Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditReaders have often written over the past year and asked, what are the alternatives to the outrages chronicled in this column? What would you do differently? So I'm taking up my friend Laura Rozen's suggestion and contributing five innovative policy ideas--not my own--that I believe could immediately benefit this country and the world. Feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments section below.
** End the War: No issue is more important right now than an end to the war in Iraq. Russ Feingold and Chuck Hagel punctured the pro-war establishment in Washington last week. Leading defense experts are now boldly advocating withdrawal. The political leadership in both parties must now speak up, and the mainstream media must pay attention. For those who believe that war critics lack an alternative approach, read Tom Hayden's "An Activist Guide to the Exit Strategy." "The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war," former Senator Gary Hart writes. "The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating 'Stay the course' even when the course, whatever it is now, is light years away from the one originally undertaken." This week Dr. Raja Kuzai, a secular Shiite member of the Iraqi Assembly who once met with President Bush, declared, "I am not going to stay here." If she's leaving, so should we.
** Eliminate Poverty: The developed world could end poverty in the developing world if it wanted to. And it would cost only $150 billion per year, according to economist Jeffrey Sachs. The notion that the resources don't exist, Sachs says, "is the greatest hoax of our time." The $2 billion the US gives to Africa every year is equivalent to what the Pentagon spends in 36 hours. Bush's much-hyped Millennium Challenge Account, his signature foreign aid initiative, has spent only $400,000 of the $2.5 billion allocated by Congress two years ago. In coordination with comprehensive debt relief, real investment in basic services--agriculture, health, education, power and sanitation--could alleviate extreme poverty in one generation. And nothing would improve the worldwide image of the US more.
** Get Off Oil: Fareed Zakaria is right that reducing our dependence on foreign oil should be one of America's top foreign policy priorities. Oil revenues help fund terrorism, prop up dictatorships, stagnate democracy, exacerbate inequality, boost corruption and spur costly resource wars. US oil companies bought and paid for the Bush Administration. That's why, at a time of soaring gas prices and record profits, the recently passed energy bill shamefully doled out $4 billion in corporate welfare to big oil. We know what the solutions are: raise fuel efficiency standards in SUVs to 40 miles per gallon, provide incentives for hybrid cars, encourage smart consumption and invest seriously in renewable energy technologies at home. A clean energy policy would create 1.4 million new jobs and save the average household $1,275 by 2025. If this isn't a winning political issue, I don't know what is.
** Curb Militarism: The size and scope of America's military-industrial complex has become a third-rail of American politics. Only the staunchest anti-imperialists note that America currently occupies 700 military bases across the globe. Few lawmakers dare to criticize a $500 billion defense budget that produces few tangible returns on investment. Instead, members of both parties call for enlarging the military and acquiring costlier weapons systems. But a great joint report by Foreign Policy in Focus and the Center for Defense Information finds that the US could cut $53 billion from the defense budget with no sacrifice to security. Polls show that the American public favors redirecting defense spending into nonmilitary tools, deficit reduction and social spending. And the National Priorities Project shows what else the war in Iraq could buy.
** Reform Washington: Why does Congress consistently fail to pass universal health care, protect American jobs or reign in corporate excess? The insipid and growing relationship between lawmakers and lobbyists, who now form a veritable fourth branch of government, offers the most telling clue. Lobbyists have spent $13 billion since 1998 seeking to influence federal legislation and regulation. The pharmaceutical industry, the biggest of the bunch, has more than two lobbyists for every member of Congress. Luckily Russ Feingold in the Senate and Marty Meehan and Rahm Emanuel in the House have introduced legislation to improve lobbying disclosure, curb lavish trips and gifts, and close the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street. It's time to drain this swamp.
I agree with all of those, Ari, and will add my own: PROTECT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. American computer and electronics companies spend millions on R&D, they continually innovat and improve their products, and then the design is blatantly ripped off by third world countries with no compensation to the innovators. We are the hosts and the technology thieves are the parasites. It hurts our economy and our workers and needs to be stopped.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/25/2005 @ 12:28pm
Ari:
Financial Times reports today that "US Looking for Pull-Back from Iraq" or very similar, along with "big troop withdrawals in the coming year" as a subheading.
Given that the Bush administration is already beginning a phased withdrawal from Iraq, what meaning do these long, slow, anything-can-happen-between-now-and-then "exit strategies" from the Democratic Party really offer?
The Iraq War is coming to an end. It has to. There is no consent for it. The Democrats failed to oppose on the war, in fact, they helped to start it. Exit strategies that are proposed as troops are already scheduled for withdrawal and which encompass timelines that already are objectively being observed by the governing party don't help a lot. Furthermore, the party frontrunners (clinton, etc.) seem to advocate actually escalating the war and sending more troops. Is there more the Democrats could do to end the war, and to present themselves as an opposition party?
On the issue of poverty elimination, how are the Democrats leading? In fact, across the spectrum of issue resolutions you bring up, what are the Democrats doing, what have they been doing?
Why is it evil to speak of Ralph Nader, and alternatives to the Democrats? What you bring up in terms of goals for issue resolution are the same goals that grassroots activists and the attendant public in general have embraced for decades. Yet nothing has occurred. When is the supposed left media establishment finally going to quit flogging the dead donkey? We don't just need to rehash the same goals we've had for decades, we need to enunciate how these goals will be achieved. Can you tell us here and now how the Democrats are going to help us achieve these goals, or why it is that they should not be abandoned?
Posted by Zero at 08/25/2005 @ 12:59pm
ILP: conversely, American technology companies, in particular pharmaceutical makers, pathologically rip off developing nations' natural resources by exploiting natural resource derivatives from plants and animals found only in these nations, and leaving no profit or wealth behind. Many hugely profitable pharmaeceuticals sold in America are based on resources found in developing nations. None of the wealth from these pharmaceuticals is left in the developing nations and the medicines are often too expensive to be bought by most of the people who live in the nations the medicines originate in.
Is that fair?
Likewise, the legal fiction "intellectual property" is used to maintain gluttonous and artificial prices on a wide spectrum of technology specifically to the detriment of the people who don't live in rich nations like the US. Countless thousands have died of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, while PHARMA paid the presidential administrations like the Clinton administration and the entirety of Congress to fight to keep low-priced generic versions of AIDS medicines out of Africa.
Does the legal fiction "intellectual property" trump the value of human life itself, in places where American profit margins are not sustainable in local consumer markets?
I think not.
It is fine to reward technological innovation, but the legal fiction "intellectual property" or the very legal notion of "property" itself have been taken to such ludicrous extremes that the people of Bolivia had to rise up against their own government to stop such lunacies as the selling of Bolivian rainfall to US-based corporations. US corporations tried to claim that the poverty-stricken people of Bolivia had not even the right to collect rainfall for drinking water as this water was "owned" property. This is an outrage of outrages.
Perhaps the American notions of "property" and "intellectual property" are not compatible with the different economic and social realities of the developing world? Can we get to an intellectual plane where we understand that one size does not fit all?
Posted by Zero at 08/25/2005 @ 1:06pm
Encourage civilized debate. I think disagreement and opposing perspectives are healthy and even benificial. However, civility has become decreasing observed. I just spent the last hour pouring over recent blog posts and I am disgusted with these people that don't participate in debate, they just hurl insults and spout their hateful rhetoric. Sharing ideas and spreading different viewpoints should be fun and thought provoking. Can we get these jokers that provide no substantive impact to discussion to go back to The Factor and let the rest of us enjoy a good squabble.
Posted by andria at 08/25/2005 @ 1:12pm
By the way, I certainly wasn't referring to you guys, ZERO and ILOVEPHYSICS. I enjoy reading your perspectives. I was just venting on previous posts.
Posted by andria at 08/25/2005 @ 1:14pm
And speaking of government reform and the Iraq war, what is being done to reign in the Israel lobby in Washington? Don't look now, but a group of people (Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, etc. etc.) best described as "Israeli operatives" essentially got control of the national security establishment in the executive branch and started a completely unnecessary war that, according to their own published documents over preceeding decades, was all about creating Israeli hegemony in the Middle East in general.
Speaking of lobbies with too much power, what about the Israel lobby? The military aid budget to Israel alone could pay for a substantial amount of "poverty elimination", as has been documented.
Posted by Zero at 08/25/2005 @ 1:21pm
Finally: speaking of the Iraq war, and Ralph Nader, here we have both in today's Counterpunch [counterpunch.org].
