Here's the PLAN

One need not be a student of Tom DeLay's dirty dealings to recognize that the corruption of Washington is very nearly complete. Occupied by a president and vice president who are oilmen first and statesmen last, a Congress where Republicans and Democrats delay their votes until they have checked their campaign fund-raising receipts and a judiciary that is rapidly being packed with "bought" corporate lawyers such as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, the nation's capital often seems completely beyond redemption.

It is not quite so true in the nation's 50 state capitals, however. Despite the ugliest efforts of corporate America -- via a lobbying frontgroup, the American Legislative Exchange Council -- to warp the process from Augusta (Maine) to Sacremento (California) as thoroughly as it has in Washington, there are still openings for progressive policymaking at the state level. Those openings are the target of the new Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN), a coalition developed to provide reform-minded legislators with strategic and research support as they seek to address the pressing economic and social issues that are left untended in a time of corporate hegemony.

"The goal is to bring as diverse a coalition together as possible so that our side has a cohesive agenda in the states," says David Sirota, the veteran progressive activist who has helped organize the network. "For too long, conservatives have been able to use huge sums of money to push the most radical right-wing policies through state legislatures. PLAN is committed to putting together the necessary resources and necessary coalitions to help progressive legislators stop this unchecked extremism, and start passing legislation that makes state governments work for ordinary citizens, not just monied special interests."

PLAN was set to formally launch Tuesday in Seattle, where the National Conference of State Legislatures gathers this week for its 2005 "Strong States, Strong Nation" annual meeting. The launch features appearances by former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, the 2004 Democratic nominee for vice president who has reemerged as an aggressive advocate for political and economic initiatives aimed addressing the gap between rich and poor in the United States, former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who for many years was the most powerful player in the California state Assembly, and Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, whose 2004 election proved that progressive Democratic reformers can win in so-called "red states." The launch is being co-sponsored by MoveOn.org, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the United Steelworkers union, and progressive philanthropists Andy and Deborah Rappaport -- support that provides an encouraging indication of the openness of powerful players on the left to the state-based work that will provide the models for renewal of the progressive movement nationally.

"Starting in the states" is not a new idea. In fact, most significant reform movements in American history have begun at the municipal or state level and built upward. At the dawn of the past century, the state-based progressive movements of the upper Midwest created what Justice Louis D. Brandeis referred to as "laboratories of democracy," where problems were addressed by creative legislators and governors in ways that federal officials eventually chose to mirror -- at first in the form of individual initiatives on issues such as child labor but ultimately with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal.

Sirota, who has worked as an aide to U.S. Representatives Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, and David Obey, D-Wisconsin, and his PLAN co-chair, former Montana State Senate Minority Leader Steve Doherty, know that while there are important precedents for state-based work, there are also mighty challenges. ALEC, the corporate-funded legislative network, has been polluting the process for decades, building alliances with both Republican and Democratic legislators; and corporate interests have begun to pour money not only into legislative contests but into races for state judgeships and attorney general and public service commission posts. Additionally, an increasingly corporatized and homogenized media no longer provides the distinct coverage of state politics that was the norm 100, or even 20, years ago.

Previous attempts to develop progressive alternatives to ALEC, in particular, and corporate influence, in general, at the state level have met with mixed success. And there are no guarantees that PLAN will be any more successful. But there are reasons to be encouraged. Sirota and Doherty are smart players with strong track records of progressive activism in challenging settings. They have headquartered their group in Helena, Montana, rather than Washington. And they have chosen an unapologetic approach best evidenced by Sirota's remarks at this month's Steelworkers union convention, where he told delegates, "Washington, DC, today is so overrun by Big Money and so controlled by an entrenched party establishment that there is almost no hope to change things there in the short run. And more important, truly successful movements in American history have always started at the grassroots level, not in the insulated halls of elite power. Why? Because Corporate America has a harder time controlling fifty states than it does controlling one city. It is easier to buy off one set of politicians than it is to buy off fifty separate political arenas. Additionally, state lawmakers are inherently closer to the concerns of their constituents than any Washington politician ever could be."

Sirota's got his history right. And he's got his politics right. Recognizing that "there are literally hundreds of state lawmakers all over America right now ready to fight on behalf of ordinary, hard-working Americans, ready to start helping citizens raise their wages, improve their access to healthcare, protect their pensions and, in general, secure their economic future," he says that with this base of progressive legislators, "Now it is time to fight back."

While the time is right, and the need to begin chalking up victories at the state level is more pressing than at any point since the last progressive movement took form, PLAN's organizers understand that they are in entering a serious fight. Until there is fundamental campaign finance and ethics law reform, corporate interests will always be able to buy legislative influence with campaign contributions and huge lobbying expenditures. Progressive interests must rely on the willingness of honest legislators in both parties to entertain their ideas, and on popular pressure from grassroots groups.

While the task is daunting, the initiative is worth undertaking. As Louis Brandeis noted decades ago, "one of the happy incidents of the federal system (is) that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments." Ultimately, the justice explained, states can lead the nation in a process that will "remould, through experimentation, our economic practices and institutions to meet changing social and economic needs."

So what's PLAN's plan? Hopefully, to prove that the wisdom of Brandeis with regard to state-based activism has carried through to the 21st century.

Comments (231)

1. YOU SILLY LIBS ARE ALL THE SAME...,ANTI AMERICAN...ANTI GROWTH...ANTI ENERGY EXPLORATION...ANTI EVERYTHING EXCEPT SOCIALISM AND MARXISM...THANK GOD YOU NUTBAGS ONLY CAN NIP AT THE HEELS LIKE A BUNCH OF ANGRY CHIWAWAS...

   GOD BLESS AMERICA

   Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 2:47pm

2. ALUDRA

   Could please make one point to go along with your insults? Make just one, seriously. In a "debate" type atmosphere, they're pretty essential.

   Come on, I know you can do it Slugger.

   Posted by BSF at 08/15/2005 @ 2:58pm

3. nutbags? lmao....

   Posted by dabar at 08/15/2005 @ 3:01pm

4. NO I JUST USE THE SAME TECHNIQUES YOU ASSHOLE LIBS USE TO CRITISIZE OUR BELOVED PRESIDENT...GET OVER IT

   Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 3:02pm

5. That's Chihuahuas.

   Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/15/2005 @ 3:04pm

6. Winning the 2004 election with just barely over half the popular vote neither creates a mandate, not makes him "beloved".

   Posted by BSF at 08/15/2005 @ 3:05pm

7. WHIPPED YOU ASS BY OVER 4 MILLION VOTES...THE MOST VOTES ANY MAN EVER GOT FOR PRESIDENT....TOP THAT SOURPUSS

   Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 3:06pm

8. Didn't Kerry (who I did not vote for) also receive more votes than any other elected president in history?

   Posted by BSF at 08/15/2005 @ 3:07pm

9. SO WHAT

   Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 3:08pm

10. KERRY LOST BIG...AND DESERVINGLY SO..HE WAS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO KILLED VIETNAM CHILDREN...YET YOU NUTBAGS NOMINATED HIM....TALK ABOUT SWEET VICTORY

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 3:09pm

11. jr, actually, this freak is growing on me, chiwawas... little dogs from chicago?

    Posted by dabar at 08/15/2005 @ 3:12pm

12. All I'm saying is that a sitting president winnning by the smallest margin of victory (2.5%) in the history of U.S. elections, doesn't make George W. Bush a beloved president.

    Posted by BSF at 08/15/2005 @ 3:14pm

13. To Dabar:

    Little dogs from Chicago? Would an alternate name be Midwestern hairless?

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/15/2005 @ 3:15pm

14. WHATEVER...LIVE IN YOUR OWN DREAMWORLD...WHO FRICKIN CARES...YOUR OUT OF POWER AND THATS ALL THAT COUNTS..

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 3:15pm

15. WHAT A LOVELY TWIST OF IRONY

    AUGUST 15--The next well-wisher approaching Cindy Sheehan at her tent encampment outside President George W. Bush's Texas vacation home may actually be a process server. That's because the California woman's husband--in a curious bit of timing--filed for divorce Friday afternoon (below you'll find a copy of Patrick Sheehan's complaint, lodged August 12 in Solano County District Court). With Sheehan, 48, entering a second week outside Bush's Crawford retreat, her husband's divorce petition cites "irreconcilable differences" for the demise of the couple's 28-year marriage (the Sheehans, the document states, have been separated since June 1). Along with a Vacaville home, Patrick Sheehan listed other "community assets" as "any and all benefits payable as a result of son's death," including a Prudential insurance policy and "benefits from the U.S. Government." From her roadside outpost, Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son Casey, an Army Specialist, was killed last year in Iraq, has become the face of the U.S. antiwar movement, telling reporters that she will not budge until Bush meets with her and explains "why our sons are dead." Noting that Bush has referred to the war as a "noble" pursuit, Sheehan told Reuters, "If it's such a noble cause, why aren't his daughters over there?" Patrick Sheehan's lawyer, Glen DeRonde, did not return a TSG call, so it is unclear whether the divorce complaint will be delivered to her in Texas or when she returns to her home east of San Francisco.

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 3:17pm

16. corn dogs?

    Posted by dabar at 08/15/2005 @ 3:18pm

17. ZERO YOU KEEP SHOWING THAT YOUR HANDLE IS NUMERICALLY INDICATIVE OF YOUR INTELLEGENCE LEVEL...KEEP THE SILLY SPEWING UP

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 3:18pm

18. BRING ON THE IMPEACHMENT...I DARE YOU LIBS TO EVEN TRY IT....WE WILL SWAT YOU DOWN LIKE THE NASTY FLIES THAT YOU ALL ARE

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 3:19pm

19. ZERO

    Check my previous posts and you see that I agree with you wholeheartedly.

    Posted by BSF at 08/15/2005 @ 3:32pm

20. ALUDRA,

    Why are you such a jerk? Did a liberal run over your dog or something?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 3:36pm

21. WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE SUCH JERKS????ANSWER ME THAT????

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 3:38pm

22. GRITS....MANNERS ARE AS ALIEN TO YOU AS BEING A TRUE AMERICAN...SO DONT LECTURE ME YOU SILLY PUKE...BESIDES THIS IS NOT YOUR HOUSE

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 3:43pm

23. To Frank Grits:

    Thank you for that remark. There have been some capital distractions on this thread, if I may allude to that sort of thing.

    One need not be a student of Tom DeLay's dirty dealings to recognize that the corruption of Washington is very nearly complete. Occupied by a president and vice president who are oilmen first and statesmen last, a Congress where Republicans and Democrats delay their votes until they have checked their campaign fund-raising receipts and a judiciary that is rapidly being packed with "bought" corporate lawyers such as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, the nation's capital often seems completely beyond redemption.

    This probably is the most corrupt period in US history since the Gilded Age. That was also an unholy alliance of big business (which mostly meant railroads at that time) and crooked politicians of both parties.

    It may very well take a series of grass roots movements to extricate ourselves from this mess. So we may be encouraged with the emergence of organizations like PLAN.

    While the present corruption threatens to overwhelm us with corporate domination of all levels of government, the reaction to this threat opens new opportunities to turn it around and usher in a golden age of grass roots democracy.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/15/2005 @ 3:45pm

24. DREAM ON

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 3:47pm

25. Can I suggest that anyone not interested in Aludra's pointless posts refrain from bothering to engage with him/her. We're currently trying to come up with a better way to keep discussion threads more on point without ever censoring anything based on politics, perspectives, views, etc. But seems to me that for now it's better not waste time and energy debating with people who aren't actually interetsed in having a real debate.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/15/2005 @ 3:48pm

26. MR. ROTHBERG...I SUGGEST YOU SPEND MORE OF YOUR TIME IMPROVING YOUR WRITING SKILLS..MOST AMERICANS DISAGREE WITH THIS LIBERAL CRAPOLLA ON HERE...AND LIKE MOST MARXISTS YOU DONT LIKE HEARING OTHER POINTS OF VIEW...TOO BAD...THIS IS AMERICAN DESPITE HOW YOU LIBS AND YOUR ILK TRY TO CHANGE OUR COUNTRY...

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 3:51pm

27. It escapes me why Nichols lumps Roberts into this conspiracy.

    Is Roberts really all that bad a prospect for the SCOTUS?

    Seems like a decent man to me.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/15/2005 @ 3:52pm

28. "who aren't actually interetsed in having a real debate."

    SPELLING LESSONS ARE IN ORDER AS WELL

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 3:52pm

29. FRANK GRITS & PR,

    I was just having a little fun...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 3:53pm

30. ALUDRA,

    you wrote "WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE SUCH JERKS????ANSWER ME THAT????" as a reply to my question. I will answer your question only if you answer mine.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 3:55pm

31. Jack Rabbit - I agree. I think the only way that any kind of progressive shift can happen at the national levelis if it first happens in a substantial way at the local and state level in a sustained way. Hopefully PLAN can provide some necessary infrastructure to expand grassroots upward. just my 2 cents.

    Posted by gearmonkey at 08/15/2005 @ 3:57pm

32. ROBERTS WILL BE CONFIRMED OVERWHELMINGLY DESPITE YOUR SLIMEY TACTICS...CAN WE SAY NARAL????

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 4:01pm

33. I'd like to see a president, any president, with the guts to tell his Supreme Court nominee to answer any and all questions honestly and completely during the confirmation hearings. Instead of trying to hide as much as possible, it would be refreshing to have the candidates explain as much as possible.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 4:08pm

34. LIKE RUTH BUZZIE GINSBURG HAD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS???SHE DIDNT ANSWER DIDDLY SQUAT....CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME IN MIDSTREAM....SOUNDS LIKE GORE IN 2000 TRYING TO CHANGE THE RULES AND STEAL THE ELECTION...SAME OLD CRAP

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 4:10pm

35. Noone said she did dummy. I'd like to see a President tell his SCOTUS nominee to answer all questions completely during confirmation. If they have something to hide then don't really have any business being there.

    Posted by thejman at 08/15/2005 @ 4:13pm

36. HE IS GETTING IN NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU NUTTY LIBS BALK..GET OVER IT

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 4:14pm

37. To GearMonkey:

    I think the only way that any kind of progressive shift can happen at the national level is if it first happens in a substantial way at the local and state level in a sustained way.

