insurers to provide preventative care, like mammograms, free of charge.

No, but all lactating mothers will be forced to breast-feed poor children.

5) Will the current bills plug the "donut hole" in the Medicare prescription drug benefit so seniors don't have to pay exorbitant out of pocket expenses for their medication?

Absolutely not. The legislation will ban donuts.