Posted by Zero at 08/25/2005 @ 1:23pm
Zero, thanks for the Counterpunch link. I'd read that one from Nader on his website The Nader Page [nader.org] not to long ago. He makes some very great points (that have been heard before, but need to be repeated) about who is actually making the sacrifice (or more importantly, who is NOT) for the war.
Posted by thejman at 08/25/2005 @ 1:59pm
As far as gettin off of foreign oil goes read this study [unh.edu] regarding the replacement of our internal combustion engine vehicles (you know, the ones that run on gasoline) with diesel vehicles & running them on biodiesel. Since biodiesel is produced domestically there is a lot of job potential, plus biodiesel is just as energy efficient as petro diesel & is biodegradeable.
As for ending hunger & poverty, I think this site [borgenproject.org] explains it all. It also shows how YOU could get involved if you so desire. I urge everyone to visit this site. The amount of research & data compiled by Mr. Borgen is on the subject of ending poverty & hunger worldwide is fantastic.
Posted by thejman at 08/25/2005 @ 2:08pm
ZERO
I'm very pleased to hear somebody speak sensibly about Ralph Nader. I've grown tired of Democrats bashing the man who represents all the positions they should, but don't have the courage to debate any more.
What's more aggrivating is that we're likey to hear some more of this from the Democrats when they begin their attack Bernie Sanders.
Posted by BSF at 08/25/2005 @ 2:08pm
BSF,
I agree. I can't stand it when the Dems bash Ralph Nader. And I especially can't stand when some people affiliated with The Nation do it (Eric Alterman, whom I enjoy reading, comes to mind). Maybe they bash him so much because he makes them look bad everytime they refuse to represent those who elected them & because he still has the balls to call Bush & the Republicans as well as the Democrats out on issues that don't benifit the people (like bankruptcy "reform").
Posted by thejman at 08/25/2005 @ 2:14pm
Ari for President!
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 2:16pm
Andria...amen on civilized debate. I refuse to use the "ignore" switch because sometimes what we might think is a nut case, might in fact be a very strong (if disgruntled) opinion. To choose to not hear them is something both sides are guilty of ANYWAY...so no sense putting on the rose-coored glasses here!
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/25/2005 @ 2:17pm
Here's a thought.... to the Nation Blogmeisters howzabout Nation host a Blog whose sole purpose is to draft a "mutually acceptable constitution of sorts..." Pick a range of moderately controversial topics: stem cells, health care, petroleum/energy, the War, government subsidies, maybe a few others...and see if both sides can agree. Use cgi form or Java to make a "vote-tron" and draft up an acceptable resolution. After all, we expect three mutaul enemies in Iraq to put one together...should be a piece of cake for us civilized folk, huh?
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/25/2005 @ 2:22pm
THEJMAN,
I can't stand it when the Dems bash Ralph Nader. And I especially can't stand when some people affiliated with The Nation do it (Eric Alterman, whom I enjoy reading, comes to mind). THEJMAN.
Although I'm a registered Democrat, I criticize Ralph Nader not because of that fact, but because he misled the American people when he said there was no difference between Bush and Al Gore. By stating that non-truth, Mr. Nader mislead the public and he bears major responsibility for the election of Gee Dubya Bush.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 2:23pm
ARI: Your manifesto for progressive change is magnificent! I couln't agree more. And that's because every progressive I know believes in the same. The problem is our political asperations are sadly tied to a political party that does not care or has not the courage to stand up for these progressive goals toward a better America and a better world. And that is why I keep saying that progressives need to cast off the Democrats and create a true progressive-labor party. I know it is hard, but the current dance with the Democratic Party is getting nowhere. They are so afraid of being seen as "soft on defense" that they will continue voting for bigger military budgets forever. The American people need to be exposed to a real progressive platform. "And the losers today are later to win, for the times they are a-changin'".
Posted by philbq at 08/25/2005 @ 2:25pm
This article sounds like a speech from a Miss America Contest.
But, I do feel all warm and fuzzy now.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/25/2005 @ 3:02pm
Eco-terrorists are now above ultra-right extremists on the FBI charts
Click on link below to read CNN article.
Domestic Terror: Who's Most Dangerous [cnn.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 3:03pm
I interrupt this thread with a really, really great piece by the Amazing Paul Craig Roberts [counterpunch.org].
Posted by Zero at 08/25/2005 @ 3:08pm
Love the way that people who spray-paint SUV's, alter billboards, and engage in very infrequent acts of arson with no casualties are ranked higher in the "threat" category than people who murder doctors, produce online murder lists, bomb clinics, bomb the olympics, and engage in all manner of property destruction.
Posted by Zero at 08/25/2005 @ 3:10pm
Eco-terrorists are now above ultra-right extremists on the FBI charts
"It is simply ludicrous to describe animal rights and eco-terrorism as the No. 1 threat," said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. He believes those following the paths of Rudolph and McVeigh are still a clear and present danger.
CNN asked that people email them their opinions on this threat change by the FBI.
My thoughts are that there are no such people as 'eco-terrorists'. This is bad news if we allow environmentalists to be labeled as so-called 'eco-terrorists'. That puts them in the same category as Al Qaida, and it will expose them to "sneak and peak" and arrests without legal representation - the same as the folks at Guantanamo Bay Gulag.
The next thing you know, Cindy Sheehan and other anti-war protesters will be labeled as "anti-war terrorists". This must be stopped now.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 3:17pm
ORAIBI1952,
It may have been a bit unwise to compare Bush to Gore in 2000, but Nader's main criticism as well as mine, is that when you take a good hard look at the Dems & Reps, there isn't too much of a difference. The makeup of the two parties are the typical rich businessmen, doctors & laywers. Some of them have done a bit of dirty work in their lives. Some of them have gone to war. But they have both become so disconnected from the people & so connected to big money. For proof we need look no further than the recent bankruptcy "reform" bill, the way Congress voted for the war in Iraq, the telecommunications giveaway in the 90s, the way the Dems run NJ (my home state, which is almost as corrupt as Washington with "pay-to-play" giveaways & the like), defense funding giveaways & I could go on. Obviously there are exceptions to both parties, but overall I don't see a big difference except for a few "wedge" issues.
Posted by thejman at 08/25/2005 @ 3:21pm
Hey Ora: there are groups that circulate online instructions for weapons of arson as well as security procedures for effective execution of arson, with simply the instruction "take no animal life". Organized arson campaigns are softcore terrorist acts.
In other news: I really like Nader's idea of having churches ring their bells during the week for the fallen in Iraq, culminating in a Sunday ring sequence for the week's casualties. Lots of people live near church bells. This is a good way to create awareness of the war in some local sense.
Posted by Zero at 08/25/2005 @ 3:21pm
Hopefully Howard Dean can help to bring about some changes to correct these things, but I won't be holding my breath.
Posted by thejman at 08/25/2005 @ 3:22pm
THEJMAN,
...but Nader's main criticism as well as mine, is that when you take a good hard look at the Dems & Reps, there isn't too much of a difference. The makeup of the two parties are the typical rich businessmen, doctors & laywers. Some of them have done a bit of dirty work in their lives. Some of them have gone to war. THEJMAN.
I understand your concerns as stated in the quotation above, and I don't disagree that the parties are similar in many aspects.
But, there are many significant differences between the two parties too; many of them you already know, thus do not necessitate repeating here.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 3:32pm
How wonderful to discover the new crank free zone. Congratulations to the Nation and the nameless webmaster for implementing it.
I was hoping that once this came on line the direction of the conversation would shift from wasting our time defending ourselves from the attacks flat earthers to the subject of what do we need to do to move forward our agenda-what strategies will be most effective, which parts of the agenda offer are most promising given the current political circumstances etc. Based on what has been posted here since, it appears that this is exactly what's happening and that is wonderful!
I'll also reiterate my agreement with those who have identified the Democratic Party (at least in its current corporate dominated form) as the major obstacle which is impeding progress on the goals Ari sets forth.
It would be another wonderful thing if the Nation were now to begin to reflect what seems to be a consensus position of its readers on this subject.
In any case, I'm thrilled that we are now in a position where we can have serious discussions on what needs to be discussed.
Again, many thanks to those who have made this possible.
Posted by john.halle at 08/25/2005 @ 3:36pm
At times I've wondered what cranks are still invisibly operating, all around my posts, unbeknownst to me.