    One would think our conservative friends -- the more cerebral among them, at least -- would buy into that concept. It is a principal of federalism. One of the conservative ideas this progressive finds attractive is that of local control; whether it is in government or private business, largesse becomes distant and inefficient. Let the federal government perform high level functions and let the states and local communities do the nitty gritty.

    That is where we should concentrate. Bush opts of Kyoto, but we can push for local pollution abatement ordinances designed to meet local needs better than the feds can; Congress takes no action on minimum wage, but we can pass a state minimum wage in accordance with the local cost of living.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/15/2005 @ 4:16pm

38. To Mr. Rothberg:

    Thank you for your 3:48pm post. We need to follow the serious debate and ignore those whose only interest seems to be disruption.

    To all:

    If one particular individual is dominating this discussion with obnoxious invective, then that is as much our fault as his. Unless he has something constructive to say, please scroll past his remarks as if they weren't there.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/15/2005 @ 4:23pm

39. LOOK HOW YOU DEAL WITH SOMEONE THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU...SUCH A MARXIST TRAIT FOR SURE

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 4:24pm

40. Sorry, just entertaining myself, but... agreed.

    Posted by thejman at 08/15/2005 @ 4:28pm

41. Jack- Exactly. Kyoto and wages are both great examples because there have already been victories on both of those issues in a number of cities (and states in the case of wages). The Wage issue is, of course, much older than Kyoto, but various enviormental standards have risen from state and local standards. For Example, Los Angles sucessfully pioneered emission standards that bled upward into Auto standards in California, which in turn lead to CAFE. This sort of formula can certainly work for a variety of issues being ignored or dragged in the wrong direction in Washington.

    Posted by gearmonkey at 08/15/2005 @ 4:29pm

42. Aludra...

    First: if you want to compare personalities, lets talk about a certain Texas Governor smoking pot, snorting coke, publically drunken and pissing off the mansion balcony in plain sight...not to mention the whole national guard fiasco. He ain't no saint by any stretch. Ok, so he won the election *THIS TIME* ...big deal. With the lowest satisfaction numbers in 50 years, he ain't making any friends.

    Second...regading liberal "antigrowth" . Let me ask you, is constant growth needed and/or necessary? There is much to be said for the steady state economy theory. If you look into the mathematical basis for economic growth, as use of physical resources declines towards zero, the equation breaks down (as one cannot have a zero in the divisor place...basic microeconomics)

    Third, try a spellchecker once in a while

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/15/2005 @ 4:37pm

43. "Second...regading liberal "antigrowth" . Let me ask you, is constant growth needed and/or necessary? "

    YES ABSOLUTELY...THIS IS NOT THE SOVIET UNION

    "There is much to be said for the steady state economy theory"

    THERES ONLY ONE THING THAT CAN BE SAID OF THAT...IT DOES NOT WORK...PLEASE POINT OUT 1 SOCIALITIC COUNTRY THAT IS A SUCCESS???

    CASE CLOSED

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 4:40pm

44. ZERO: When I say Roberts is a decent man, I say so based on all aspects I've learned about him in whole. I don't automatically fall in line because of who appointed him.

    He's not perfect, but he's far from the right wing zealot that alot of the pundits are saying he is.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/15/2005 @ 4:44pm

45. I think it's pretty much a given that Roberts will be confirmed. The press is really trying to dig up dirt (e.g. adoption records), but to no avail.

    Neither party, infortunately, has a good idea of how he will turn out. His clerking for Rehnquist is encouraging (to me, certainly NOT to libs), but there isn't enough of a paper trail to ensure that he won't turn out to be another Souter or Kennedy. It's painful to watch the media scrounge his record for objectionable rulings.

    I'm hoping Bush has the chance to appoint at least another -- and maybe 2 -- justices before the end of his term. Fingers crossed...

    Posted by Beausoleil at 08/15/2005 @ 4:49pm

46. To GearMonkey:

    Yes, but bear in mind that once it gets up to the federal level, all the feds can do in mandate certain minimum standards.

    The standards for one locale don't necessarily fit the next. I live in California, and I'm always amazed at where I see the poverty line drawn. Maybe that income level is just poverty in Missouri, but in the Bay Area it's homelessness.

    TO Frank Grits:

    Yes, the media is a big problem. However, I might suggest doing what I did: Kill your television. I used to say TV was good for news, sports and public broadcasting, but little of that applies any more. News, both local and national, is dedicated to disinforming the public, baseball players don't perform with the intensity they once did and PBS is being taken over by political hacks for the Bushies.

    The problem, of course, is that the media is in fewer and more homogenous hands than ever. One fast way to lose credibility in a discussion is to just talk about the "librul media". If we can keep corporate hands off the Internet, we should be OK.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/15/2005 @ 4:50pm

47. Uh,

    I meant "unfortunately"...forgot to proofread.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 08/15/2005 @ 4:51pm

48. YES I SAY LETS NOMINATE BORK & JANICE RODGERS BROWN...THAT SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THINGS QUITE NICELY

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 4:51pm

49. Since there is a discussion now about keeping the threads more on topic, I would like to make a suggestion. Townhall.com, a conservative website, offers what it calls "soapboxes" to its readers. Anyone who establishes a profile can enter soapboxes, which are basically blogs where other readers can comment. "The Nation" might want to establish criteria such as limiting a person to a blog per week or whatever. Then the person who creates the blog or "soapbox" can actively moderate the discussion and keep people on topic. Anyway, this is just a start. But it seems there are a number of serious people who are always out here who can create some interesting blogs and have the time to moderate and keep the discussion on topic.

    Posted by RonS at 08/15/2005 @ 4:52pm

50. Freiheit,

    First, try as you might, you didn't manage to fool anybody with your refusal to make that promise. Italicizing the promise words was simply citing what I'd written. And, uh, if you don't think Gore would have been adamant about fighting terrorists, then you must have blinders on in light of the praise counterterrorism csar Richard Clarke heaped upon the Clinton administration and not the Bush administration in addressing and carrying out counterterrorism.

    Oh, and...

    Remember how John "made" his MILLIONS?

    Why, yes: representing victims of corporate malfeasance, including a 4-year-old girl whose intestines were sucked out through a drain in a kiddie pool because the drain's manufacturer didn't want to spring for a two-cent-more screw that would have corrected a problem he already knew about. But we all know the hypocrisy of Republicans on trial lawyers: they rail against them in blind alligience to Big Bidness; yet, golly gee, when all of a sudden they become a victim of BB or get hit by a car, what's the first thing they do -- that's right, call a lawyer! It's quite telling that you despise how Edwards made his millions yet don't seem to take exception to Cheney while at Halliburton having had the company's foreign subsidiaries doing Big Bidness with terrorist-supporting countries like Iran, Libya, and Syria (which Edwards rightly called him on during the V.P debate, which, of course, Cheney had no defense to except his patent "I don't know what you're talking about" -- right on par with the insurgency being in its "last throes", huh?). I proudly voted for Edwards in the Democratic primary, and I'm still deeply saddened that didn't win the nomination.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 5:13pm

51. Freiheit,

    Thanks for the tolerance you and administrators of this blog display. The next time I'm with anyone who claims the left shuts out opposing viewpoints (happens a lot), I will always be able to point out The Nation's blog as an example they're wrong.

    What he wrote was clearly directed at the all-caps/all-rhetoric-no-substance Aludra. So his beef isn't with a Republican particiapting in this blog, but with one who acts like a spoiled, rabid child every two seconds.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 5:17pm

52. then you must have blinders on in light of the praise counterterrorism csar Richard Clarke heaped upon the Clinton administration"

    YEAH R. CLARKE WAS HEAPING A LOAD OF HORSESH*T. HE IS A KNOWN LIAR AND HAS SOME EXPLAINING TO DO ABOUT WHY HE DID NOTHING ABOUT ATTA AND HIS ASSHOLE BARBARIAN BUDDIES WHEN HE KNEW THEY WERE HERE A WHOLE YEAR BEFORE 9/11. AS FAR AS GORE IS CONCERNED...WE STILL WOULD HAVE NOT GONE TO AFGANISTAN YET. GORE IS A COMPLETE LOSRE

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 5:18pm

53. "but with one who acts like a spoiled, rabid child every two seconds"

    JUST GIVING BACK SOME OF YOUR OWN MEDICINE...DONT LIKE IT MUCH DO YOU SORRY LIBS

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 5:19pm

54. " I proudly voted for Edwards in the Democratic primary, and I'm still deeply saddened that didn't win the nomination."

    THE BRECK GIRL WAS NOTHING BUT A SLIP & FALL LAWYER. SILKY PONY COULD NOT EVEN WIN HIS OWN STATE...SO MUCH FOR YOUR ADMIRATION

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 5:21pm

55. Edwards not winning back a Republican-majority state is not too much of a surprise, but, I must say, Cheney not managing to win even his own home county -- that of Teton in Wyoming, which four out of the last six years has been the richest-income county in the nation -- even when he won every other county in Wyoming is quite an (un)accomplishment.

    And if Clarke was so incompetent, then why did flip-flopping Bush keep him on as counterterrorism csar. Why, then, did Rice and Cheney make him the point man after 9/11 went down (thus making Cheney's later statement that he was "out of the loop" quite a ludicrous statement being that, as one writer noted, Clarke was the loop)? Why did Clarke, a lifelong Republican who opposed the Kyoto Treaty, give Clinton higher marks on counterterrorism than Democrat Clinton? You won't find valid answers for these on Limbaugh, rest assured.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 5:29pm

56. Correction: In my above post, I meant to write:

    "Why did Clarke, a lifelong Republican who opposed the Kyoto Treaty, give Democrat Clinton higher marks on counterterrorism than Republican Bush?"

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 5:30pm

57. "Why did Clarke, a lifelong Republican"

    WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING???PASTE ME EVIDENCE HE WAS A LIFELONG REPUBLICAN...YOU CANT..ISNT IT KINDA ILLOGICAL CLINTON WOULD APPOINT A LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN...JUST MORE LIBERAL NUTTINESS BESIDES BUSH ALSO KEPT ON THE FBI DIRECTOR AFTER 9/11.SINCE OUR COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED BUSH FELT THE NEED NOT TO ROCK THE BOAT AT THE TIME...THATS ALL THERE WAS TO IT

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 5:33pm

58. "heney not managing to win even his own home county -- that of Teton in Wyoming, which four out of the last six years has been the richest-income county in the nation -- even when he won every other county in Wyoming is quite an (un)accomplishment."

    DID CHENEY WIN HIS STATE...DID SILKY PONY LOSE HIS STATE.... CASE CLOSED

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 5:35pm

59. I think the only way that any kind of progressive shift can happen at the national level is if it first happens in a substantial way at the local and state level in a sustained way.

    One would think our conservative friends -- the more cerebral among them, at least -- would buy into that concept. It is a principal of federalism. One of the conservative ideas this progressive finds attractive is that of local control; whether it is in government or private business, largesse becomes distant and inefficient. Let the federal government perform high level functions and let the states and local communities do the nitty gritty.

    That is where we should concentrate. Bush opts of Kyoto, but we can push for local pollution abatement ordinances designed to meet local needs better than the feds can; Congress takes no action on minimum wage, but we can pass a state minimum wage in accordance with the local cost of living.

    Posted by JACK RABBIT 08/15/2005 @ 4:16pm

    JR; As one who leans towards a libertarian conservative approach, or as I usually refer to it, a strict constitutionalist approach, I agree with much of your response, even if I disagree with your goals.

    I live in the Socialist Republic of California and indeed they usually go far beyond the loftiest dreams of liberals in Congress in conjuring up new obstacles to creating a business environment and job creation. We even have Marxist cities like Santa Monica, Berkely, Santa Cruz, and soon with Comrade Villaragoso, we will have the Socialist Republic of Northern Mexico (not racist, but just his ties with Mecha who still proclaim retaking California for Mexico).

    Other than brief periods of sanity, the voters in California continuous vote against their own interests for the latest socialist agenda.

    Who knows, your approach may well succeed. In the meantime, my family has purchased retirement property outside of the US where there remains a better long term prospect of individual freedom.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/15/2005 @ 5:44pm

60. Hopefully state-based plans will have an effect because it is quite clear that the DC interests lie mainly in the pockets of big business. Not that there is anything wrong with business or success for that matter. However, success for the top of the economic food chain at the expense of all those below is not a tenable position.

    Sure, things like environmental regulation, recycling, fair wages, affordable medical care (and other leftist nut concepts) are expenses. Expenses that tend to drive our profits down and and makes outsourcing so attractive. However, our other option is to ignore all that and do without affordable health care, attempt to circumvent things like time-and-half, and pour wastes into the environment with little concern. Oooops....I guess that IS what we're doing.

    Here's a thought....howzabout we do away with like 1/2 of the overpaid CEOs and mid-level money-wasting VPs of this and that, and become more competitive by being less top-heavy? Trickle-down econmics didn't work with Reagan and it isn't working with Dubya either. Rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/15/2005 @ 6:00pm

61. WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING???

    Ask Bush what he was snorting in the '70s.

    PASTE ME EVIDENCE HE WAS A LIFELONG REPUBLICAN...YOU CANT

    Read Clarke's book. And if you hack voting databases, check those records. And here's invaluable reading:

    http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685

    ..ISNT IT KINDA ILLOGICAL CLINTON WOULD APPOINT A LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN...

    He was a Reagan appointee. He also worked for Bush, Sr. Look. It. Up.

    JUST MORE LIBERAL NUTTINESS BESIDES BUSH ALSO KEPT ON THE FBI DIRECTOR AFTER 9/11.

    Hmmm, he didn't keep on him before. In fact, Ashcroft turned down the FBI's request for more counterterrorism funds the day before 9/11. And Dale Watson, FBI deputy director, told the 9/11 Commission that he "almost fell out of his chair" when, before 9/11, the Bush administration had not placed counterterrorism in its top budget priorities.

    SINCE OUR COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED BUSH FELT THE NEED NOT TO ROCK THE BOAT AT THE TIME

    Oh yes, the biggest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and Bush decided not to "rock the boat" by having an incompetent be point man. Sheesh, please say those children of yours aren't home-schooled.