Well, I don't wonder for very long. It's like something out of Lovecraft's Cthulu universe - I know I'll go insane if I see what's really there, so I don't look.
Posted by Zero at 08/25/2005 @ 3:41pm
I have nothing to add at this time.
Posted by Delmark.G at 08/25/2005 @ 3:44pm
Investing in alternative media, like you're doing here. The current one just sucks, and we need to create a power source outside of it so that critical voices can once again be heard.
Posted by jocraft at 08/25/2005 @ 3:55pm
Zero,
"At times I've wondered what cranks are still invisibly operating, all around my posts, unbeknownst to me. "
Crank, Crank, Crank, Crank!!
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 4:11pm
zero per your 12:35 post It is easy to ask what have you done to solve these proplems yet if the other side has control of or a netural position of control the question becomes why haven't those in control attempted to solve these. It becomes obvious when the corperate interests are injected into the equation as long as our goverment runs on the graft of corperations we the people will be left behind by both parties you cannot blame one side.
Posted by dycel8r at 08/25/2005 @ 4:15pm
make that your 12:59 post sorry
Posted by dycel8r at 08/25/2005 @ 4:16pm
Ok, here is a question for leftists :
No WMDs were found in Iraq to date, and none may ever be found. Now, everyone knew that Saddam had used them years prior, against the Kurds and Iranians, so he did have them once. That is why Bush, Blair, Bill Clinton, and Vladimir Putin thought he still had them. Whether Bush 'lied' is not the question I am asking, I am asking what happened to the stashed he had in the 80s and 90s.
So, what happened to them? There are 4 possibilities :
1) He fully, obediently destroyed 100% of them. There are none hidden anywhere, not even a small side stash.
2) They were sent to Syria in 2002, before the invasion
3) They were found by Zarqawi or other groups before the US could find them. Thus, Al-Qaeda currently has them.
4) Most were destroyed, but a few are still buried somewhere deep underground, under a field of crops or something, and may never be found.
So, which do you think it is?
Posted by kmg4 at 08/25/2005 @ 4:20pm
Regular posters to the Comments section of Nation blogs will notice a new feature: "Ignore this person," a simple function that allows participants in online discussions to render invisible posts that they find offensive or off-topic.
How best to moderate a free-wheeling online discussion is a question which has bedeviled scores of webmasters. At The Nation, we're particularly disinclined to ever censor anyone based on political perspectives, especially those we abhor. But it can be disruptive when, as happened recently, someone decides to paste dozens of versions of the same Ann Coulter piece to all five of our weblogs in an obvious effort to disrupt the conversation. Or when someone simply unleashes an obscene tirade with no argument being made.
So what we've come up with is a way for readers to create their own realities by offering the option of "ignoring" a given poster.
We hope that everyone will employ this option sparingly and will use it only as a last-resort to rid themselves of those few posters explicitly trying to prevent the free and feisty exchange of ideas. We strongly discourage anyone using it to shield themselves from unwelcome points of view.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/25/2005 @ 4:29pm
>as long as our goverment runs on the graft of corperations we the people will be left behind by both parties you cannot blame one side
Sure you can blame one side:
The Republicans have never made any bones about the fact that they are the party of business. It's the Democrats who claim to speak for average, working people but are in fact the second corporate party.
And it is this fundamental dishonest which is behind a great deal of the inchoate, omni-directional rage which one sees among the immiserated working class in the red states.
I repeat again, Tom Frank has this nailed in What's the Matter with Kansas.
Everyone should read it.
Posted by john.halle at 08/25/2005 @ 4:30pm
This is a great list. I would add rationalize healthcare. Our current approach to health is crazy. We need to
Make prevention a top priority. I think it was Franklin who said "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" -- and we still haven't learned that lesson. All schoolchildren need effective physical education that teaches them exercise habits that will last a lifetime, not a how to play a few competitive sports. We need to seek ways to make healthy living, with a good diet and plenty of daily exercise, the default lifestyle.
Reform medical care for the uninsured. Our emergency rooms are clogged with uninsured patients whose only access to medical care is an ER. Let's find ways to treat their illnesses early, before it becomes an emergency. Not only is it more humane, it would reduce medical costs across the board.
Apply modern industrial management techniques to medicine. Medical errors are a huge problem. The airlines and other industries have developed systematic techniques for identifying and eliminating potential sources of error and accident. We need to modify and apply these techniques to medicine. Similarly, we need to find ways to improve office practices. Something is wrong when a patient has to wait an hour to see a primary care physician, wait 24 hours to have a prescription renewed or to ask a nurse a straightforward question, and for doctors to be so busy rushing from one patient to another that many patients cannot get their questions answered.
Posted by 9patch at 08/25/2005 @ 4:42pm
KMG4,
First of all, my compliments to you for asking the question of what happened to the WMD?
Before I respond to your question, I ask you to define a "weapon of mass destruction"; that way we are talking about same thing.
So, what happened to them? There are 4 possibilities :
1) He fully, obediently destroyed 100% of them. There are none hidden anywhere, not even a small side stash.
2) They were sent to Syria in 2002, before the invasion
3) They were found by Zarqawi or other groups before the US could find them. Thus, Al-Qaeda currently has them.
4) Most were destroyed, but a few are still buried somewhere deep underground, under a field of crops or something, and may never be found.
So, which do you think it is?
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 4:48pm
KMG4,
I forgot to put your quote in italics. KMG4's quote begins at: "So, what happened..." and ends at "So, which do you think it is?".
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 4:51pm
ORAIBI1952,
Not being an expert on the subject, I guess my definition would be :
A biological (like anthrax or botulinum he once had), chemical (like those used by his relative, Chemical Ali), or Nuclear weapon, that can potentially kill all the people within a 1 square mile area (nuclear), or 100,000 people through the air or water (biological).
A daisy cutter bomb, although large, is not a WMD, by this definition.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/25/2005 @ 4:54pm
Ari,
"Why does Congress consistently fail to pass universal health care, protect American jobs or reign in corporate excess?"
Universal health care, as in government sponsored communism when it comes to health care?
No thanks, I'll pass, I'd rather continue to pay my insurance premium and know that I will get the quality and timeliness of health care that I want, unlike the long lines that one commonly sees for common procedures in Canada.
Reign in corporate excess?
Are you even remotely suggesting that somehow we should put a "cap" on capitalism? Am I interpreting that statement correctly? You are really suggesting and would support slowing the rate at which Americans can prosper financially in our capitalistic society?
Again, no thanks, I've seen communism and how it "works" in Cuba and Russia. I'll stick with the good old fashioned capitalism, I like eating at McDonalds, driving my Dodge Durango and going to Wal Mart.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 4:59pm
John.Halle,
I repeat again, Tom Frank has this nailed in What's the Matter with Kansas.
Everyone should read it. John.Halle.
To help you understand some of the real differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties, I suggest reading Jacob Hacker's book, "The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public and Private Social Benefits in America".
Jacob is a fellow at the New America Foundation.
Below is the link to the New America Foundation and Jacob Hacker's biographical sketch.
Jacob Hacker [newamerica.net]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 5:03pm
KMG4,
May I suggest that we define a WMD as only a nuclear weapon (not a dirty bomb).
Although chemical and biological weapons can kill a lot of people, but nothing like you describe can be done with one chemical or biological bomb; where as one nuclear bomb can do what you described. The Bush Administration has hyped the real threat from chemical/biological weapons.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 5:08pm
oksportsguy,
regarding your 4:59 post, i take issue with your comment about the "long lines that one commonly sees for common procedures in Canada."
being a canadian, i make an average wage and am lucky enough to find myself subsidized by our healthcare system. in all my years, i have never had to face the long lines you speak of. granted, some canadians who require specific or complicated procedures do face the problem of being put on a waiting list, however, our government is well aware of the problem and is currently seeking solutions.
i for one, consider myself fortunate to live in a country that wants to take part in keeping me healthy as opposed to pawning it off to the private sector who definitely have other interests ahead of my health
Posted by wordupyo at 08/25/2005 @ 5:18pm
>To help you understand some of the real differences between the Republican and Democratic >Parties, I suggest reading Jacob Hacker's book, "The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public >and Private Social Benefits in America".
>Jacob is a fellow at the New America Foundation.