    THATS ALL THERE WAS TO IT

    When you're talking in front of a mirror, I'm not surprised.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 6:04pm

62. GOOD GRIEF WHAT SILLY ARGUEMENTS YOU POST

    POSTING ARTICALS FROM SLATE DOES NOT SHOW EVIDENCE..ITS A LEFTWING RAG

    SO ITS ASHCROFTS FAULT BECAUSE HE TURNED DOWN FUNDS THE DAY BEFORE...ARE YOU KIDDING...THATS AN EXCUSE FOR CLARKE OR CLINTON NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT ATTA...WHEN THIS SH*T HITS THE FAN...YOU ARE GOING TO LOOK EVEN MORE STUPID THAN YOU DO NOW...I CAN HARDLY WAIT

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 6:11pm

63. You assign a lot of crap to me, Kevin, not deserved. I don't "despise how Edwards made his millions."

    Oh, please. You wrote above:

    Remember how John "made" his MILLIONS?

    Gee, look what word you put emphasis on there? For what purprose, I wonder? Uh, maybe to imply that he hadn't really made -- as in rightfully earned -- those millions?

    You assign a lot of crap to me, Kevin, not deserved.

    It is deserved, because a majority of the time you don't bother to back your statements up and deride other people's statements without backing it up. Playing the victim doesn't become you.

    And, I think he is most generous with other people's money (taxes).

    Then you must love him as much as you do Bush, who is most generous with corporate welfare with other people's money (taxes)and who hasn't vetoed a single spending bill since taking office.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 6:14pm

64. " by having an incompetent be point man"

    UH....EXCUSE ME WHO APPOINTED THE FBI DIRECTOR Again...the same man that let 9/11 happen by his neglect.....b.j. clinton

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 6:15pm

65. Kevin Collins wrote: Edwards not winning back a Republican-majority state is not too much of a surprise, but, I must say, Cheney not managing to win even his own home county -- that of Teton in Wyoming, which four out of the last six years has been the richest-income county in the nation -- even when he won every other county in Wyoming is quite an (un)accomplishment.

    Kevin,

    It seems we must always do a fact check on you. To correct your missinformation:

    1.Teton is not the home town county of Cheney, his hometown is in Casper in the county of Natrona which the Bush/Cheney ticket carried by a better than 2-1 margin (as they did the entire state)

    from Cheney's nominating acceptance speechCBS) Following is the text of the speech by Republican vice presidential nominee Dick Cheney to the GOP convention:

    Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored by your nomination, and I accept it. I thank you for giving such a warm welcome to Lynne and me and our family.

    And, my friends in the Wyoming delegation, I especially want to thank you for your support. The first campaign stop that Lynne and I were privileged to make with Governor and Laura Bush was in Casper, Wyoming ... our home town, where Lynne and I graduated from high school 41 years ago. The love and support and enthusiasm of the people of our home state, have buoyed our spirits and strengthened our resolve.

    2.Teton county did indeed go to Kerry and it was the only county in Wyoming that Kerry did win by a margin of 848 votes.

    3. It is the richest county primarily because of Jackson Hole which is one of the favorite vacation home areas for wealthy Democrats including a number of Hollywood elites. It is considered to have a different lifestyle and political attitude than the rest of the state.

    Once more you have attempted to titillate liberals and try to confuse and demoralize conservatives with some written sleight of hand. It's not working as long as I am around.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/15/2005 @ 6:16pm

66. Oh, and do you and the other 42 people silly enough to think John Edwards could manage the free world ever get together for barbeques?

    No, but I wish we did, for it'd be great company to have -- certainly better than doing-Big-Bidness-with-terrorist-nations Cheney.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 6:16pm

67. SILKY PONY IS A COMPLETE JOKE. HE NEVER HAD A CHANCE...A LIGHTWEIGHT AT BEST...

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 6:18pm

68. As a sideline to Feiheit's comment on Edwards and health care....

    There is much to be said for a single-payer system. Canada and a number of more civilized European nations have socialized medicine and it tends to work pretty well. Sure, not perfect, but the delivery system is much better overall. In our nation the sad fact is that too much money is involved in the insurance industry.

    Healthcare for profit can't work. Not when treating you as little as possible will increase the bottom line. Drug costs out of control, etc. etc.

    Would Edwards have been a good President? Hmm...mighta been preferable to being "Bush-whacked"

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/15/2005 @ 6:18pm

69. UH....EXCUSE ME WHO APPOINTED THE FBI DIRECTOR

    You mean the one who was turned down for more counterterrorism funds the day before 9/11?

    Again...the same man that let 9/11 happen by his neglect.....b.j. clinton

    So Clinton was in office on 9/11 and who the 9/11 Commission found to have made 6 major mistakes in dealing with al Qaeda. Oh, that's right -- it was flip-flopping Bush!

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 6:19pm

70. "Canada and a number of more civilized European nations have socialized medicine and it tends to work pretty well"

    I have a Canadian friend whos daughter had a tumor and had to come to the good ole USA for surgery because he would have to wait too long for anything in canada. So thier healthcare is a joke and should never ever be transplanted here in the US

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 6:20pm

71. ADDRESS THE FACT CLINTON DID NOTHING FOR 8 YEARS WHEN HE HAD PLENTY OF CHANCES TO FIGHT BACK..HE WAS TOO OCCUPIED. WHEN THIS ATTA STORY COMES OUT IN A MAJOR WAY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL SEE WHAT WEAKLINGS YOU LIBS ARE AND WHY YOUR GUY LET 9/11 HAPPEN BY HIS NEGLECT...ITS NOT GONNA BE PRETTY EITHER

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 6:23pm

72. Blessed as I am with a degree in Economics, 12 college courses that were a complete waste of time, I can offer you my one thought on judging the worthiness of "socialist lite" issues such as minimum wage, living wage and outsourcing: that is, don't look to economists to provide a clear, objective explanation for these things. If you want to think of them as myths, you can easily find an economic argument, full of graphs and well-phrased conclusions that will satisfy you. If you want to think that they are the most fundamental issues of the day, perhaps even reaching the status of crisis, you will have just as easy a time finding data to support you.

    It's all ideology. The single worst paper I ever composed tackled minimum wage. I wrote the paper then read it over and was full of questions and doubts. I rewrote it, taking the other side, and came no closer to an airtight conclusion.

    It all comes down to what you want to believe, similar in many ways to how we choose a religion. Do we want to believe that God keeps track of our mistakes and expects an apology, else the hellfire--then I bring to you the Southern Baptists. If you want to believe that it's all good, that if we just relax, man, and give in to the oneness of the universe, well, you can find your religion, too. If you want to believe that the American Dream means that you deal with whatever you are born with and that it is up to you to make your way up the ladder of success, then you can follow one economic mode of thought. For those of us who think that all are created equal but are born into vastly unequal circumstances and, therefore, a little bit of sharing from those with more than the average share is a good thing, we are pretty much left to huddle on this website, hoping that more will come to our way of thinking. I think that PLAN is a very exciting project. At the least it makes think more highly of Montana.

    LL, there are plenty of places outside of California and within the borders of this country that will welcome your family as members of theirs.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/15/2005 @ 6:25pm

73. 1.Teton is not the home town county of Cheney, his hometown is in Casper in the county of Natrona which the Bush/Cheney ticket carried by a better than 2-1 margin (as they did the entire state)

    Don't start waving that victory flag yet. When I wrote hometown, I meant the town where he currently makes his home, and that is indeed Teton:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-04-17-wyoming_x.htm

    Teton county did indeed go to Kerry and it was the only county in Wyoming that Kerry did win by a margin of 848 votes.

    Yes, I made clear it was the only county in Wyoming that went to Kerry. Uh, what fact was wrong with this?

    3. It is the richest county primarily because of Jackson Hole which is one of the favorite vacation home areas for wealthy Democrats including a number of Hollywood elites. It is considered to have a different lifestyle and political attitude than the rest of the state.

    Again, where have you disproven a fact that it's been the richest county in the nation for four of the last six years?

    Batting 0 for 3 here, LL. Maybe next time.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 6:25pm

74. KEVIN WHAT IS YOUR POINT????KERRY CARRIED THE COUNTY I LIVE IN BUT HE GOT HIS ASS HANDED TO HIM STATEWIDE...BIG FRICKIN DEAL...WHO IS IN OFFICE NOW...A WIN IS A WIN NO MATTER HOW YOU LIBS SPIN IT

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 6:27pm

75. ADDRESS THE FACT CLINTON DID NOTHING FOR 8 YEARS WHEN HE HAD PLENTY OF CHANCES TO FIGHT BACK..

    Oh, yes: bombing al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, tripling the counterterrorism budget, foiling numerous terrorism plots, and receiving high marks on counterterrorism from even two of Reagan's ex-security officials is "doing nothing". (sighs)

    THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL SEE WHAT WEAKLINGS YOU LIBS ARE AND WHY YOUR GUY LET 9/11 HAPPEN BY HIS NEGLECT...ITS NOT GONNA BE PRETTY EITHER

    Well, it wasn't pretty when 9/11 went down, after the Bush administration refused to raise counterterrorism funding, who didn't see al Qaeda as an "urgent" problem, and whose watch America was under when the biggest terrorist attack on U.S. soil happened. Deal with it.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 6:30pm

76. DEAL WITH THIS NITWIT....9/11 HAPPENED BECAUSE OF CLINTONS NEGLECT...SINCE BUSH HAS BEEN IN OFFICE...WE HAVE NOT BEEN HIT SINCE 9/11...DEAL WITH THAT

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 6:32pm

77. Please don't cloud the issue, Freiheit: I simply made clear that I prefer Edwards to doing-Big-Bidness-with-terrorist-nations Cheney. You, apparently, don't. We've all got our preferences, man.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 6:33pm

78. "Oh, yes: bombing al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan"

    THE CRUISE MISSLES MISSED..REMEMBER????EXCEPT IN SUDAN IT HIT AN ASPRIN FACTORY.BIN LADEN LAUGHED AT CLINTONS HALF ASSED ATTEMPT...IF THATS WHAT YOU CONSIDER FIGHTING TERROR...THANK GOD YOU LIBS DONT RUN ANYTHING ANYMORE...

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 6:34pm

79. HEY KEVIN....STEALING THE WIFI SIGNAL AGAIN....

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 6:34pm

80. DEAL WITH THIS NITWIT....9/11 HAPPENED BECAUSE OF CLINTONS NEGLECT

    That'll be news to the 9/11 Commission, which found Clinton made 4 big mistakes in dealing with al Qaeda and Bush 6 mistakes in dealing with al Qaeda before 9/11.

    ...SINCE BUSH HAS BEEN IN OFFICE...WE HAVE NOT BEEN HIT SINCE 9/11...DEAL WITH THAT

    Deal with this: While Clinton was in office for 8 years, we weren't hit since the WTC bombing that happened a mere 38 days after he took office, as opposed to the 8 months after Bush took office before 9/11. Plus, Bush hasn't put in his full 8 yet, thus giving Clinton the better overall record thus far.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 6:37pm

81. HEY NITWIT EVER HEARD OF THE COLE BOMBING????I COULD NAME 12 OTHER HITS...MAN BETTER GET SOME OF YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 6:38pm

82. No, Aludra, they "all" didn't miss, and the ones that didn't miss didn't just hit an aspirin factory. Care to stake yours and your family's life on your claim? How about a Bible promise?

    I didn't think so.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 6:39pm

83. MAN YOUR ARE GETTING SILLY...I GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN TO DEAL WITH TRYING TO EDUCATE YOU...SAD

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 6:40pm

84. HEY NITWIT EVER HEARD OF THE COLE BOMBING????

    Don't know if I heard about it, but I certainly read about it in the paper.

    MAN BETTER GET SOME OF YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT

    Hmmmm, where did I write that the Cole incident didn't happen or didn't happen under Clinton's watch. Better go find where I did, or someone here's liable to think you're being a full-blown liar here -- just like your flip-flopping little boy king has been and continues to be regarding Iraq.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 6:41pm

85. The Uranium Joe Wilson Didn't Mention

    By April 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had stockpiled 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant south of Baghdad.

    That intriguing little detail is almost never mentioned by the big media, who prefer to chant the mantra "Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction" while echoing Joseph Wilson's claim that "Bush lied" about Iraq seeking more of the nuclear material in Niger.

    Story Continues Below

    The media's decision to put the Wilson-Plame affair back on the front burner, however, may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for President Bush - giving his administration a chance to resurrect an important debate they conceded far too easily about the weapons of mass destruction threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

    First, the facts - from a reliable critic of the White House, the New York Times, which covered the story long after the paper announced it was tightening its standards on WMD news out of Iraq.

    "The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq," the paper announced in a little-noticed May 2004 report.

    "The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium," the paper revealed, before insisting: "None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."

    Well, almost none.

    The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found "some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."

    The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."

    Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

    And Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that the low-enriched uranium could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.

    "A country like Iran could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium," he explained.

    Luckily, Iraq didn't have even the small number of centrifuges necessary to get the job done.

    Or did it?

    The physicist tapped by Saddam to run his centrifuge program says that after the first Gulf War, the program was largely dismantled. But it wasn't destroyed.

    In fact, according to what he wrote in his 2004 book, "The Bomb in My Garden," Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: "Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003."

    "I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he revealed.

    And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq's nuke program at a moment's notice.

    Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home.

    "I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," he explained. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions.

    "The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," Dr. Obeidi says in his book. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."

    Consider: 500 tons of yellowcake stored at Saddam's old nuclear weapons plant, where he'd managed to partially enrich 1.8 tons. And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator's disposal.

    If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago - in President Bush's favor.

    One more detail that Mr. Wilson and his media backers don't like to discuss: There's a reason Niger was such a likely candidate for Saddam's uranium shopping spree.

    Responding to the firestorm that erupted after Wilson's July 2003 column, Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters:

    "In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger."

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 6:42pm

86. I GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN TO DEAL WITH TRYING TO EDUCATE YOU

    Translation: I can't dispute any of Kevin's facts, so I'll just huff and puff and go distribute some more anti-gay-marriage pamphlets in the neighborhood.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 6:43pm

87. "Hmmmm, where did I write that the Cole incident didn't happen or didn't happen under Clinton's watch"

    "Deal with this: While Clinton was in office for 8 years, we weren't hit since the WTC bombing"

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 6:44pm

88. "Hmmmm, where did I write that the Cole incident didn't happen or didn't happen under Clinton's watch"

    "Deal with this: While Clinton was in office for 8 years, we weren't hit since the WTC bombing"

    That's right. Since the WTC bombing, America was not hit here again for the remainder of Clinton's terms. Of course, this is something that Limbaugh and Hannity always fail to mention.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 7:01pm

89. OH MAN YOU ARE SOOOO DELUSIONAL ITS FRIGHTENING THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT ACTUALLY THINK LIKE YOU...... SCAREY

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 7:04pm

90. And everyone, please, stop with the monday morning quarterbacking on which administration was responsible for 9/11. Enough with the hindsight!

    Islamic Fundamentalism was responsible for 9/11.

    Yes, Freiheit. And I don't purport to aver that the Clinton administration was blameless in its dealings with al Qaeda; the 9/11 Commission found he made 4 major errors in this area. I have merely cited what I have to disprove the asinine it's-all-Clinton's-fault load of bull.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 7:05pm

91. SCAREY

    Have you been taking spelling tips from George "Is Our Children Learning" Bush?

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 7:06pm

92. "Have you been taking spelling tips from George "Is Our Children Learning" Bush"

    "to aver that"

    NO JUST YOU

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 7:10pm

93. OH MY GOD THE SILLY NITWIT IS BACK.....

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 7:11pm

94. Kevin, let's again put some perspective with a little factual presentation in short enough snippets so as to be digestable and not take up lengthy scrolling room. Here is the testimony first by former FBI Director Freeh:

    FREEH: With very limited resources, the FBI, as you know, before September 11, had 3.5 percent of the federal government's anti- terrorism budget. And it's no news to anybody that for many, many years, as your executive director recounted, the resource issue and the legal authority issue certainly limited what we were able to do before September 11th. In the budget years 2000, 2001, 2002, we asked for 1,895 people: agents, linguists, analysts. We got a total of 76 people during that period. That's not to criticize the Congress, it's not to criticize the Department of Justice, it is to focus on the fact that that was not a national priority. It's to repeat what we saw in the 2000 presidential election. Terrorism was not discussed. This was not an issue that candidates talked about, that the American people talked about during that period. And this was right after the attack on the USS Cole. For many, many years, a lack of these resources and, maybe more importantly, a lack of legal authority, prevented us from doing what was easily done after September 11th. The Patriot Act, the November 18, 2002 decision by the court of review, which threw out a 20-year interpretation of the FISA statue. The court said to the judges, to the Department of Justice, to the FBI, to the intelligence community, You've been misreading the statute for 20 years. Not only does the Patriot Act provide for this, but the actual statute provides for that. So this wall that had been erected was a self-erected wall by the United States government, confirmed by interpretations, by the FISA court.

    FREEH: But when challenged for the first time in 20 years, it was found by the court of review to be inconsistent with the statute, as well as inconsistent with the Constitution. All of these things being said, the point I guess I want to make to you this morning and which I tried to make in my statement, is that we had a very effective program with respect to counterterrorism before September 11th given the resources in my view and given the authorities that we had. Bin Laden was indicted in June of 1998. He was indicted again after the African bombings. He was put on our top 10 list. George Tenet and I reviewed plans to have him arrested and taken into custody in Afghanistan and brought back to the United States. I went over to see then-Chief Executive Musharraf in 2002 and made the case for him that this person be thrown out of Afghanistan; that he help us take him into custody so we could bring him back to the United States. All of the other things that were being done were being done in a limited framework, given, again, lack of resources and, maybe more importantly, the legal authorities that we had to live with.

    So, the Clinton Admin made no priority for Dir Freeh's request for more agents, and while admittedly Bush did not make fighting terrorism a priority during the 2004 election campaign, Al Gore also made NO mention of terrorism during the campaign; and the media didn't ask about it.

    Please note Dir Freeh's comments about the helpfulness of the Patriot Act in this regard.

    more from Dir Freeh coming up.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/15/2005 @ 7:12pm

95. "Likewise, why is that over the past few years of "recovery" from recession that the government has been at first the primary and then major source of job creation"

    UTTERLY UNTRU..THE ECONMY REBOUNDE BECAUSE OF BUSHES TAX CUTS PERIOD

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 7:18pm

96. Determining such a thing as a minimum or living wage is, of course, arbitrary. To be honest, I'm too lazy to look up right now what current levels or proposals are for these numbers. I suspect that they are not at levels at which most of us would feel comfortable assuming. I live in a red state that had no problem passing for a statewide increase in the minimum wage. We'll see how the economy in the state proceeds from here but I suspect we'll not notice an increase in layoffs or businesses fleeing to neighboring states--the costs just aren't that high.

    While I confess to being envious of the incomes of a Gates or a Tiger, I don't think that higher taxes on their income and/or wealth comes out of envy or ignorance. It comes, from my part, on the sense that the American economy (and overall life experience) is a shared one. Obviously if more people had the ingenuity of Gates or the skill of Tiger, then they too would be living the good life. But the economy depends on the industrial output of all of us and the market tends not to play as fairly as the libertarians among us contend. The market does not exist in a vacuum; it is created by us and those among us what's got the most invested are going to get the most out of it. That's fair, but only if you believe that there is truly not a different set of obstacles in life between someone like our President and someone like me (neither parent went to college and father worked in the same blue-collar factory for over 40 years). Could I be President and be a millionaire? It's possible. But it's a heck of a lot easier when you are born rich and spend your thirties with your father as the Veep.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/15/2005 @ 7:19pm

97. ""Jobless Recovery" of 01-04"

    THAT IS A LIB MSM TERM...NOT ACTUAL FACT

    Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 7:23pm

98. "to aver that"

    NO JUST YOU

    http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=aver&x=13&y=13

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 7:23pm

99. I have no direct experience with Canada's form of national health care, but (and I hesitate to say this) I have heard from reliable people that Canada's delivery of health care can be dangerously slow. I hate our current system--I've had a number of health issues recently with doctors ordering this test and then that, only to find out that my insurer (who approved my doctor) isn't as sure as he is that the tests were necessary. This sucks and I can barely afford the charges, but at least the tests were done in a timely basis.

    Does anyone have evidence, beyond its financial efficiency, of Canada's health systeme being more medically efficient?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/15/2005 @ 7:25pm

100. More testimony

     FIELDING: Let me switch gears for a second. In September of 1999, the GAO issued a report that recommended that the FBI develop a national-level terrorist threat and risk assessment so it could be used to determine how to allocate resources and budget and dealing with domestic threats, plus analyzing the likelihood of such a threat and to identify any potential intelligence gaps -- I believe was part of the charter. And it was my understanding that the department and you agreed to do that. And that's September -- the end of '99. And that wasn't completed until January of 2003. And when we were talking to people that were involved in that, a senior CIA official that was detailed to the FBI after 9/11 told the commission that the assessment was completed actually by CIA analysts that had in detail to the FBI, since the FBI analysts were not capable of producing such a product. Now, I'd like your comment on that. And even the deeper question of was the FBI unwilling to do an analysis, or was it unable to do an analysis from '99 at least until you left?

     FREEH: Well, I don't think it was incapable of doing that. In fact, there were analyses that were made with respect to assessments, which were done in the context of the Counterterrorism Division, which was set up at about the same time.

     FREEH: Did we have a deficiency with respect to analytical capability? Absolutely. I talked about that at appropriation hearings over many years. Most of the nonagent resources in our three-year request for 1,895 people were analysts. They were people who could perform strategic, as opposed to tactical, analysis for us and give us the type of strategy plans and disruption plans that we began to see actually in the spring and summer of 2001 in the FBI with respect to Al Qaida. But that capability was not there when I was director. You know, we're in the process now of hiring 900 analysts, but that's 2004. It doesn't cover the gaps over many, many years, particularly the years that you cite

     Posted by love liberty at 08/15/2005 @ 7:29pm

101. "I've had a number of health issues recently with doctors ordering this test and then that, only to find out that my insurer (who approved my doctor) isn't as sure as he is that the tests were necessary. This sucks and I can barely afford the charges, but at least the tests were done in a timely basis"

     TJ...I am truly sorry to hear of your health issues. Of course doctors in the usa would not have to perform DEFENSIVE medicine if the "Slip&Fall" lawyers were not so eager to sue over anything & everything...that is our biggest problem at this point...Thats why Silky Pony would have been a disaster for this country if he were elected.

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 7:29pm

102. You're being a saint, Zero. A virtual Annie Sullivan.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/15/2005 @ 7:30pm

103. I'm sorry, Aludra. I reread my post and it did sound pathetic--I wasn't trying to sound that way, but I appreciate your sympathy.

     Malpractice is an issue that is far too complicated for me, bringing together doctors, lawyers, and insurers in one little room just gives me the creeps. But safe to say, I will always find the insurers the creepiest.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/15/2005 @ 7:33pm

104. "Does "living longer" between two otherwise similar countries that have very different health care systems seem to offer evidence in favor of one of those systems"

     Not anymore than the diiference in the lifespans of Japan or china populations

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 7:36pm

105. So, the Clinton Admin made no priority for Dir Freeh's request for more agentsand while admittedly Bush did not make fighting terrorism a priority during the 2004 election campaign, Al Gore also made NO mention of terrorism during the campaign; and the media didn't ask about it.

     OK, so Clinton and Bush both made mistakes in the area of counterterrorism, Gore didn't make mention of terrorism during his campaign -- but, then, neither did Bush during 2000. So, uh, what exactly do you think you're taking me to task over here? I never gave Clinton or Gore a clean slate of terrorist-thwarting health, which is quite the opposite of toe-the-line Bushies who swear that their little boy king hasn't made so much as a single solitary individual mistake in this area.

     Please note Dir Freeh's comments about the helpfulness of the Patriot Act in this regard.

     Yes, I did. And I've never written anything taking the Patriot Act to task in these blogs, have I?

     more from Dir Freeh coming up.

     And I'll throw in some Richard Clarke and others.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 7:36pm

106. " I never gave Clinton or Gore a clean slate of terrorist-thwarting health"

     How could you and keep a straight face???

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 7:37pm

107. Actually, I think there was about 200000 jobs added in june.

     Old news though.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 7:43pm

108. ZERO...while what you state is true...I have quite a few Canadian friends and they all bitch about health care there..Granted we complain here too...our problems are solvable if we can get the lawyers out of the equation....its a strange fact that health care costs started to rise thru the roof as soon as lawyers were allowed to adverstise on TV. Just a thought

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 7:45pm

109. " In this manner, you succeed in eliminating all productive use of the web site and make yourself hugely unwelcome."

     You see ZERO...I tried to respond to you in a civil manner and you still insult...there in no winning with you or your LIB friends....you must be fun to talk to at the dinner table

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 7:47pm

110. Well I think I can paste about 30 rants of hatred coming from you alone that are not even directed at me...so it would be nice if you would lead by example

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 7:50pm

111. The problem with the PLAN appears to me to be that it is already in the pocket of big business.

     I speak of course about the major labor unions involvement.

     They probably joined in more to tie the hands of the PLANners than anything.

     The problem is, all they bring is money. The "UnionVote" hasn't voted along the lines of their masters for quite a while, and in most areas isn't big enough to matter much anyway.

     I do hope they dont get around to PLANning things for Wisconsin, because we have enough troubles here, already.

     Where these people could help, and I might even support them, is with the financial interests behind the rule making bodies that interpret the legislation.

     Things like lending laws, how billsa are collected and how you resolve disputes with credit card companies.

     How the EPA regulations are interpreted.

     (For example, I need to pay $300 for some mechanic to put a can of R134a into my air conditioner of my car, but 80 miles away in Illinois, you can buy it yourself.)

     The financial interests that got this into wisconsin "law" are powerful. If these boys PLAN to oppose them, that would be wonderful.

     But if they are in the pockets of the unions, then they won't do that. Just work hard to drive businesses overseas. (The effect of big labor on big corporations)

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 7:53pm

112. Hmmm, he didn't keep on him before. In fact, Ashcroft turned down the FBI's request for more counterterrorism funds the day before 9/11. And Dale Watson, FBI deputy director, told the 9/11 Commission that he "almost fell out of his chair" when, before 9/11, the Bush administration had not placed counterterrorism in its top budget priorities.

     Kevin,

     Your responses are off target. I was responding to your quote I list above which tried to direct aim at Ashcroft "turning down" the FBI request for counter-terrorism funds the day before 9/11. FBI Dir Freeh's comments about the freeze out he was given for a number of years before 9/11 is far more significant.

     That is why my postings are meant to establish the greater problem. Certainly you are well aware of the slow turning wheels of our Fed bureaucracy when it comes to getting the train off the tracks in a non-emergency condition. Even if Ashcroft had approved the funds it would have been a year or more before any benefit would have been realized.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/15/2005 @ 7:53pm

113. if the "Slip&Fall" lawyers were not so eager to sue over anything & everything...that is our biggest problem at this point...

     Wrong. Malpractice awards account for a small percentage of health-care costs, contary to what Bush & Co. tell you. The biggest contributor is ruinously-expensive emergency room care for the uninsured, who, rather than having their ailment detected at an early stage through visits with a doctor, are left to have their ailment fester to its most dangerous point, where they descend upon an emergency room filled with other uninsured people with their own ailments that will be ruinously expensive to care for in the emergency room. Another big problem is that insurers spread the costs onto all doctors, not just the ones at fault; think of it like your next-door neighbor rear-ending a school bus, and you have your car insurance rate go up as well as his.

     Thats why Silky Pony would have been a disaster for this country if he were elected.

     Yeah, he might have lied this country into a war and racked up federal deficits, after all.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/15/2005 @ 7:53pm

114. Tou guys are so clueless.

     Aludra started this post with 4 points. Clearly stated.

     Right away, you jump on him, and don't address his points.

     You reinforce very successfully his view of your competence, intelligence, and judgement.