I know Jacob Hacker. He was my constituent and one thing you should know about him is that he refused to join over 120 Yale faculty members who called on the university to agree to binding arbitration to prevent the Yale administration from busting the union when it when on strike in 2002. When I wrote him a letter specifically asking him to join us, his response was to ask me for a new traffic barrier in front of his house (on the hoity toity corner of Bradley and Lincoln).
In short, he is precisely the kind of elite technocrat who Ari's essay "The Strategic Class" was directed at, though perhaps of a somewhat milder variety.
Of course, he wants you to believe there are profound differences between the two parties.
The Democratic Party is his meal ticket, as it has been for generations of technocrats before him.
Posted by john.halle at 08/25/2005 @ 5:19pm
OKSportsGuy..
I'm glad you're happy with the quality and timeliness of your healthcare. I'm also insured, and I'm not happy with mine. A trip to the ER with a sick child routinely lasts 5 or 6 hours, most of which are spent idly waiting. The insurance company arbitrarily chooses its own reimbursement rates for the best hospital in the area, refusing to pay at the 'out of network' rate promised in my contract, and I'm stuck with the remainder of the bill. My employer makes sure I'm stuck with this insurer for the remainder of this insurance period. Go to an in-network ER? I've tried that -- and we wait just as long and receive poorer quality care.
Our healthcare system is just as broken as one in Canada or Cuba -- it's just broken in different ways.
Posted by 9patch at 08/25/2005 @ 5:25pm
ORAIBI1952,
Ok, but for the purposes of Saddam's WMDs, let us include biological and chemical weapons. Certain bioweapons could kill millions if engineered and distributed properly.
So, back to the original question, which of the 4 options is the most likely?
Posted by kmg4 at 08/25/2005 @ 5:34pm
TODD: Let me say that you are my favorite Republican at this site. Although I rarely agree with you, at least you are rational (mostly) and civil.
In response to your comments: Over 40% of Americans do not have health care. That means the current ststem isn't working for society. The only viable solution is some form of universal health care funded by TAXES. That's reality. France and Norway are examples of universal systems that work. The capitalist system does not provide for all the needs of society.(Many needs are unprofitable) That is the public acting through government is needed.
Taxes on corporations have dropped to historically low levels, due to the success of lobbying Congress. That should change. Americans work more hours with less vacation than any industrialized democracy. We slave to pay the bills, and our life rolls by. The corporations are in the saddle, driving our society and buying our government, our democracy. And yes, the transnational corporations are doing well. But are we?
Posted by philbq at 08/25/2005 @ 5:36pm
PhilBQ,
A system like Norway does not take into account the fact that the US has 11-15 million illegal immigrants here. They don't pay taxes, but use the system. That is why that system will not work for the US.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/25/2005 @ 5:44pm
John.Halle,
I don't know Jacob Hacker personally, so I can't criticize his personal attributes. However, I find the information, in his book that I referenced, to be instructive and credible. I could relate to many of his points about private and public benefits.
I don't know if Hacker is an "elite technocrat" or not, but he can't be any worse than the members of the radical, right-wing think tanks (The Federalist Society, The Heritage Foundation, etc.).
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 5:45pm
KMG4,
My answer to your question, "So, what happened to them?", is that he never had nuclear weapons - the only weapon of mass destruction there is.
Chemical and biological weapons are not weapons of mass destruction; thus do not qualify for an answer to your question about WMD.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 5:49pm
ORAIBI1952,
We can quibble about whether biological or chemical weapons are dangerous enough to be considered WMDs. I have read from many sources that biological weapons could kill as many or more people as nuclear weapons (although not destroy any buildings).
OK, then, ignore the term 'WMD'. My question then is :
What happened to Saddam's chemical and biological weapons? They are not 'WMDs' but are still capable of killing millions.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/25/2005 @ 5:54pm
You bet Hacker "can't be any worse" than the Repugs. And that's exactly what the Democrats have to offer: we can't be any worse. (Believe it or not, sometimes they are-e.g. when Clinton and Biden call for MORE troops in Iraq.)
One thing I do know: when it comes to union busting, Hacker's entirely on board with the Federalist Society, Hoover, Heritage, Olin etc. That I know for sure and that's all I need to know.
If he's the best the Dems can do for policy wonks these days, they're in even worse shape than I thought.
Posted by john.halle at 08/25/2005 @ 5:54pm
Hey Todd do you know what "communism" actually is? You seem to like to throw that word around with regards to just about anything, in particular socialized medicine, but it comes across pretty stupid in light of how many countries with corporations, investor classes, stock exchanges, private systems, private businesses of all sizes, etc., have socialized medicine.
In reality, today, very countries try to be purely "communist" or "capitalist"; China is moving its currency to a floating system, while engaging in rapacious foreign capital buying and purchasing of major corporate entities abroad ... and the US still will not stop its socialized agriculture policy that is acting as a major trade barrier to international competition in agriculture. Finally, any policy of socialized medicine itself is about the use of taxpayer money to pay for individual coverage and leaves in place a vast market regime for privately produced medical products, services, and facilities in general. What's generaly proposed is about as "communist" as Howard Hughes was back in his day.
While I respect your right to believe what you want, I really encourage you not to throw around words like "communism" without really having a grasp of what communism was. You come across as unhinged or, at least, mentally lazy, or maybe just plain loud. I don't think socialized medicine is "communism". I think it is just another shade in the spectrum of economic planning that prioritizes health care over insurance corporation profit margins.
Posted by Zero at 08/25/2005 @ 6:00pm
we have waiting lists in the US as well. for organ transplants, for example. christ, you can't get same-day x-rays without an emergency.
Posted by Zero at 08/25/2005 @ 6:03pm
of course "socialized medicine" is communism, even though it coexists in most countries it is implemented in happily alongside private banking systems and private real estate ownership, and private manufacturing and employment, the original targets of Marxist ideology.
Posted by Zero at 08/25/2005 @ 6:06pm
KMG4,
What happened to Saddam's chemical and biological weapons? They are not 'WMDs' but are still capable of killing millions.
My answer is based on what I could gather from public sources. When we attacked Iraq in March/April 2003, Iraq had remnants of chemical weapons which were no longer functional and more of a hazard to Iraqi soldiers than anyone else.
There has been no proof presented to the public that he ever had biological weapons.
My conclusion is that he had nominal quantities of outdated, non-functional chemical weapons, originally obtained with our help; and he never had biological weapons. My answer is limited to weapons that could be used in a military sense.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 6:07pm
John.Halle,
I won't condemn a person for not being pro-union as I would not condemn a person for being pro-union.
With the appropriate public policies in place, unions would not be necessary.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 6:10pm
ORAIBI1952,
So are you saying his chemical weapons, which were once fuklly usable, merely fell into a state of disrepair, and his manufacturing facilities gathered dust?
In 1990, he did threaten to use them on us (impying they were usable), after which the US replied back with a promise of nuclear retaliation.
I do think he had anthrax and botulinum, as biological weapons, which he even said he had in 1990 and mid-1990s.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/25/2005 @ 6:24pm
I would start a national program for reading, writing and arithmatic for every age level. Very few people can read and listen in context. Continually I see the results of a yes/no, right/wrong mindset influencing person after person. How easy it is to brainwash vast numbers of Americans. While it is easy to say that this president is not literate in basic ways, he does fit the profile of an incredible number of Americans. They simply do not know how to determine a truth based context and to read accordingly. They not know when they have sufficient high quality to form an opinion. More and more it is evident that people choose a context of their own and then put everything in that context. I think we need the "Three Rs" and a huge context of kindness.
Posted by Percival at 08/25/2005 @ 6:36pm
"With the appropriate public policies in place, unions would not be necessary."
The Heritage Foundation would agree with this entirely.
Which demonstrates yet again: the corporations have two parties representing them.
It's time we had one of our own.
Posted by john.halle at 08/25/2005 @ 6:44pm
KMG4,
Yes on the disfunctional chemical weapons, and very little quantities of them; more hazardous to Iraqi troops than American troops. Never a military threat to the Continental United States.
Regarding biological weapons; he did not have weaponized biological capability. I suspect most reasonably advanced nations can produce anthrax and botulin; but can they weaponize them so that they become a strategic threat.
Now, a question for you.
What made a non-nuclear Iraq a threat big enought to attack and not a nuclear-armed Pakistan?