     To me, it looks like he is getting the better of you.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 7:58pm

115. LL,

     So you live in California? Well, I just moved to San Jose at the beginning of June, and I would like to find the socialist havens that you claim exist here. Perhaps then I could afford to buy a house!

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 8:01pm

116. "MR. ROTHBERG...I SUGGEST YOU SPEND MORE OF YOUR TIME IMPROVING YOUR WRITING SKILLS..MOST AMERICANS DISAGREE WITH THIS LIBERAL CRAPOLLA ON HERE...AND LIKE MOST MARXISTS YOU DONT LIKE HEARING OTHER POINTS OF VIEW...TOO BAD...THIS IS AMERICAN DESPITE HOW YOU LIBS AND YOUR ILK TRY TO CHANGE OUR COUNTRY..."

     i laughed so hard at this that i almost hurt myself. whew. deep breath...peter, i understand that there are many writing programs near the nation offices....maybe the folks there would pay?

     but, an idea i submitted to the webmaster here: if one logs on here there must be a digital fingerprint somewhere. if the logger-onner can post or preview, there ought to be a way of giving the logged on person a choice of either "view" or "don't view" per each post. so, for me...my faves are jones, LL, aldura, etal..(of course, all for VERY different reasons) so i could compose a profile thread of argument (or non-argument as the case may be).

     this way, the nation is not interfering with anyone's free expression of "ideas" (you reading this alrudra? FREE EXPRESSION OF IDEAS = A LIBERAL CONCEPT!!!) ... readers/subscribers would act as the iron hand of censurer. gotta be better than wading through all this crapola (note: one "L" in crapola)

     Posted by dabar at 08/15/2005 @ 8:02pm

117. The best thing about canadian health care is 95% of the population lives within 50 miles of the USA.

     I have very little problem with government health care, as long as those who enact it are required to participate in the plan, with the same status as the rest of the population.

     That is never the plan.

     The idea that government is more efficient is pretty radical, I think.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 8:02pm

118. Testimony of Pickard the acting FBI Dir.

     PICKARD:For many complex reasons we did not develop the necessary intelligence, either through our own resources or through foreign resources, to sufficiently understand and react to their planning, communications, control and capacity to do us harm. I was the acting director of the FBI in the summer of 2001. The intelligence and the experience I had available to me at the time were what I acted upon. As I recall, during the period January to September 2001, the FBI received over 1,000 threats. Many of these threats had great specificity and others were very general in nature.

     PICKARD: All were taken seriously, but the volume was daunting. The increase in the chatter was by far the most serious, but it was also the most difficult to deal with. There was no specificity as to what, where and when. We knew the who, but only that it was Al Qaida. I had regular conversations with the director of CIA and his deputy and the attorney general and his deputy about the threats we were receiving and to learn if there was anything more that would help us understand the fragmentary information we had. The only news I received was that the chatter subsided in August 2001. Further, I personally spoke, both collectively and individually, with each of the special agents in charge of the FBI's 56 field offices and with the assistant directors at FBI headquarters about what we knew and what we should be doing. Most of what I heard pointed overseas. For example, at the recommendation of the assistant director of New York and the head of counterterrorism, I removed the agents from Yemen due to the threat level and the chatter. During the summer, we continued to pursue our investigations of the bombing of the African embassies and the USS Cole. These were not just investigations to bring people responsible to justice, but they were also giving us valuable intelligence on Al Qaida. These investigations did more than advance the prosecution of these matters; they provided some of the best intelligence the U.S. government possessed about Al Qaida. Many of those arrested and brought back to the United States started to cooperate with the FBI. They provided us not only information about the bombings, but also became valuable resources in identifying Al Qaida members to U.S. intelligence. They gave us unique insights into Al Qaida's command and control.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/15/2005 @ 8:06pm

119. FREIHEIT,

     Competition between fast food restaraunts is one thing, and a good one at that. But one of the premises that economists use in developing their theories is that of the rational agent.

     In other words, free market competition is good because consumers will choose the business that provides the best value and shop there.

     But this does not apply to someone who suddenly starts having a heart attack. This hypothetical person doesn't shop around for the most cost-effective deal in cardiac care!

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 8:14pm

120. The law of unintended consequences gets people all of the time.

     Example: You are a manufacturer, and someone is injured by a product you manufacture. You find out, but you CAN'T change it. Because changing it would be admitting there is something wrong with it, which could provoke many lawsuits, putting you out of business. And the company LAWYERS won't let you change it. I have witnessed this.

     In fact, the case that made John Edwards rich was (It appears to me) one of those.

     A modest proposal for tort reform:

     1) limit payments to actual damages. 2) Provide insurance to cover the cost of actual damages, to individuals. (your car blows up, and you're injured, file an insurance claim) 3) provide appropriate legislation and aggressive criminal prosecution for those who wilfully or negligently produce products which cause injury.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 8:16pm

121. "This hypothetical person doesn't shop around for the most cost-effective deal in cardiac care"

     Very true...but competion raises the quality of heathcare..and USA heathcare is the best in the world...even if it is the most expensive

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:16pm

122. JONB,

     Aludra began with the following: YOU SILLY LIBS ARE ALL THE SAME...,ANTI AMERICAN...ANTI GROWTH...ANTI ENERGY EXPLORATION...ANTI EVERYTHING EXCEPT SOCIALISM AND MARXISM...THANK GOD YOU NUTBAGS ONLY CAN NIP AT THE HEELS LIKE A BUNCH OF ANGRY CHIWAWAS...

     You may consider these to be "points", but I consider them to be baseless, unsubstantiated insults that I would not dignify with a response.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 8:18pm

123. I know of a case where a dangerous product was redesigned, because the people who it injured were in Mexico.

     And the corporate types could see their way clear to fix it, because it hadn't been sold in the USA.

     But if it had been sold in the USA, it would not have been possible to fix the problem, because of the liability thing.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 8:18pm

124. Are you against Walmart too???Just curious

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:18pm

125. Senator Edwards at work.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 8:18pm

126. ILP....Show me one statement I made that was incorect???

     You are against energy exploration You do make Anti American statements constantly You are anti growth...thats the core of socialism...

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:20pm

127. ALUDRA,

     I agree with you that America has great health care. But it isn't accessible for many people due to the cost.

     Another point is that preventive care would be readily available under single-payer insurance. Although not everyone would avail themselves of it, many people would. This would save the country lots of money by the subsequent avoidance of health problems by many currently uninsured americans.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 8:21pm

128. As far as picking a hospital is concerned, people do.

     My parents live in a rural area. There are two hospitals nearby, one is about 100 miles, the other is about 140.

     They go to the one that is 140 miles away. Because the nearer one is bad bad.

     I had to rescue someone from there that they were trying to kill. I do not exaggerate.

     BOth are private for-profit institutions.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 8:24pm

129. I think the goverment is way too big now...that would balloon it to crazy levels. Unsustainable. Beside...the same goverment that runs the postal service and the IRS has no BIZ running my heathcare..Tort reform is a much better approach

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:24pm

130. "national health care is about using government and public money" where does the monwey come from again???I'd rather decide my own healthcare thank you

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:25pm

131. "has resulted in a system with costs so high that General Motors may not exist as such too much longer, due to high cost of health care"

     GM's problems result from oppresive unions. Get them out of the picture our kids would be better educated and we could be more competitive in the world

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:27pm

132. ALUDRA,

     OK, fine, this one time I will respond to your baseless charges just to try to make debate around here more constructive.

     #1) I am not a nutbag, I am sane. When I was a nuke in the US Navy I had to pass a psych test in order to get my top-secret clearance.

     #2) I am not "anti-american." I served in the navy and I pay my taxes. I vote, write to my congressmen and women, etc. In other words, I participate in the system because I am in favor of it.

     #3) I am not in favor of Marxism because that system emphasizes "the state" over individual liberty.

     #4) I am not "anti-energy exploration". I'd like to see MORE investment in finding and developing clean sources of energy, and especially to be less dependent on Saudis.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 8:27pm

133. The thing is guys

     You have become so conditioned to react to how aludra says things, as opposed to what he says, that you miss what he is saying.

     It appears to me he treats you with more respect than you do him.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 8:28pm

134. blue cross

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:29pm

135. ILP...Great... my post does not apply to you...

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:30pm

136. RONB,

     Your parents sound like they are much better at planning ahead than most people are. Good for them! But please answer this: How many people, who live in large cities with multiple hospitals, have actually researched where to go for emergency care? Most people cross that bridge when they get to it.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 8:30pm

137. ILP...By the way..thank you for your service...

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:31pm

138. My last post was for JONB, not RONB. Sorry for the typo

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 8:31pm

139. My father is retired from Exxon-Mobil. ZERO, he can vouch for you about healthcare costs at that company as well. They really are a huge factor in the bottom line.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 8:33pm

140. Government spending on social programs is the business of bribing people with their own money.

     It amazes me, when John Nichols writes:

     One need not be a student of Tom DeLay's dirty dealings to recognize that the corruption of Washington is very nearly complete. Occupied by a president and vice president who are oilmen first and statesmen last, a Congress where Republicans and Democrats delay their votes until they have checked their campaign fund-raising receipts and a judiciary that is rapidly being packed with "bought" corporate lawyers such as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, the nation's capital often seems completely beyond redemption.

     That all y'all would trust those same washington types to control what when and if you got medical care.

     Really. You gotta pick.

     Either Big Brother is totally corrupt, and giving him more money will only make things worse,

     or

     The government is your friend, it is pure and ethical, and can be trusted to care for your elderly mother.

     Really.

     Please.

     Some Consistancy!

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 8:34pm

141. " I disagree with you that unions are choking GM to death. "

     I hate to be disagreeable, but unions are totally choking our country. They were useful 75-100 years ago during the industrial revolution...but they are a dinosour and thats why they are losing membership and busting up...Also its union contracts that dictate heathcare plans

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:34pm

142. ALUDRA, Thanks. The US Navy was the best character-building experience I've ever had.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 8:35pm

143. I own my own company and pay for it out of my pocket. And yes competion made the premium very affordable...not so with socialised medicine

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:36pm

144. As a Bay Area native, I say: stop the sprawl! Yes it costs money, but there has to be something other than 10,000 miles of planned housing communities. One great approach to solving the problem of greater demand and limited space is to quit thinking of yourself as a suburb and to act like an urban center. This means people live in smaller spaces per dollar of cost. It also means structures get built up (as in, higher into the air) and that the percentage of renters goes up. Finally, it also means that commercial development gets built everywhere so you now are forced to walk to the grocery store nearby as opposed to have an excuse to drive that SUV for 20 minutes to pick up a few cobs of corn, toothpaste, and toilet paper.

     Zero, I want to resist the temptation to say it figure you live in the bay area, but gosh it sure makes sense from your postings.

     Your scenario is not inviting to me. I hate living in cities much less some cookie cutter track home. I had to go out of the main urban and suburban areas a bit to have a real life but it is worth it. For less than the payment on a small home in the bay area or LA, I live on an acre up in the hills on my own private road. We love our privacy, the animal life and our families all enjoy getting away from the stress of the city to enjoy our little paradise. Yet, I am still only 60 miles from LA, or 85 from San Diego.

     I will move again if necessary to keep my space and my freedom. You may keep all that concret jungle and high rise towers. I love my 70' Trees and orchards, the dozen rabbits who live on the property but keep me frustrated with their flower eating habits, the owl who lives in one of the trees and even the nightly wale of the coyotes...and no sound of cars, or other city disturbances.

     that is real living.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/15/2005 @ 8:36pm

145. you're right, ILP.

     In major urban areas, the level of care is pretty uniform.

     Though I see a lot of advertising along the highways, for this hospital or that.

     Especially for delivering babies, cancer, and heart disease.

     Where I live, there is quite a bit of competition.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 8:39pm

146. ALUDRA,

     I have heard that argument before, about unions being usefull back then but not today. I am not convinced. Here is an analogy: If the price of liberty is eternal vigilance (and it is, IMO), then the price of fair labor practices is eternal unions.

     I have seen unions get too much power, to the point where some smartass was able to shut down an entire plant and cost a company millions of dollars a day. (I won't name the company, but everyone's heard of it.) But I have also seen situations where management has too much power and some sadist uses it to screw with his employees.

     There needs to be a balance - checks and balances on both sides.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 8:40pm

147. "You may keep all that concret jungle and high rise towers. I love my 70' Trees and orchards, the dozen rabbits who live on the property but keep me frustrated with their flower eating habits, the owl who lives in one of the trees and even the nightly wale of the coyotes...and no sound of cars, or other city disturbance"

     Sounds wonderful....I live in the city and while it has advantages...I much prefer to live out of town...

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:40pm

148. Well just diagree..ok

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:42pm

149. disagree i meant

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:42pm

150. The real culprit is the cost of technology.

     in 1960, if you had cancer, heart disease, or major organ failure, all they could do really was hold your hand while you died.

     That is pretty economical.

     Today you can get all sorts of treatments.

     But the machines cost money.

     To some extent, there is profiteering, I know.

     And insurance for malpractice is substantial. Limiting payments to actual damages would help that a lot. (I like my insurance plan, by the way)

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 8:43pm

151. Excellent point JON

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:44pm

152. JONB,

     You may have missed my point. My point is that the free market depends on rational consumer choices. This works well for unhurried decisions such as car purchases, homeowner's insurance, etc.

     But the situation is different in a medical crisis. Most people ignore all those billboards, and even if people read them, they are still just advertising! That is, they are propaganda for the hospital that purchased the ad; they want you to go to their hospital, even if it isn't the best! Even if it is the highest-priced!

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 8:45pm

153. Unions are not much of a "problem" except to the automotive companies.

     The laws have changed, to the extent that unions have rather limited power.

     But in their traditional strongholds, they still have some ability to get their way.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 8:50pm

154. Frieheit

     That is a quote from my Dad.

     87 years young, and going strong.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 8:51pm

155. FREIHEIT, You should be worried if your political views can be simplified onto a bumpersticker.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 8:53pm

156. I do think that the fact that people have a choice makes the providers work a little harder.

     Any people who have been in a managed-care program want to comment?

     (That is the private equivalent of socialized medicine)

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 8:54pm

157. I don't mind the unions so much.

     They negotiate the benefits, then the company gives the same plan to everybody.