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 6:49pm
John.Halle,
I said unions would not be necessary. That is different than the abolition of unions; which I believe is the position of the Heritage Foundation. There is a difference between not being necessary and in being abolished.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 6:53pm
Ari, That's a tall orde you've pesented here but makes alot of sense. I would add that the control of our air waves by fundamentalist extremeists should also be outlawed. The right wing media is destroying this country.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/25/2005 @ 7:07pm
Zero, Chuck Hagle, as I understand it, has been exploring the possibility of mounting an independent Presidential bid. How's this for a ticket. Chuck Hagle, Pres. and Bernie Sanders, VP. Or visa-versa.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/25/2005 @ 7:17pm
PLAIN BRUCE, Yes, start by reversing the tax cuts for the filthy rich and put that money into programs for the poor. But not without oversight.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/25/2005 @ 7:28pm
PLAIN BRUCE, A good example is Jimmy Carter's Habitat For Humanity program.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/25/2005 @ 7:29pm
ORAIBI1952,
Pakistan is potentially a bigger threat than Iraq was. The government of Iraq was more hostile than Pakistan ever was but Pakistan does have nuclear weapons, and is also where Bin Laden and Zawahiri are hiding.
In fact, I am the first person to say that it does not make sense to worry so much than Iran may develop nuclear weapons, when Pakistan indeed already has them.
Pakistan's government may be quasi-friendly to us, but that does not guarantee that nuclear weapons don't wind up in the hands of terrorists. Look at the AQ Khan network.
So we are on the same page.
My solution :
If Musharaff ever gets assassinated, we have little choice but to launch a full invasion of Pakistan the next day. Pakistan is a country with a population about 5-6 times more than Iraq, so this would be hard. But at the same time, it is a society that could generate a robust Democracy much more easily than Iraq. Plus, we would have full support of the massive Indian military (at least in a backup sense if not on Pakistani soil). Troop shortage will not be a problem.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/25/2005 @ 7:48pm
I can quite easily believe that his chemical weapons deteriorated over time; I'm a chemist, and I know damn well that chemicals decompose when you don't want them to. Most nerve gases are phosphate ester derivatives, which will slowly react with water to give phosphoric acid derivatives- not only does the amount of active ingredient decrease over time, but the containers get corroded and leak. So a nice supply in the late 1980s could have been perfectly useless in 2000 (assuming he hadn't used it all on the Kurds).
His manufacturing facilities couldn't do much, since he couldn't import anything that might have been used as a raw material for chemical weapons- Iraq wasn't allowed to import rubbing alcohol (isopropanol), even.
The fact that he threatened the US with these weapons doesn't mean that he actually had them- Saddam wouldn't have been the first world leader to make an empty threat.
Posted by madalch at 08/25/2005 @ 8:18pm
KMG4,
Think about this scenario.
An alliance between Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan. I see Iran becoming the real power in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
I suspect that our warming of relations with India may be a recognition of the fact that some astute person has or is realizing the threat that the alliance mentioned above will create.
This debacle in Iraq will have severe repercussions for the U.S. for years to come. Some of the repercussions we cannot even fathom now.
I just watched Chris Matthew's Hardball and his guests were Robert Merry, author of "Sands of Empire: Missionary Zeal, American Foreign Policy, and the Hazards of Global Ambition", and Paul Hackett, the Iraqi War Veteran who ran for Congress in Ohio; both men agreed that we are worse off with Hussein out of power and with the Islami theocracy/republic that Iraq will become than we were with Hussein in power in Iraq. And, as I have forecasted on one of The Nation's blogs, they predicted Iran to be the big winner from our debacle in Iraq.
Excuse my language here; the Bush mess in Iraq has me f---ing mad as hell.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 8:19pm
ORAIBI1952,
So do you advocate an invasion of Pakistan, to turn it into a Democracy, if Musharaff is assassinated?
No, an alliance between those 3 is not possible. Shias and Sunnis fight among themselves all the time anyway. The only real threat is from terrorist organizations that operate with governments looking the other way, rather than the government of these countries themselves.
Iran is not hostile with India at all. In fact, they are building a large pipeline to supply oil and gas. Iran's relations with Pakistan are rather lukewarm, in fact.
I still support the Iraq war and the objective that we are seeking. I agree that a case can be made that addressing Pakistan would have been somewhat more prudent, but that certainly does NOT mean that the Iraq war has no merit at all. Only time will tell if Option A was better than Option B, or vice-versa.
In fact, the repurcussions you mention could just as well be positive, rather than negative. Do you know that the stock markets of Turkey, UAE, and Egypt have shot up by over 100% each in the 20 months since Saddam was captured? Their economies are booming now that the uncertainty of a violent dictator in the region is gone.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/25/2005 @ 8:29pm
KMG4,
What would we use as a force with which we could invade Pakistan?
No, I don't advocate invading Pakistan. But, to protect our interests from an alliance of Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, we sure better look at a strong alliance with India and European/Asian nations who continue to be our allies.
More importantly, we had better develop a plan to deal diplomatically and commercially with these three nations. We could start by reducing our level of arrogance toward them.
I think the Sunni v. Shi'ite differences could be overcome with agreement on a common enemy.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 8:39pm
No author associated with the Heritage Foundation, to my knowledge calls for "the abolition of unions." Rather their position overlaps with yours and the Democratic establishment: they "refuse to condemn those who are anti-union."
A clearer statement of what the Democratic Party has devolved to would be hard to find.
Posted by john.halle at 08/25/2005 @ 8:42pm
KMG4,
Re: Positive repercussions.
Considering our present foreign policy for the region, the odds are long for any positive repercussion for the United States.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 8:45pm
Our arrogance towards Iran and Pakistan is a problem? How about their arrogance towards anyone who is not a Muslim.
Given that these are countries that give few rights to women and no rights to non-Muslims, I think we treat them better than they deserve (certainly better than China and Russia has treated Muslims).
And as far as Shias and Sunnis uniting against America across 3 nations, impossible. They can't even unite within Iraq.
There have been many positive repurcussions from the WoT already. No attack on US soil in 4 years for starters. Sure, they have to now go after softer targets like Spain, London, Egypt, etc. But our goal is our own national security, and at the moment we have suceeded.
And you don't think there is ANY good in what we did for Afghanistan? Don't bring up a glass 10% empty story about Opium. The glass is 90% full, with women having rights that they didn't have before, girls going to school, elections, a constitution, and no more Taliban.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/25/2005 @ 8:52pm
KMG4,
Don't get too cocky yet. Even the Bush Administration keeps telling us its not if but when we will experience another terrorist attack. After all, how many years lapsed between the first attempt to blow up the WTC and September 11, 2001? Just long enough for us to think, "well, that was an isolated incident."
Most terrorist are dumb, but America was hit by some folks who weren't born yesterday. They are probably carefully planning out their next attack and by the time it happens, we will have all moved on to other issues since we thought we would have won the war on terror.
Its a shame that this administration has many Americans believing we can actually win the war on terror. Newsflash folks, you don't beat terrorism.
Posted by BlueTexan at 08/25/2005 @ 8:59pm
KMG4,
You said in a prior post that some Mid-East countries stock markets are booming to coincide with the removal of Saddam. There is a pretty good Economist article on line recently that recognizes the boom of the Mid-East but not because of Saddam's absence. It's because Mid-East countries are become less confident in investing in the U.S. and European economies, lest they be derided by their own countrymen for investing in the Great Satan. Oh, and super high oil prices don't hurt their economies either.
Posted by BlueTexan at 08/25/2005 @ 9:04pm
BLUETEXAN,
1) Would you have bet on Sept 15, 2001, that we would have had no further attacks in 4 years? Sure, the probablitiy is never zero, but that doesn't mean it can't be lowered.
2) Egypt and Turkey do not export much (if any) oil. Their stock markets are the ones booming. Iran and Saudi Arabia do not have stock markets.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/25/2005 @ 9:06pm
BLUETEXAN,
In fact, the continued risk of terrorism is precisely why we still need the Patriot Act.
I take it you don't like the Patriot Act, or profiling of Arab males. What are your alternative suggestions for how we prevent another 9/11 on US soil?
Posted by kmg4 at 08/25/2005 @ 9:11pm
John.Halle
A clearer statement of what the Democratic Party has devolved to would be hard to find. John.Halle
Could you explain the above statement?
Also, if you should read my statement correctly, you'll see that I didn't use the term "anti-union".