     I think everyone who works for a corporation which has a unionized work force has benefited from it to some degree.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 8:55pm

158. I wish The Nation contributors would start a blog about taxation. I want to educate all you conservatives on sensible tax structures, but I won't because that would be straying off-topic.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 8:56pm

159. how about a flat tax on consumption...fair and it will bring more revenue to the goverment and encourage savings which are dismal in this country

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 8:58pm

160. It also would get rid of most of the accountants not to mention the IRS...

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 9:00pm

161. ILP

     A lot of the time, people do have time to choose.

     Not every visit is via ambulance.

     The problem is, the medical community closes ranks pretty effectively, and there is no way of finding out if Dr. A is a butcher, or a surgeon.

     I wish some left-wing activist type would sponsor legislation requiring that statistics be available on success rates, complications, etc. For all doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc.

     Put it online, and let the public decide.

     (It would be necessary to assign some idea of dificulty to procedures, and it would be expensive. But it would be worthwhile.)

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 9:00pm

162. "documented efficiency of government"

     No offense...but goverment is THE most in-efficient entity on the planet earth by far

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 9:02pm

163. Zero, I was explaining a bit about the effects of malpractice lawsuits.

     I think people should be able to recover actual damages.

     Beyond that, if a person injured them in a way that is criminal, they should be prosecuted as criminals.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 9:03pm

164. By the way...Tennessee had a goverment run healthcare system called "TENNCARE"

     The democratic governor is cancelling the program because it is full of inefficiency and fraud....It was a pilot program setup by Gore when Hillarycare flopped...Dont think the USA wants to go down that roar ever

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 9:05pm

165. Yes in fact when the program started Tennesee had a tremendous surplus....not anymore...and like I said...Governor Bredesen cancelled the program and is paying a heavy political price for Gores mistake...

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 9:10pm

166. JONB,

     What you mentioned in your 9:00 PM post - I am all for it. Bring it on. You think that just because I am a Democrat that I want to put my life and health in the hands of some quack with a mail-order medical degree? No way...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 9:10pm

167. ZERO

     The "documented efficiency of government"???

     Were you serious?

     Seriously?

     Could you possibly be serious??

     This is the government that John Nichols describes as:

     One need not be a student of Tom DeLay's dirty dealings to recognize that the corruption of Washington is very nearly complete. Occupied by a president and vice president who are oilmen first and statesmen last, a Congress where Republicans and Democrats delay their votes until they have checked their campaign fund-raising receipts and a judiciary that is rapidly being packed with "bought" corporate lawyers such as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, the nation's capital often seems completely beyond redemption..

     You think you are going to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars through that government, and all those folks aren't going to take a cut?

     You think the lobbyists won't figure out how to get the Government which (according to John) they OWN, ALL 3 BRANCHES!! to cut them a nice pork roast, maybe some bacon, and a picnic ham?

     Really.

     You boys on the left are so starry eyed idealists when it comes to big government.

     No offense, but don't you see a little bit of a problem, there?

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 9:11pm

168. "Why do we persist in denying that the cost of paying for health care in Canada is a dime on the dollar compared to what the costs the US system incurs"

     Honestly...because thats about what its worth...When I travel there I pray to GOD I dont get sick because of the horror stories my Canadian friends have told me

     Posted by aludra at 08/15/2005 @ 9:11pm

169. FREIHEIT, it was just a cautionary statement. I didn't mean it as an accusation, so if it came across that way I apologize.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 9:12pm

170. Dang!

     The italics thing I just can't seem to git.

     (I was gonna be so s'fisticated, too!)

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 9:12pm

171. Anybody have any comments on the PLAN?

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 9:14pm

172. ALUDRA,

     I've thought about your suggestion of a flat tax on consumption. It would certainly benefit people like me quite a lot, since the only consumption I like (other than necessities) is movies and beer.

     But it is rather regressive, since the more money a person makes the lower percentage of income that person needs to spend on consumption.

     So if we have to have a consumption tax, I'd like to couple it with income tax reform with the personal exemption increased drastically and the code ruthlessly simplified.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 9:18pm

173. If you exempted food, it would go a long way.

     How to deal with real estate would be challenging.

     The nice thing is, the government wouldn't need to be snooping in your finances all the time.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 9:24pm

174. FREIHEIT,

     When you wrote "John Edwards is among the greatest politicians in history at exploiting economic ignorance for votes"

     I thought to myself, "I wish he were! Then maybe he would have gotten elected president..."

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 9:24pm

175. There are lots of down sides too. But I've already said too much! ...must....get...back....on....topic....

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/15/2005 @ 9:25pm

176. yup.

     I wish there was a group dedicated to fighting heterophobia.

     (you know, people who can't tolerate anyone who thinks perversion is perversion)

     I actually called a guy a heterophobe once. It stopped him for about 3 seconds.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 9:27pm

177. Now I'm tryin to remember if I actually did that, or I just talked about it.

     Hard to remember.

     Posted by jonb at 08/15/2005 @ 9:29pm

178. Just one quick note before I go nighty-night--

     Freiheit, You are certainly able to draw on better sources than Ms. Orman, aren't you? :)

     Good and civilized discussion. Possibly the best I've experienced. Maybe there's hope for us all.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/15/2005 @ 11:13pm

179. Plainly spoken Bruce.

     (you are right)

     Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 12:31am

180. I'm still waiting for somebody to help me out with this big government is good (federal health care) on the end of a Government is bad beyond saving Blog.

     It seems to me mind boggling that anyone could maintain such cognitive dissonance for long. So maybe I just don't understand.

     Can anybody help me out?

     Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 12:33am

181. Freiheit

     "Socializing services removes the incentive of competetion. I believe that competition enriches the human experience."

     Anyone ever notice how it's either all or nothing in the sick and twisted conservative mind. The party of pain and suffering would have us believe that the great liberal center of America wants to instruct our government of the people to buy every hospital and clinic and put every doctor on the public payroll. That is socialism: Government ownership of an industry or service. But the liberal center doesn't want socialized medicine. Hospitals and private practices will stay private. What we want is socialized health insurance. This whole issue is a debate over who is going to hold the money. Lazy corporate welfare queens or government of the people.

     The laissez "corporate wel"-faire health care model has been a dismal failure. 40 million uninsured, drug companies that make copycat pills that alleviate symptoms but find no cures, HMO's deciding what tests you will get or not get and which tests they will pay for and then stick you with the rest of the bill. And, all the while, corrupt evangelic operators skim off 15 to 20 percent of our health care dollars and divide then up between themselves and their lazy corporate welfare queen investors who pay no tax on the income.

     What the enlightened children of god propose, better known as the great Liberal Center of America, is using god's mechanism of freedom and liberty to manage the money. Our government uses only one percent of our social security taxes to administer social security. Hold government of the people to the same standard for America's health care and with the extra money the uninsured are insured. Everyone gets regular checkup's so there are fewer catastophic emergency room visit's saving even more money. With that money we can make sure every hospital and clinic in America has the finest equipment so that no American is deprived of life saving diagnostics and or treatments.

     Or you pro agony, government of the people hating, evangelic conservatives can continue to stand for pain and suffering. The Lazy Corporate Welfare Queens will thank you. Greed is one of their top family values.

     John

     Your article is dead on. Any poster that lives in a state with direct initiative should hook up with a democratic meetup as soon as pacticable. We are working on some interesting initiative ideas and could use your help

     Posted by Will C. at 08/16/2005 @ 03:43am

182. jonb

     see previous post

     Posted by Will C. at 08/16/2005 @ 03:44am

183. Conservatives advocate a free market for all types of services and businesses. Today, health care is not functioning under a free market. If it were a true free market, drug prices and services wouldn't be through the stratosphere. If it were a true free market, lobbist wouldn't be feeding the government fat cats fine dinners and flying them all over the world on "educational" trips. If free market is what you advocate, then why don't conservatives demand it to be so?

     Until I hear more conservatives advocate for true free markets, instead of the hybrid, lobbyist, subsidy, controlled, "free" markets, I won't be able to take them seriously. Just as they won't take progressive ideas seriously.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 08/16/2005 @ 09:30am

184. Socialized health care sucks, just look at how well it's working in Canada, with patients suing because of the length of time it takes to receive basic procedures and surgeries:

     http://www.cpcml.ca/mlpc/w042.html

     http://www.detnews.com/2005/health/0504/03/A04-123561.htm

     http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050617-102129-1467r.htm

     The one below is particularly funny, in essence a PR guy for the government sponsored health system is making excuses and trying to justify the increased wait period for treatments by actually saying that "waiting can be a good thing":

     http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1121992755455_2?s_name=&no_ads=

     I'll pass thanks, I prefer to pay my premiums and continue to have privatized insurance where I can get treatment when I need or want it.

     As far as the poor that can't afford health insurance? Well that's what I tythe to my church, I can be assured the money is going to worthwhile causes, I don't trust the government with tax dollars particularly when it comes to social issues.

     Sincerely,

     Todd the mean and nasty conservative.

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 09:54am

185. BlueTexan,

     "I won't be able to take them seriously. Just as they won't take progressive ideas seriously."

     It's ok, conservatives haven't taken progressives seriously for years.

     By the way, I'd be curious to know what part of Texas you are from. I used to live in Katy for many many years. From knowing Texas politics well, I bet you feel like a duck out of water.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 09:59am

186. Yup,

     Don't get me started on Canada's health plans (though it should be noted that the quality varies from province to province). They are likely moving towards the 2-tier system that we see in Europe.

     Health care is a mess, but it's still better for the patient in the U.S. than in Canada. Routine checkups and relatively simple procedures are covered well in Canada (much better, in my opinion, than in the U.S., where even a routine visit can result in absurdly high fees).

     The main difference is when you need longterm care or a serious operation. Canada is the type of country where you're likely to die waiting, even if you have the money to pay a physician. The Canadian film, "The Barabrian Invasians" doesn't exaggerate.

     It's difficult to pinpoint the exact problem with medical care in the U.S. My take is that insurance companies wield far too much power, and this is to the detriment of patients and doctors alike. Add to this nauseating mix the poison of over-anxious trial lawyers who oppose any and all tort reform, and you have a recipe for a mess that continues to get worse.

     I don't see either party championing bold solutions at all, which is sad.

     Posted by Beausoleil at 08/16/2005 @ 12:33pm

187. President John Edwards = Working title of Steven King's next blockbuster.

     Heh! Actually, with flip-flopping Bush, I'm reminded every time of King's "The Dead Zone", where that megalomaniacal Bible-spouting president character wrecklessly unleashes nuclear war.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/16/2005 @ 12:52pm

188. What do you do when you live in for example San Jose or thereabouts, the heart of Silicon Valley, and a huge number of people need to live right around you to be part of the vast economic process taking place there? You can't have 10,000 square miles of exurban sprawl being the defining growth plan in a region with very serious water shortage and power shortage problems and millions and millions of inhabitants. That is an urban center. San Jose and Santa Clara County and the Environs need to stop sprawling and build up and urbanize. The entire area is an unscaleable disaster.

     Are you near Malibu or something? The area north of San Diego is great! It also isn't Silicon Valley there.

     One of my visions for America and areas like California in particular has been a massive rural development program in areas that are currently barren and uninhabitable in their present state. Most people are unaware that even at this point in our history, nearly 2/3 of America is still undeveloped land. Anyone who has ever driven for instance through the California desert between Los Angeles and Las Vegas knows just how vast and barren that land is.

     I see an opportunity to develop communities that especially target low income minorities, not for speculative gain, but to provide a geniune fresh start with low cost housing that would be provided on deferred payment basis along with incentives for businesses to locate there which would provide jobs. All the appropriate retail and other service related businesses would also locate there probably without any incentives.

     The water and power issues I look to the example of Israel which is now one of the leading exporters of citrus in the world through innovative reformation of barren, arid lands. I also admit to being a conservative who is not ashamed to research alternative energy sources and water exploration and conversion techniques (i.e., salt water).

     That is a vision for HUD that is outside the box of any conventional thinking that exists today. I also am just providing a very, very brief overview so no critics on my lacking working details.

     This is also within the scope of what our ministry does internationally where 3rd world governments are sometimes easier to work with than our own bureauracracy. I have been working with the city and county government where I live on a job training program for our youth to teach them techinical skills like the old apprenticeship programs that used to thrive in America and Europe. I have had business people indicate they are willing to invest in our youth, so I am optomistic about the possibilities.

     Now, as to where I live, it is about 65 miles southeast of Los Angeles (just about 10 miles east of Riverside). There is beautiful countryside all around me and if you know like you seem to the area north of San Diego, I am 40 minutes from Temecula and 50 minutes from the Avocado capital of Fallbrook.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/16/2005 @ 1:44pm

189. Sportsguy,

     Am I to understand that your church performs medical services? I think I might even be willing to give my body over to Dr. Frist than Rev. Everythingwillbeallright.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/16/2005 @ 1:48pm

190. As far as the poor that can't afford health insurance? Well that's what I tythe to my church, I can be assured the money is going to worthwhile causes, I don't trust the government with tax dollars particularly when it comes to social issues.

     You know, when I read stuff like this, I'd really like some follow-through rather than the 'ol don't-tax-me-I-give-to-charity/church stuff. There are lots of churches that have soup kitchens and the like, and this is honorable and unselfish, but I think you're being obtuse if you think this money is taking care of minor and major health problems in the uninsured. I mean, is this tithe money going into some kind of fund where an uninsured person can come by and be approved for a doctor's visit, and then lab work, and then a procedure if this needs to be done? Or if a person needs a major operation to be done, will your church be paying for it?

     You see, this seems in the same vein as the stuff I hear from people who aver that they don't need to pay any taxes since they give to charity, which, of course, is a load of head-in-the-sand bollocks. Is charity going to build and maintain the roads, fund police stations and fire stations and the like? Of course it isn't. Still, these people spout this stuff out in a generalized sort of way that's bereft of actual detail; it's a superficial way of telling themselves they're benefitting their fellow Americans without actually bothering to examine it to see if it'll benefit them as much or more than government programs do. Same with your church-tithe giving.