A question for you: "Does the Heritage Foundation support the Bush Administration?"; the answer to this question will provide you an answer to whether or not the Heritage Foundation is for abolishing the unions. You will never find a blatant statement about their intentions to abolish the unions, but you are smart enough to recognize what their real intentions are.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 9:22pm
KMG4,
1) Has the Iraqi war lowered the potential terror threat? No. The hundreds of billions that will be spent on this war and rebuilding Iraq could have been spent FAR more wisely to lower the potential for threats.
2) You referred to stock markets of some Mid-East countries, and I just inferred from that the entire Mid-East. My point was that the Mid-East as a whole is experiencing a boom. Most of which comes from investors keeping their money within the Mid-East economy rather than in the U.S. or Europe. Egypt does export oil, but it isn't the primary revenue generator. While Turkey might not export much of its own oil, there are major pipelines going through their country to the Med. Sea, so they aren't hurting too badly on the oil front.
Posted by BlueTexan at 08/25/2005 @ 9:22pm
Typing here can feel so 1 dimensional... especially when the truth (seems) to have become so stagnant and stale due to the lack of any real right minded impetus, initiative, and motivation.
So what can we do? What HAS been the matter with the common people (grassroots) in affinity for the only common and intelligent mandates, agenda, and solutions? Why is the country really in dissolution (I hate to say besides the obvious)? Again, could it possibly be that no right minded provisions, viable leads or initiatives have been appropriated, provided impetus, and wholly substantiated because the very people in position of initial wherewithal have failed integrally to unite and mandate/ manifest such against the world's pyramid scheme corruption. Like talking to a child... "Where are the people... now?"
It's really those american citizens who have known better (don't ask who) that should've proved (for all intents and purposes.. to the world), manifested, and constituted truth's integrity and it's virtues. The endless beauocratic debating with a corrupted administration, it's officials, and it's dumbed down herd after the facts is pointless and only brings balance to their wrought hell in the meantime. The fence manufacturers, or the corrupt propaganda manufacturers, have gotten filthy rich with so many sitting on dissolution and quagmire. A bottom line for the idiots (ok, unfortunate and without mental wherewithal) out there is if it was anyone's responsibility to prove anything, it was Bush, you know, being the president. Bush has only proven that he'll never prove anything except where the oil is. He's overtly shown how utterly corrupt, dumbed down, and incredible this nation is. And yet it continues. It's a crime of mass proportions. A crime against humanity makes for foolish humans."... I'm trying to tell you now it's SABOTAGE...""... The roots that grow underground are as big as the tree-That you see if not it will fall down-We waste so many moments standing on convention-The only survey is when our heart pays no attention..."
The plain truth is old news.
Dialectic is undeniable for all intents and purposes. The time to stop giving away the time to dissolution and do something about it was a long time ago. What are you prepared to do right right now now? What do we got? You know who I'm talking about. "... I settle that a bet will let a large amount-So indulge me just for a minute imagine no one holding out-All trying for peace-My brother's down-Some others down-Think you should know the direction that the world go..." "... I Want You Off The Wall If You're Playing The Wall... Well I'll Be Calling Out You People Like A Casting Call..."
So again, while people have and are suffering in every way (un)imaginable due to the ongoing corruption.., and with devastating chain reactions that are ultimately still to come, what are we prepared to do? Can you do it? Who can? Think. Ahhh, all the people in affinity could... matter. Why haven't they really mattered... at all? Why? What's the secret to integral unification that no one's seemed to have figured out yet? Read the Declaration of Independence, the Constituion, or the Bill of Rights lately, anyone?
Truth is in the tone. The dissonance and incorrect timing caused by Bush's Administration alone is fact that he is not fit for presidency. The effects are terminal. He has no integrity and has never been honest with any situation. Anyone with an ounce of good sense can tell that. How many times does it have to be proven? He's not a leader in any capacity. That leaves the fact that he is president for reasons that are not honest. But for all the unfortunate people who need an idiot to identify with and/ or don't know any better because they've got a rotten leader.. It's the crime of the century, and more so on those who are intelligent yet have allowed it. Potential is sabotaged, people die, the world is destroyed etc.. But they'll always make a show of stepping forward after stepping back 10. You can jumble numbers but facts is facts.
So again, September 24th the controlled opposition by default will stand outside the White House. Stewart will have another pathetically clever and sad joke for you, Moyers and company will circle jerk and disgust the situation while exhausting every crackerhead point thereby virtually cancelling out justice in no uncertain terms... Franken's new Sundance show will show frankly how clever and forward (decrepit, sold, and played out) the "leading" conglomerate is about it all, and will end up only farting in the face of any might've been potential prospects with real initiative. And I can't forget about poor Rose still sitting there alone in the dark. And people will be that much.. farther from conceptualizing the real terms of reality.
But keep on bloggin' like a middle school team huddled under the bleachers during a game. Where the truth is ever slow to surface and disseminated about the plays. The dissolution forfeits the game as no credible game plan was ever come up with. Next game you find that during last games huddle the refs were switched, the rules changed, and the "home team" took steroids. But there you are in your winning huddle with your whole school and family sitting above you cheering for Britney Spears who's sitting in the front row with the Hiltons, the corrupt corporate elite, and G8 Summit's kids asking everyone if they would like to be them. Nope, too bad for the disenfranchised, common people because of their own lack of...... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I'm reminded of the King in Mozart saying, "Well just look at them..."
Every second counts (matters).
There it is. "... I found the truth friends.... take good care of it please, it's the only one there is.... 'cause it'll take me a lifetime old man, to undo what you've done..."
Ah, busted again. This is a civil war, not a foreign one. Everyday... What are you prepared to do? What's in your wallet?
I hope I'm not wasting my time with people who only blog (bloodclot) in vain and for fun here. Relative daily outrage bereft of substantial resolve has crippled too much. Who's REALLY getting this???? 'Cause boy, I hate to have to go on like this.
Posted by emg at 08/25/2005 @ 9:23pm
John.Halle,
The position of the Heritage Foundation on unions is no where near my position.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 9:24pm
Bluetexan, "Newsflash folks, you don't beat terrorism." Right, it is impossible to defeat an ideology, especially militarily. So if we can't beat them, shouldn't we at least try to understand why they hate us and want to destroy us enough to strap explosives to themselves. What is the way to neutralize them?
Posted by frankgrits at 08/25/2005 @ 9:24pm
Oh, the Patriot Act. I sleep better at night knowing that its safely on the books. I'm glad we can keep track of who buys what at Barnes & Noble. Or if someone checks out a questionable library book. Sounds like Farenhit 487.
The Patriot Act over-reaches in its claims and powers. The ACLU (which I'm sure you love) states: "The government's numbers are also severely inflated. The "400 convictions" claim overstates actual number of convictions and omits a number of key facts related to these numbers. A list obtained by the Justice Department defines only 361 cases defined as terrorism investigations from September 11, 2001 to September 2004. [8] 31 of the entries on the list were blacked out. Only 39 of these individuals were convicted of crimes related to terrorism. The median sentence for these crimes was 11 months. This figure indicates that the crime that the government equated with terrorism was not serious. A study conducted by TRAC at Syracuse University notes that "despite the three-and-a-half-fold increase in terrorism convictions, the number who were sentenced to five years or more in prison has not grown at all from pre-9/11 levels." [9] The convictions were more commonly for charges of passport violations, fraud, false statements, and conspiracy. [10] Moreover, the median prison time for a serious offense, such as providing material support to a terrorist organization was only 4 months. [11]" (http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/facts.html)
So plainly, the Patriot Act hasn't made anything any better, if anything it just gives the FBI more power to push around legitamite protest groups.
As for profiling, would that have stopped Timothy McVeigh? Didn't think so.
Posted by BlueTexan at 08/25/2005 @ 9:39pm
FRANKGRITS,
In the event of an occupation about the only way to stop terrorist is to give them what they want...for the occupier to go away. Looking back at history tells us that is typically what happens. Or the occupier happens to decide to stay forever and completely wipe out classes or races of people (see for example, our ancestors in this country). I don't think most Americans want to stay in Iraq forever and make it the 51st state. So option one is about the best thing going.
Typically, once an occupier is out, all hell might break loose for a while but eventually you can hope that the formerly occupied people might figure out a way to "be civilized" and realize they benefit by being a productive member of the global economy...that is if we let them.
Posted by BlueTexan at 08/25/2005 @ 9:50pm
Wordupyo,
"regarding your 4:59 post, i take issue with your comment about the "long lines that one commonly sees for common procedures in Canada.""
Well, I'm glad for you. But that's not what everyone is finding.
On June 9, 2005, the high court struck down a Quebec law that prohibited people from buying private health insurance to cover procedures already offered by the public system.
"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," two of the justices wrote in their decision. [cbc.ca]
And:
A shortage of medical professionals, chronically long waiting lists and a landmark court decision have combined to create the perfect storm in Canada's health-care system, say top officials of the Canadian Medical Association.
"Right now, things in medicine in Canada are not particularly rosy,'' said Dr. Albert Schumacher, the association's out-going president. [ctv.ca]
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 10:11pm
"You will never find a blatant statement about their (republicans) intentions to abolish the unions, but you are smart enough to recognize what their real intentions are."
And what are the intentions of the Democratic Party? No less of an authority than Robert Reich declared his belief upon taking over as Secretary of Labor that unions will have little place in the new economy. The Clinton administration then preceded to sign off on GATT, NAFTA, WTO, supported raiding of corporate pension funds, mergers and acquisitions all of which resulted in the continued hemorraging of union membership.
So to be clear, this is all completely predictable given that the DP "refuses to condemn those who are anti union". In fact, some of the most viciously anti-union companies are some of the party's biggest supporters. Did you know, for example, that Hillary Clinton served on the board of Walmart? Do you care? Probably not.
The more you protest the profound differences between the parties, the deeper the hole you dig for the Democrats.
Incidentally, I have never claimed that there are no differences between the parties. Rather, the systematic exagerration and the complete lack of intellectual honesty of the Democratic Party's knee jerk apologists is what has driven many of us over the edge-probably never to return.
You and the party have to do a lot of work to get us back and you haven't even begun to do it.
Posted by john.halle at 08/25/2005 @ 10:12pm
9Patch,
"Our healthcare system is just as broken as one in Canada or Cuba -- it's just broken in different ways.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not making any excuses for the imperfections in our system. And I agree it's certainly can use some fine tuning.
I just totally disagree that nationalizing health care under the government's watch is the ideal way to handle it.
Look at all the government fraud that we ALREADY have with Medicaire/Medicaid, that is coming out of YOUR tax dollars (and mine)
The government doing ALL health care would only exacerbate those problems.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 10:18pm
Phil,
"Let me say that you are my favorite Republican at this site. Although I rarely agree with you, at least you are rational (mostly) and civil.
Thanks = ) you want to get together for steaks with Physics and I? He's a progressive that actually gets along with me too.
All Republicans aren't rude, unintelligent, arrogant, and morons. You guys tend to stereotype us, just as much as conservatives stereotype progressives.
Now to your points.
"In response to your comments: Over 40% of Americans do not have health care. That means the current system isn't working for society"
I have to disagree with you here. Show me where in the constitution after that part about "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" does it say anything like "and oh yea, everyone is guaranteed and has the inalienable RIGHT to public health care funded by the government."
I must have missed that amendment.
This is a big crack, more like a crevice, hell this is the grand canyon of issues that seperates conservatives and progressives, we refer to it as the "entitlement" mentality.
Americans are only entitled to the pursuit of happiness, not public health care on the governments money which is my tax dollars (and yours).
I find it ironic and hypocritical that you can condemn the war on terror partly because the government is spending so much money on it, again YOUR tax dollars, and you don't really have a choice, however you don't have ANY problem spending MY tax dollars on a government sponsored health care plan.
Very hypocritical in my opinion.
I still love you though, my progressive friend = )
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 10:27pm
Todd, how come you didn't invite me. Don't you want some comic relief while you masticate that steak?
Posted by frankgrits at 08/25/2005 @ 10:29pm
Todd, I don't know about you but I'd rather have my tax dollars provide me with health care instead of some Iraqi guy. I'm selfish that way.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/25/2005 @ 10:31pm
Zero,
" I don't think socialized medicine is "communism"
I respect your opinion. I have read the definition of socialism and communism, they are both evil words in my opinion, in essence they both refer to the same concept; a system where money/things/stuff/services is dispersed on order of the government to other people in a misguided attempt to redistribute wealth.
You can not think that socialized medicine is communism, it's the same thing as far as I'm concerned.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 10:34pm
Frank,
"masticate that steak?"
I would suggest if you intend to masticate, you need to do this in private with the door closed, and I know you don't like us self righteous Christians trying to preach to you, but didn't Your parents talk to you about this when you were a kid?
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 10:40pm
Todd, Just wondered, do you pay your kids an allowance?
Posted by frankgrits at 08/25/2005 @ 10:40pm
OKSPORTSGUY: You use the word "entitlement, I would use the word"moral social obligation". Any problems with the Canadian healthcare are a result of underfunding the system. Even the conservatives in Canada do not want to abandon their system for a Darwinian U.S.-type system where health care goes to those who can afford it. As a Christian, you should have a spirit of compassion and charity towards others less fortunate. It says that many times in the Bible. To say "I've got mine and I don't care about anyone else" is un-Christian. Many of the working poor cannot afford healthcare under this system of profit. The biggest cause of bankruptcy is huge healthcare bills from illness. Maybe this system works for you, but it's not working for society. A system of universal healthcare funded by taxes would save money from the current system, which is the most expensive in the world. There is no viable alternative.
Posted by philbq at 08/25/2005 @ 11:31pm
I look at things differently perceiving that resisitance is frequently perceived as ungracious, especially by the resistor. Here is my revamp of your 5 pts.
1] Support Peace: individually, communally, eternally. 2] Share abundance: to most of the world, you are abundant even when you choose to imagine otherwise. the best way to experience abundance is to share what you have when another accepts your offer. 3] Support alternatives to oil if you choose to diminish oil's influence on your choices. 4] Laugh at the sociological joke that persistent militarism is because embracing that which is no longer funny is funnier than the original 'joke' anyway. Laughter at our foibles will appreciate the purpose they serve rather than disparaging them. 5] Return education, interest, and influence to the electorate.
Posted by amilius at 08/26/2005 @ 12:12am
Here's a suggestion to Zero and others-- stop blaming Israel for everything that is wrong with US policy. Bigoted assertions like "And speaking of government reform and the Iraq war, what is being done to reign in the Israel lobby in Washington? Don't look now, but a group of people (Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, etc. etc.) best described as "Israeli operatives" essentially got control of the national security establishment..." First, there is no evidence that any of these guys works for Israel. Second, it's bizarre to assume that every person with a Jewish name marches in lock-step with Ariel Sharon. Third, did I miss Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush's bar mitzvahs? Last time I checked, the disastrous policies of this administration were engineered by those three guys. Frankly, I'd like it a lot better if my friends on the extreme left (I'm a moderate, btw) didn't lay the faults of our foreign policy at the feet of anybody whose last name sounds Jewish. Not all of us agree with Sharon, but to me, our enemy is the go-it-alone cowboy "strategy" of the president. Israel didn't do it, zero. Bush did.
Posted by dlhalper at 08/26/2005 @ 01:40am
Ari Berman set the tone of this discussion by suggesting some alternative paths out of the ludicrous labyrinth in which we now find ourselves trapped. I don't have much policy expertise to offer myself, but I do have a passionate interest in language and a desire to see it used more effectively in the interest of our mutual survival. So, for my part, I suggest joining in the always-unfinished work of deconstructing, to the greatest extent possible, the bogus Orwellian Newspeak handed out to us by our government and the corrupt corps of sycophant stenographers who -- either actively or passively -- enable the propaganda to poison us. In other words: Don't Parrot Conventional Wisdom, especially the sloppy stuff offered up by the self-interested "Strategic Class" of paid consultants (Democratic AND Republican) or the otherwise compensated fellow traveling pundits who sound so much like them. For example:
Yesterday, I read an article by Joe Klein in Time Magazine called "The Danger of Yellow Ribbon Patriotism." I have started to write him a response which I plan to call "The Danger of Yellow Journalist Patriotism." As read him, Klein considers the purchase and display of magnetic yellow "support the troops" ribbons insufficiently "patriotic." He pronounces the war in Iraq "still worth fighting" and says "we should recommit the entire nation to the struggle." I suppose he means that we should stop buying and displaying yellow ribbons and instead cough up our kids. As I hope the title of my own proposed essay shows, I intend to dispute his implicit acceptance of what "patriotism" means to the conventional wisdom crowd at the DLC.