     I'm not demeaning your tithing, but I do take exception when people like you purport that it helps just as many people as government social programs do when, I think you'll agree after ingesting a dose of reality, that it doesn't. But this would leave you with an inconvenient fact to deal.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/16/2005 @ 1:54pm

191. LOVE LIBERTY wrote "Other than brief periods of sanity, the voters in California continuous vote against their own interests for the latest socialist agenda."

     If we vote for our own interests 95% of the people would vote for more taxes on the wealthy. It is our self interest to take more money from the wealthy and distribute it to the average wage earner. It is precisely because we don't vote for our own self interest that wealthy people can continue to keep their own money. I'm sure people will call me communist or socialist but nothing is futher from the truth. The simple fact of the matter is self interest of the majority by definition should lead to greater equality in income. Myself as a believer in the basic concept of free enterprise (that of enlightened self interest)I vote for the person who will tax me less give me more and make others pay fot it. That is in my self interest. I just hope the average person doesn't realize the redistribution of my wealth to them is in their self interest. I also want national health care. As a business owner I'm sick of paying for everyones medical bills.

     Posted by zakquiet at 08/16/2005 @ 2:16pm

192. "Am I to understand that your church performs medical services?"

     No my church has a fund that is funded by our tithes that pays for indigents needed medical services, excluding of course abortions, or methadone etc.

     Hence why I trust tithing to my church but not social monetary redistribution by the government.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 2:31pm

193. " I mean, is this tithe money going into some kind of fund where an uninsured person can come by and be approved for a doctor's visit, and then lab work, and then a procedure if this needs to be done?"

     It's a fund used to provide needed medical procedures on the needy, single mothers, poor people etc. We try our hardest, and the money is well spent. Unfortunately there are always more people in need than the funds can cover, but we do what we can do. As long as the procedures are of a medical necessity. They are not used to pay for abortions, drug exchanges such as methadone etc.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 2:34pm

194. "I'm not demeaning your tithing, but I do take exception when people like you purport that it helps just as many people as government social programs do when, I think you'll agree after ingesting a dose of reality, that it doesn't. But this would leave you with an inconvenient fact to deal."

     The condescension from the left is really interesting, particularly with the line "But this would leave you with an inconvenient fact to deal."

     I never said that tithes should pay for streets and roads, I DO have a problem with my tax dollars being socially redistributed to pay for medical procedures that absolutely are in contrast with my religious beliefs like the government paying for abortions in no-cost abortion clinics.

     I also have a problem with my tax dollars being socially redistributed by the government to pay for mothers that CHOOSE to get pregnant and have more kids primarily for the added monthly income that comes from the government because of the new addition to the family.

     You know the ones I'm talking about, the ones that refuse to get job training and pay their own way through life, the ones that would rather live off of my tax money.

     I agree taxes are necessary for certain things such as defense, national road system etc. However I draw the line on my tax dollars being distributed by the government for social issues. Now that YOU have a dose of reality, you can deal with the facts.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 2:41pm

195. "anti growth...thats the core of socialism..." Who made this law? Why didn't I get the memo!

     Lemme tell you all a little tale about the excellence of health care in our nation. I lived in Hilo, HI a while back. A fellow there had a toothache. Being poor he tried to get a dentist appointment through DSSH. Well as it turned out, the tooth required dental surgery and no dentist on the Big Island would accept a new welfare case. He then approached DSSH about going off-island to Honolulu for treatment. Of course this would take more time, forms to fill out, signatures and approvals to wait for. As this went on the tooth abcessed and the fellow's jaw got very swollen. Eventually, about a month after his first approach to get treatment he saw a dentist. By this time the massive infection had invaded his lower jaw. The dental surgeon opened and drained it, administered antibiotics, etc. and packed the void space and told him to come back in several days. Well, he never made it back...the infection was so advanced that he died.

     So if our healthcare system is so great, how do we let a citizen die from a toothache? Even a poor one.... I guess health for profit is only good for those who can afford it? The rest of folk...well, this little tale (a true sorry I reiterate) tells us what can happen.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/16/2005 @ 4:05pm

196. To Kevin Collins, ILovePhysics, Frankgrits, Will C, Zero and all the other progressives (sorry if I didn't mention you by name) who continue to debate on tne Nation's blogs. I joined in a couple of them and found Aludra, Love Liberty, and OKSportsGuy to be insufferable and insulting to the degree that they pretty much spoil the entire forum. Purposeful, no doubt, particularly Aludra. I don't believe in censorship, so I think they should be allowed to express their thoughts (using the word in its loosest meaning), but there are so few ideas coming from them other than diatribe that it's hard to continue reading the posts, much less responding to them. These diehards don't seem to realize that the country is waking up and well over 50% of Americans are aware of the disaster into which the Bush administration has led the country - environmentally, politically, economically, socially, and in regards to the ill-conceived, badly executed war in Iraq.

     In any case, I surely do appreciate your continued committment to the discussion.

     Posted by LeeAnnG at 08/16/2005 @ 4:08pm

197. As far as taxes paying for "socialized" medicine is concerned, we now pay as much in taxes to support the corporate welfare state (in addition to our actual costs when we pay insurance premiums, copayments, and other expenses) as citizens in countries with single payer health care. In other words, we pay about twice as much in total. The administrative costs in America for healthcare are outrageous and many times that of other countries, as we pay for the inflated salaries of the CEOs of the health industry and insurance companies.

     I have also heard that there are cases of bad care in Canada and other places. However, bad care happens here too, and we pay a lot more for it. Nothing is perfect, but a definite change of some kind is needed. The $2,000 a second we are spending in Iraq would go a long way toward providing health care for every American, even if single provider care didn't cut our costs in half. (We could pay exactly the same amount in taxes and eliminate the "middle man" insurance and health care industry and get the same care other countries do. If we elected to pay at least the same taxes and increase them by, say, half the amount we pay for private care, we could get better.)

     Posted by LeeAnnG at 08/16/2005 @ 4:17pm

198. It's just so CHRISTIAN to be offended when your taxes are used for social issues.

     Posted by LeeAnnG at 08/16/2005 @ 4:18pm

199. "It's just so CHRISTIAN to be offended when your taxes are used for social issues."

     It absolutely is when those social services are to provide abortions and give drugs to drug users!

     So AMEN SISTER!

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 4:21pm

200. Leeanng,

     "I joined in a couple of them and found Aludra, Love Liberty, and OKSportsGuy to be insufferable and insulting to the degree that they pretty much spoil the entire forum."

     So basically…..

     You're saying the forums are great, and you love to come to the forums and read what is written from other like minded progressives that think like you?

     What happened to all of the tolerance and diversity you preach all the time Leeanng?

     You are all about tolerance and diversity as long as the tolerance involves "neocons" like me embracing terrorists.

     But HELL no are you for tolerance and diversity when it comes to YOU accepting conservatives posting on YOUR beloved liberal blog.

     How progressive of you Leeanng!

     Kudo's to you!!

     What's that term you like to use when describing Christians, something like hypocritical or something?

     Here you go honey, get off your little soap box and look beyond your own self-righteousness and realize YOU are the definition of hypocritical.

     Way to be tolerant Leeanng!

     LOL

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 4:37pm

201. OKSPORTSGUY:It absolutely is when those social services are to provide abortions and give drugs to drug users!

     Show me where that's happening, freeper.

     Posted by Wisco at 08/16/2005 @ 5:12pm

202. So then OK....what I am hearing is that the steering force behind the use of money for social welfare is a moral issue? This of course begs the question, who's morals should be the compass??? I can see the touchy aspect of abortion, even if I don't agree with what I am perceiving to be a rigid stance....how about stem cell research or cloning? Accupuncture or medical marijuana anyone?....just because we don't fully understand the modality or pharmacology of a treatment doesn't mean it doesn't work...it just means we aren't sure why it does. (In fact, a whole new class of cannibidoid drugs are in the pipleine for several treatment issues).

     Isn't it as obscene that my money is spent to pay for people who choose to pickle their livers in alcohol, or corrode their lungs with cigarettes through increases in insurance rates and health care?

     It has been discussed in some sectors to develop a "risk-based" care system, where people who choose risky behaviors would pay more (as they shoul as they, as a class, suck up inordinate amounts of health care dollars). But this would involve a high degree of honesty, or the ability to test people for these risky behaviors to categorize them.

     Again, any change in our health care system would likley be an improvement...see my "tooth tale" above for a grim reality story.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/16/2005 @ 5:16pm

203. Wisco,

     http://www.presentationministries.com/brochures/AbortTax.asp

     "(Planned Parenthood).. It may not use our tax money to abort babies but our taxes buy and maintain the office, hire the personnel, and pay for the counseling that leads to the abortion."

     http://www.priestsforlife.org/lte/lte24.html

     "Let's look at what happens when you give tax money to an abortionist. If we give them money for providing "free" contraceptives, they need to distribute lots of contraceptives to get lots of money. To distribute lots of contraceptives, they need lots of women and girls having sex. So they take government money to go into the schools and promote sexual activity among teens with the promise of "free" contraceptives. The girls become sexually active, and begin to come in for "free" pregnancy tests. Lots of pregnancy tests means lots of tax money. Once she's pregnant, the abortion mill needs to sell her an abortion to keep the tax money flowing. Even if they can't get tax funds for the abortion itself, they can charge the taxpayers for "counseling" and for pre- and post-abortion physical examinations. There is also another sinister twist: if she carries her baby to term, there will be a nine-month minimum cut-off of the contraceptive and pregnancy test money the clinic has come to rely on. So when you give abortionists money for anything--even non-abortion services--you will still get more abortions. In fact, you will increase their motivation to sell abortions because each abortion will get them not just an abortion fee, but months of contraceptive fees as well. It's disgusting but true."

     http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=9039&c=146

     "At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury."

     I can cite many other sources, how many do you want? Of course you could have easily done this research yourself.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 5:36pm

204. OK...your 2nd reference does a have certain integral bias - and the third, well, sure says a lot more than the others on the subject. What is better for society though....to fund an abortion (let's not worry about the "how" the preganancy came to be at this point)...or to bring another child into a slum, or to strap an already economically inviable family with additional expense?

     Of course men arguing over abortion is kinda like fish arguing about where to plant potatoes.....

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/16/2005 @ 5:47pm

205. No, the distinction does have a difference. Single-payer health insurance does not include having the government provide health care. The doctors, nurses and other care givers remain in the private sector.

     What it does do is establish a not-for-profit player (the government) to provide coverage for people who want health insurance and cannot afford it. And that player has a lot of bargaining power to talk down the price of medical care.

     Socialized medicine, however, implies that doctors, nurses and other care givers become government employees. This is quite a difference! By the way, this is what our troops have.

     As for all of you who don't want your taxes going to pay for abortions and methadone: Well, I don't want my taxes going for illegal, unnecessary wars based on lies!!!

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 7:48pm

206. What Democrats need to start doing is boycotting the companies that give money to the Republicans and support the blue companies. While I try to support my local small bussinesses as much as I can, I make sure that the corporations I do shop at are blue as can be. Go to http://www.buyblue.org

     Posted by daveinphilly at 08/16/2005 @ 9:05pm

207. .

     Here's the PLAN

     What rubbish.

     Before you plunk down a PLAN, let alone THE PLAN, let's get the lay of the land straight. Let's establish the problem.

     The challenge is two party govt. The problem is that right now, one party has the field to itself. In demand is a way to successfully challenge the dominant party. If you know how, then out with it by all means. But what is offered here is quite another matter.

     This PLAN is a yoke. Right, a yoke, not a joke, it is not funny. The heavy nasty think clamped down on the necks of oxen to keep them in line. That is what the PLAN is about. It is a contraption with straps and rings and cinches for pulling the old plow and tying down everything fresh and new and out of line.

     What we see here is the Left's old guard wary of any initiative not in its power. It would rather continue to groan in defeat rather than have an effective opposition party that it does not control. Clinton's neoliberalism was quite enough for it, thank you. Let's not have any more of that. It's our way or no way. That is the PLAN.

     What do I care?

     I do care. Because the Republican party is turning fat and lazy and stupid. What makes it so is the lack of competition. There is no contender to worry about. There is nothing to keep the Republicans, apart from intra-party bickering, in fighting shape. And staying in shape is what is wanted, because it amounts to the country staying healthy.

     The party system is a convenience, an M.O., a way of keeping the governing power on its best behavior, aware that alert eyes are ever looking over its shoulder, ready to pounce at the first sign slough, corruption, abuse of power. And it is a way of giving entree to new ideas, to innovations. But for that you need at least two viable parties, two lean and mean and capable champions. The moment there is only one, there is really none, because a champion not shadowed by a contender quickly grows flabby and corrupt. You need constant pushing and tugging by at least two parties, for good governance.

     When one party has it all its own way the country is in trouble. Then there is no voice able to challenge the govt, no voice speaking truth to power, to shout warns, to expose looming problems to propose unconventional alternatives.

     What we need is a loud, compelling voice speaking the truth: that this nation is in decline. Look at her achievements over the last fifty years. Compare them to the previous fifty. In that first fifty years she moved out from wind and steam propulsion and into electricity. She lifted off the ground into the air. Not just into flight and jet travel and rocketry, but into the airwaves, radio, television, telephones, movies. Even the structure of DNA, the integrated circuit, the analogue computer are over half a century old.

     What have we done since then? We have been living off our capital. No new initiatives have been ventured since WWII. An apparent exception, the moon shot, as it turned out was just a Cold War gimmick quickly abandoned the moment the skirmish with Sputnik was won.

     The unavoidable conclusion is: America is standing still. Part of the reason, perhaps was the Cold War. But that is done with. Where are we off to now? (Our one truly noble and daring gambit, an attempt to effect a breakthrough in the Middle East has 60% of the country, demanding abandonment.)

     The US needs to be pulled out of the doldrums, needs to be shown new horizons, needs an inspiring new party. But the only thing these pages and their pathetic pretense at "unconventional wisdom" manages to brandish is the PLAN, a device for perpetuating the old dogma.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 08/16/2005 @ 9:19pm

208. Just a note of reality on PPO's.

     I work for a major corporation, which provides a PPO. (Preferred Provider Option).

     About 80 % of Medical Services Providers are in the network, as well as at least 4 major hospitals in the area.