Posted by Michael Murry at 08/26/2005 @ 02:11am
OKSOORTSGUY:Since you have brought up the comparison of spending tax dollars on the " war on terrorism", versus spending tax dollars on universal healthcare, I believe spending money to provide healthcare to every citizen is a much better investment of public resources than building more machines of death and destruction. If $100 billion of the Pentagon's $500 billion budget was instead diverted to universal healthcare, every citizen in this country would have healthcare. That would be a wonderful thing.
Posted by philbq at 08/26/2005 @ 03:33am
Tod, Phil (& all) On the health-care thread: Sure, Canada's system is broken as well. Doesn't mean we have to "copy" what is there. There are European nations too with single-systems. Do we not have the ability to learn what does work from these several models...combined with what does work from our own, and craft something better? You folks on the right are always beating the "growth" drum....is this not new direction of potential growth? OK...it would dismantle a chunk of the insurance industry. Big deal. Instead of people pushing paper for a money-grubbing, blood-sucking, for-profit monster that knows its better off if it figures out how to NOT cover your claim, those folks can work for a single-payer, not-for profit system which is designed towards a more altruisitc end.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/26/2005 @ 07:23am
Phil,
you said: "To say "I've got mine and I don't care about anyone else" is un-Christian."
You are making some incorrect assumptions with this statement.
I do care, and I tithe heavily to my church and other ministries such as "Feed the Children". I don't have a problem at all helping those in need as long as I KNOW where my money is going, who it's going to, and how it's being spent.
I can't answer those questions with a government mandated system. I already have MY FEDERAL TAX dollars being use to fund abortions, something which is in stark contrast with my beliefs.
The Truth:
Three Ways Taxpayers' Money Is Being Used to Support Abortion:
1. President Bush is funding selected surgical abortions via Medicaid (Title XIX)
2. President Bush is funding chemical abortions via both Medicaid (Title XIX) and via the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding program
3. President Bush is funding Planned Parenthood, the largest perpetrators of child-murder-by-abortion in the United States (Planned Parenthood reports murdering over 200,000 unborn children annually by surgical abortion alone), through both Medicaid (Title XIX) and Title X, with over $50 million per year through each program, for a total of over $100 million per year, just through these two Planned Parenthood funding mechanisms [covenantnews.com]
and:
In 1981, the Hyde Amendment was revised to allow Medicaid to cover abortions that were deemed necessary to save the life of the mother, and in 1993 the law was further relaxed to allow federally- funded abortions in cases of rape and incest. [speakout.com]
Again, I never said I don't want to help feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or heal the sick.
I help do those things by tithing.
People however are NOT guaranteed the "right" or "entitled" to socialized health care paid for by the taxes of the citizens.
That's not written anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, I've read both of the documents thoroughly = )
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 07:42am
Frank,
"Todd, Just wondered, do you pay your kids an allowance?"
Some would call it an allowance I suppose, they do get "paid" for doing all of their house chores and yard work.
They don't get paid one red cent "just because" however.
I teach my children that nothing in life is free, and you must work if you want to receive payment. The hand of the diligent will prosper (some smart guy wrote that in a book somewhere).
I also teach them that the first fruits of their income, need to by tithed to the church.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 07:52am
Now's here's a thought (he says somewhat tongue-in-cheek) as HealthCare and Energy are both roots of this board....howzabout this: Let's fund public liposuction clinics...then take the waste and recycle it into biodiesel! (As far as combusion engines are concerned...a lipid is a lipid prety much.) It helps fight obesity, it's recycling (so its tres PC), and it lowers our dependence on foreign oil!
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/26/2005 @ 08:08am
Philbq, I don't think socialized healthcare is the way to go. I think we would be trading private profitiers for a public one. The politicians would be lining up for their share of the pork and you would probably die before you got through all the red tape. I think a national Non-profit health insurance policy would be the way to go. Something like a co-op. Run by the people, for the people. Anyone could join, regardless of their condition. Can you imagine the pull the American people would have if they could collectively start their own health insurance company? This would put the private health insurers oligopolies out of business and would reduce the cost of health care products through massive collective bargining power. Of course you would still have to pay to join but, I'm willing to bet that the cost of the premiums would be affordable even to those with moderate to low incomes. The most needy could still apply for health benefits under the current entitlements, (Medicaid/Medicare) but, I would imagine that even most of them would rather cough up an extra 100 bucks a month to get superior health care. We could even try to bring in the most needy under this plan through private donations, like checking a box on your tax return to donate a dollar or something like that. I think it would be much better for all of us, if the government didn't get involved. It would be just another "Snafu"!
Posted by redstateman at 08/26/2005 @ 09:21am
Regarding Energy: Under the Carter Administration, a solar energy tax credit was passed. If you spent $5,000 on solar panels for your house, you could take it off your tax bill dollar for dollar. This is a really great idea. In the summer, you would be energy independent. The excess would be sold back to your utility company. When Reagan came into office, the solar tax credit was eliminated. (clean,free, renewable energy - bad!)We need that tax credit now. And a tax credit for hydrogen cars too. These credits could easily be put in the federal budget if the insanely huge military budget were reduced. It's gotta happen. Energy independence is national security issue number one. No more oil wars (like this one now).
Posted by philbq at 08/26/2005 @ 09:35am
Redstateman: Your idea is interesting. I like co-ops (libertarian socialism). I belong to the Olympia Food Co-op. To quote Deng "If a cat catches mice, I don't care what color it is".
Posted by philbq at 08/26/2005 @ 09:40am
Phil, I have visited a few food co-op's myself but, somehow between the guy scratching the fleas out of his dreadlocks and the chic with hairy arm pits chopping tofu is real turn off for me. Great idea though!
Posted by redstateman at 08/26/2005 @ 09:51am
.
When Dr. Raja Kizai was calling President Bush her liberator, did Berman agree? When this doctor was full of hope for Iraq, was he too? When Dr. Kizai intended to stay and slug it out and make her country a healthy society, did Berman say, if she wants to stay here, so should we?
But now her judgment should be relied on. Berman bats 400 when it comes to disingenuousness .
Nonsense. There are 6.5 billion people in the world. Twenty percent live in poverty. Could $150 billion a year solve that?
Consider Nigeria. It has 130 million people, 60% of whom live below the poverty line. Yet that is a wealthy country with good agricultural land, enormous mineral riches, and vast oil and gas reserves. The energy sector alone produces revenues of around $60 billion. If that is not enough to lift 65 million people out of poverty how can $150 billion alleviate the poverty of 1.2 billion people?
The explanation I suppose is Jeffrey Sachs. His shock therapy gave Russia an economic catastrophe. Sachs happens to be intelligent and well meaning. But that and $150 billion are still not enough to fill a hollow tooth in the world's poverty. It would probably merely increase the number of people enduring subsistence lives.
What else is new? The fact is we don't know how to get off our oil addiction. The only solution seems to be, the increased costs at the fuel pump. That will eventually make alternatives competitive.
In the meantime here is a different approache. [xellex.freehomepage.com]
We are now spending a bit over 3% of our GDP on the military. During the Cold war it was well over three times that number. Our forces have been so reduced we have a hard time keeping 140,000 men in Iraq. Berman doesn't want a reduced military, he wants no military, the twit.
The seniors have universal healthy care and they are now spending more money on medical matters than before Medicare. Before Medicare/Medicaid began in 1965 the average per diem cost of a hospital bed was under $100. Now the average hospital bill is $4,000 per day.
In short, these "Five Ideas That Matter" are nothing of the kind. They are gripes masquerading as ideas.
.
Posted by nacl at 08/26/2005 @ 09:58am
Redstateman: I eat healthy (you are what you eat). The Oly co-op only stocks foods with no preservatives, no artifical color or flavor. Just pure food. I'm 54 and my wife (36, Asian, beautiful)tells me I look 10 years younger. It's either the food or her!.
OKSPORTSGUY: I am glad that your church feeds poor children. Here in Olympia, the born-again churches don't help anyone but themselves. The only churches that feed homeless hungry people (following the teachings of Jesus) are the Catholic Church and the Salvation Army. In my book, they are real Christians.
Posted by philbq at 08/26/2005 @ 10:04am
NACL: Speaking of disengenuous, that "per cent of GNP" line is a dodge. The federal budget is now HUGE, after 25 years of mostly Republican presidents (