     This is because they need the business, and so they agree to the terms. They get lower rates of compensation, based on the DRGs. (Diagnosis Related Groups)

     The choice is not to get the business.

     Like most major corporations, my employer is self-insured.

     That means they pay the costs for medical services themselves.

     Every couple of years, they re-bid the contract to see which of the major PPO groups will get the business of handling the paperwork.

     The "insurance company" is paid based on how many claims they process, and (I suspect) based on how well they police the providers to keep the cost down.

     So the equation is quite a bit different than most of all y'all have been saying.

     Those greedy corporate types at GM, IBM, GE, Maritn Marietta, Dell, HP, Microsoft, etc; they are every bit as good at chiseling the profit margins for the insurance companies down as anyone in the government would be.

     Because every penny they pay to the plan administrators comes out of their bottom line.

     At the same time, in order to attract and keep good employees, they need to make the benefit package as good as possible. In my opinion, they do an excellent job.

     So if you want to know the real cost of health care in America, get the statistics on average costs for major corporations.

     The price won't get much lower, without significantly reducing quality of care.

     That is your baseline starting cost.

     Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 9:31pm

209. I really don't know if GM in particular is self insured.

     But if they aren't, they are idiots.

     Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 9:32pm

210. It doesn't address how to get health care to the indigent.

     But it does establish that to get the quality of care we have come to expect in the USA is an expensive proposition.

     This nonsense that the cost would be reduced 90% is nonsense.

     (sorry, but the symmetry of the statement is based on its obviousness)

     Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 9:40pm

211. I do think that the top tier of employers will continue to provide quality health care to their employees unless it is not legal to do so.

     It is a significant benefit.

     And attracting and maintaining a good work force is a priority for many corporations.

     Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 9:42pm

212. The other side is, Hospitals are in the business of making unsecured loans.

     About 10 % (that statistic is 5 years old) of hospital bills go unpaid.

     And believe it or not, while many hospitals actually make money, their profit margins aren't great.

     Because they need to hire skilled labor, their personnel costs are very high.

     Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 9:45pm

213. As far as the difference between public charity and private charity:

     Private charities have the advantage that they can make moral distinctions.

     So in concept, they can judge if the help provided is beneficial to the individual, and is in some sense deserved, or not.

     Government sponsored charity does not have this prerogative.

     They can also put conditions on continued support. Government sponsored charity does not do that in most cases. And when it does, it is heavy handed and beurocratic, as a rule

     Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 9:52pm

214. By the way, NACL is right.

     You boys on the left need to mount a credible alternative, to keep the republicans honest.

     And his description of the PLAN as a yoke of bondage (bought and paid for by thr Union Industry) is accurate.

     Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 9:56pm

215. Leftofcenter,

     "..to fund an abortion (let's not worry about the "how" the preganancy came to be at this point)...or to bring another child into a slum, or to strap an already economically inviable family with additional expense?"

     moot question.

     Aren't progressives always telling Christians you can't "force" your religious views on us? You have the right to not serve a God and be athiest if you so choose? The U.S. is NOT founded on Christianity?

     The same works in reverse bro, it OFFENDS me, that my tax dollars are funding abortions that is absolute contrast to my religious beliefs. Therefore the state is "forcing" it's view of religion on ME.

     Which is better, having the baby or preforming the abortion is NOT the issue. The issue is the government is infringing on my 1st amendment rights.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 9:56pm

216. Here is a question, and I haven't decided for myself. I am thinking it over:

     Is every person in America entitled to health care at a certain standard?

     And if so, what is that standard?

     Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 9:58pm

217. Let me give you a real example to apply the standard to:

     I have a good friend who is on SSI. He would be so happy to get a job stocking shelves at wal-mart. (He had an interview with them today, I hope he got the job).

     His problem is that he has pretty severe learning disabilities, mild schizophrenia, some organic brain damage, Diabetes, Connective tissue disorder, and rheumatoid arthritis.

     I have tremendous respect for this guy. He has held more jobs than I can count. He loses them because his physical limitations make it hard for him to continue. And he is the first to be let go.

     He has his own cleaning business on the side, but because he is very slow, and not the most appealing person to look at, he hasn't been very successful at it.

     With his many health problems he frequently needs medical care.

     He gets reasonably good care because being on SSI, he qualifies for (is it medicaid or medicare, I don't remember which).

     I think, and he is my good friend, that he has adequate health care. It would be nice if he had somewhat better care, especially dental care.

     What about this guy?

     What sort of care should he get?

     Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 10:07pm

218. He also has trouble paying for his insulin.

     Not being capable at arithmetic makes money management a bit of a problem.

     Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 10:08pm

219. It is better to have the baby.

     To kill your own children is a grievous evil.

     Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 10:09pm

220. Todd,

     I also have a problem with my tax dollars being socially redistributed by the government to pay for mothers that CHOOSE to get pregnant and have more kids primarily for the added monthly income that comes from the government because of the new addition to the family.

     We're definitely in agreeance on this one. We really are. I know these types and they disgust me. The thing is, what happens once the baby's born anyway? I mean, there's still a baby to take care of, no matter how reckless or agenda-driven they were conceived. Personally, and I'm sure I'd catch some hell for this, I think the baby should be put in an adoption agency and the irresponsible "parents" be given no more social-program assistance than a childless man or woman is. You're clearly against abortion; I'm not. But I think we can both agree that every baby should be taken care of; it's the deadbeat "parents" who should have to suffer, not the baby. Yes, if there were no welfare, then this kind of abuse couldn't take place; but there'd have to be some kind of program for the benefit of the baby. I only wish someone could come up with something so people couldn't purposely multiply their welfare benefits bycarelessly multiplying.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/16/2005 @ 11:44pm

221. The idea that the government should be parent to all persons is a real problem.

     It may be more "compassionate" to leave this sort of situation to private charity, by and large.

     It is a difficult equation.

     Do the governments attempts to eliminate human misery actually have that effect?

     Look at the harm done to minorities.

     60 % of black children born in milwaukee are born to single mothers.

     It was not so before the "Great society".

     It might have been better not to do that.

     Hang the cost! Does it make things better, in the big picture, or worse?

     Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 11:57pm

222. Does welfare breed malfeasance? Of course it does. Only someone with blinders on would deny this. (When Clinton passed that welfare-reform bill in '96, a despicable welfare mom who was a friend of a co-worker complained she wouldn't be able to "afford" T-bone steaks anymore.) But let's not forget that it helps a lot of people who aren't malfeasance-ridden. Should they suffer because of the abusers? And, no, private charities will not be able to adequately cover what government social programs do. That's a knee-jerk contention that hasn't any hard data to back it up. It'd severely hurt people who need it, and if people don't mind this, then just admit it; I just don't like the asinine, head-in-the-sand contention that it won't.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 12:11am

223. Kevin,

     "We're definitely in agreeance on this one. We really are. I know these types and they disgust me. The thing is, what happens once the baby's born anyway? I mean, there's still a baby to take care of, no matter how reckless or agenda-driven they were conceived. Personally, and I'm sure I'd catch some hell for this, I think the baby should be put in an adoption agency and the irresponsible "parents" be given no more social-program assistance than a childless man or woman is. You're clearly against abortion; I'm not. But I think we can both agree that every baby should be taken care of; it's the deadbeat "parents" who should have to suffer, not the baby. Yes, if there were no welfare, then this kind of abuse couldn't take place; but there'd have to be some kind of program for the benefit of the baby. I only wish someone could come up with something so people couldn't purposely multiply their welfare benefits bycarelessly multiplying."

     HOLLY CRAP you and I actually agree on something, I'm calling Guinness!

     No seriously, this is cool, I can "feel you bro". (that's just a brotherly love thing, no racially motivated thing)

     I agreed with your entire response to my post about that as well. This whole issue we are discussing is why I firmly support Bush's faith based initiatives. Suppose that we could move the government welfare system over to the churches. You're right we HAVE to have a system in place to take care of the kids, while at the same time not simply "throw money" at the parents as the current system does. That doesn't solve the problems, it just gives GREEDY people a REASON to have MORE kids. Force the parents to go through a job training/certification program, MAKE them pull themselves up by their bootstraps and support themselves instead of living of YOUR and MY taxes. Churches can do this, and I personally would really trust this type of bureaucratically laden system with a ministry vs. the government, just my opinion.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 12:41am

224. this disscussion has little to do with reality regarding actual dollars spent on the vast majority of welfare recipients (poor white people). but overall it is such a small fraction of the budget--i'm a bit suprised about the venom here. why are you guys not upset about the govt giving it's revenues away to corporations? or in the form of tax breaks to homeowners in beverly hills, southhampton, and other ritzy places? and what's so horrible about a poor person wanting a steak?

     try to remember, anyone with any decent anaylsis of how american capitalism works:: you are employed, paying a decent rate on your loans because there are people who are out of work. that's right, sorry, but those with means are the real parasites... the least you could do is buy the lowly and insulted a steak and movie from time to time.

     Posted by dabar at 08/17/2005 @ 10:31am

225. Dabar,

     "you are employed, paying a decent rate on your loans because there are people who are out of work. that's right, sorry, but those with means are the real parasites..."

     Wow, that statement right there is the definition of communism, vilifying those with some wealth as "parasites" simply because other people don't have the same level of wealth.

     How long have you been a communist anyway Dabar?

     Somebody smart once wrote something about coveting thy neighbors stuff. Can someone help me out with that?

     I help those that are humble and really need help, I don't give one red cent of my money to people with your mindset that somehow they are entitled to my wealth, you communist.

     That's the problem with our country, too many people with poor work ethics and bad attitudes think they are entitled to the stuff that those with good work ethics have.

     Go live in Cuba, I think they are still under a communist financial system.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 10:54am

226. a communist! oh now you've done it!! the "c" word! this means war!

     stick to sports todd. but if you like, do a little digging on the federal reserve, interest rates, and unemployment numbers. that's for starters. but the real communists, or socialists, with their grimy little entitled hands out are the rich. they buy their whores in congress, state legislatures, and at the local level so that they retain thier subsidies in the name of the "free market"...or the ever-present imbeciles screaming (STILL!) about the benefits of (voodoo) trickledown state socialism. actually, i'm exaggerating--they ain't so dumb are they? like you? writing to us from the caymans on your tax free yacht? you must know of what i speak? yes? being a man of means and all?

     oh, and as for your professed expertise regarding comparitive politics: LMFAO!!!!!!

     Posted by dabar at 08/17/2005 @ 11:09am

227. Dabar,

     "oh, and as for your professed expertise regarding comparitive politics: LMFAO!!!!!!"

     Well, you tell me, here's my comparative politics:

     "you are employed, paying a decent rate on your loans because there are people who are out of work. that's right, sorry, but those with means are the real parasites..."

     Definition of "communism" according to dictionary.com:

     1. "A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. "

     As opposed to the definition of "capitalism" according to dictionary.com:

     "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

     Therefore based on your statement vilifying those with wealth and means as "parasites" you are advocating the distribution of those means to allow collective ownership for all members.

     Therefore Dabar = Communist

     That's pretty simple don't you think?

     Actually, isn't it interesting to see the difference in the definition of the two systems in that capitalism IS and economic system where communism is a "theoretical" economic system.

     Therefore Dabar, you go live in your "theoretical" fantasy world of communism. I'll stick to the U.S.A. and capitalism, thank you very much!

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 2:28pm

228. Aludra, PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE ENERGY BILL GIVES TAX BREAKS TO THE OIL COMPANIES WHO ARE MAKING $7.6 BILLION PROFIT, IN A 3 MONTH PERIOD...AND IF THE OIL COMPANIES CAN MAKE THAT MUCH PROFIT IN SUCH A SHORT TIME...AREN'T WE PAYING TOO MUCH AT THE PUMP?? YOU SEEM TO KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT EVERYTHING...I WAS WONDERING HOW YOU CAN DEFEND THIS?...AND SPEAKING OF DEFENDING...WHY, OH WHY, AREN'T YOU OVER IN IRAQ HELPING YOUR BELOVED COMMANDER IN CHIEF?????

     Posted by crobin at 08/17/2005 @ 3:34pm

229. Todd and Kevin, Calling people communists? Both of you sound like Rush's dittoheads(repeating what just what you hear). Both of you have republican parents? Are you repeating what they say? You write dribble.Give us some data to back up your assertions! When you 'talk' about welfare, give us real facts,case studies. Ask anyone who had to get welfare, for even a short time, what is was like. You have NO FACTS, NO DATA TO BACK UP WHAT YOU WRITE, YOU JUST REPEAT WHAT YOU'VE HEARD! YOU think that because you write that crap, that somehow makes you superior to the rest of us? Tell us how you developed those 'attitudes'. Let me ask YOU a question...For people that might not have an IQ to be an accountant or an engineer,or for people that can't OR don't have the desire to screw others out of their money...DOES THAT MEAN THESE PEOPLE DON'T DESERVE TO MAKE A LIVABLE WAGE? DO YOU THAT THE CEO OF A COMPANY IS THAT MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU, THAT HE SHOULD MAKE, AND I'M NOT EMBELISHING, THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS/HOUR? WHY IS HE WORTH THAT MUCH? REMEMBER HE IS NO BETTER THAN THE PEOPLE WORKING FOR HIM. Both of you spout off about communism, but do you know what the opposite is? It's Fascism...you understand what that is? It's where there is no room for mistakes...human ones, that is.

     Posted by crobin at 08/17/2005 @ 5:04pm

230. Dabar

     You did sound a bit like Karl Marx there, with that "Parasites" comment.

     Engineers are paid well, largely because of supply and demand.

     But really, I hold patents which have earned my employer millions of dollars. They get their money's worth.

     The characteristic of communism (the real thing, as expounded by marx) is class warfare.

     The workers are pitted against the parasitical fat cats.

     So I think what Todd was saying is you sound like a traditional "Class Warfare, Hate the Rich, Envy Envy" communist.

     Todd- is that about right?

     Posted by jonb at 08/17/2005 @ 9:33pm

231. Aludra

     Maybe you have been sleeping so here is a wake-up, unless you are rich this president will step on you like a bug.

     One more thing with all the kids killed in Iraq I belive you also ment to say Bush is also a war criminal.

     Posted by WAKE-UP CALL at 08/18/2005 @ 01:29am