The Beat

House Judiciary Trio Calls for Impeach Cheney Hearings

posted by John Nichols on 12/14/2007 @ 11:22am

Three senior members of the House Judiciary Committee have called for the immediate opening of impeachment hearings for Vice President Richard Cheney.

Democrats Robert Wexler of Florida, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin on Friday distributed a statement, "A Case for Hearings," that declares, "The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens."

In particular, the Judiciary Committee members cite the recent revelation by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan that the Vice President and his staff purposefully gave him false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent as part of a White House campaign to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson. On the basis of McClellan's statements, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin say, "it is even more important for Congress to investigate what may have been an intentional obstruction of justice." The three House members argue that, "Congress should call Mr. McClellan to testify about what he described as being asked to ‘unknowingly [pass] along false information.'"

Adding to the sense of urgency, the members note that "recent revelations have shown that the Administration including Vice President Cheney may have again manipulated and exaggerated evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- this time about Iran's nuclear capabilities."

Although Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin are close to Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, getting the Michigan Democrat to open hearings on impeachment will not necessarily be easy. Though Conyers was a leader in suggesting during the last Congress that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney had committed impeachable offenses, he has been under immense pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to keep Constitutional remedies for executive excesses "off the table" in this Congress.

It is notable, however, that Baldwin maintains warm relations with Pelosi and that Wexler, a veteran member of the Judiciary Committee has historically had an amiable and effective working relationship with Conyers. There is no question that Conyers, who voted to keep open the impeachment debate on November 7, has been looking for a way to explore the charges against Cheney. The move by three of his key allies on the committee may provide the chairman with the opening he seeks, although it is likely he will need to hear from more committee members before making any kind of break with Pelosi -- or perhaps convincing her that holding hearings on Cheney's high crimes and misdemeanors is different from putting a Bush impeachment move on the table.

The most important immediate development, however, is the assertion of an "ask" for supporters of impeachment. Pulled in many directions in recent months, campaigners for presidential and vice presidential accountability have focused their attention on supporting a House proposal by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nod, to impeach Cheney. When Kucinich forced consideration of his resolution on November 7, Pelosi and her allies used procedural moves to get it sent to the Judiciary Committee for consideration. Pelosi's hope was that the proposal would disappear into the committee's files.

The call for hearings by Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin puts impeachment on the table, at least as far as activists are concerned, creating a pressure point that can serve as a reply when House Democrats who are critical of Bush but cautious about impeachment ask: "What do you want me to do?" The answer can now be: "Back the call for Judiciary Committee hearings on whether to impeach Dick Cheney?"

"Some of us were in Congress during the impeachment hearings of President Clinton. We spent a year and a half listening to testimony about President Clinton's personal relations. This must not be the model for impeachment inquires. A Democratic Congress can show that it takes its constitutional authority seriously and hold a sober investigation, which will stand in stark contrast to the kangaroo court convened by Republicans for President Clinton. In fact, the worst legacy of the Clinton impeachment - where the GOP pursued trumped up and insignificant allegations - would be that it discourages future Congresses from examining credible and significant allegations of a constitutional nature when they arise," write Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin.

"The charges against Vice President Cheney are not personal," the House members add. "They go to the core of the actions of this Administration, and deserve consideration in a way the Clinton scandal never did. The American people understand this, and a majority support hearings according to a November 13 poll by the American Research Group. In fact, 70 percent of voters say that Vice President Cheney has abused his powers and 43 percent say that he should be removed from office right now. The American people understand the magnitude of what has been done and what is at stake if we fail to act. It is time for Congress to catch up."

Arguing that hearings need not distract Congress, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin note that the focus is on Cheney for a reason: "These hearings involve the possible impeachment of the Vice President -- not our commander in chief -- and the resulting impact on the nation's business and attention would be significantly less than the Clinton Presidential impeachment hearings."

They also argue, correctly, that the hearings are necessary if Congress is to restore its position in the Constitutionally-defined system of checks and balances.

"Holding hearings would put the evidence on the table, and the evidence -- not politics -- should determine the outcome," the Judiciary Committee members explain. "Even if the hearings do not lead to removal from office, putting these grievous abuses on the record is important for the sake of history. For an Administration that has consistently skirted the constitution and asserted that it is above the law, it is imperative for Congress to make clear that we do not accept this dangerous precedent. Our Founding Fathers provided Congress the power of impeachment for just this reason, and we must now at least consider using it."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols is the author of THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (299)

  1. "The answer can now be: "Back the call for Judiciary Committee hearings on whether to impeach Dick Cheney."

    If that miracle were to come to pass, the Pandora box of 911 would be reopened, probably much wider than last time. Which is why no miracle will happen.

    But which is not to say stop demanding impeachment hearings. The record must show there was an opposition to W&Co & it was assiduously ignored by the Dem leadership.

    Posted by sloper at 12/14/2007 @ 12:00pm

  2. Arguing that hearings need not distract Congress, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin note that the focus is on Cheney for a reason:

    Distract Congress from what? Talking about steroids in baseball?

    Posted by FritztheCat at 12/14/2007 @ 12:02pm

  3. Jesus Haploid Christ.

    Okay...Mr Nichols...give us the date, the final, "This is it or else it ain't happening" date that YOU will abide by and finally figure out that Pelosi isn't going to allow an impeachment (especially since a transcript of her endorsing TORTURE in 2002 will immediately appear on Fox News and in the Washington Times)....

    so that we will know when these articles claiming "impeachment is imminent" (which have been going on for OVER two years now) will finally be laid to rest and this silly hype and "red meat for the base" stuff will be over.

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 12:14pm

  4. Or is it that "Genius of Impeachment" has dropped to Amazon's #145,883 and it's time to boost it back to #145,880?

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 12:19pm

  5. So good to get the early posters not railling against you John - another post concerning the Impe... word. Should Conyers not break out of the iron maiden, he must feel kinda secure there - weird in itself, because of a party lead (in name only) that is the biggest sell out since mata hari (mask - take it as a popular notion that mata hari really was a spy), we have others that should make a media stink.

    Maybe Conyers is on steroids. They make him more painfree in the morning, but, they are shrinking his testicles. Stop looking out for #One Conyers and snatch your gonads back from Pelosi and do what is right. Serve the public!!!!

    Posted by steve foster at 12/14/2007 @ 12:24pm

  6. >>sigh<< John, John, John...

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/14/2007 @ 12:54pm

  7. Mask, old boy,

    Ha! Got the rest of the day off and my TransSiberian Orchestra Tickets just came in the mail. Can't think of a better way to celebrate the anniversary of the birth of the Son of God than with a 3 hour Rock/Jazz/Classical/Christmas Concert over Ribs and Beer. (Well Ribs and Diet Coke-Nothings perfect) This is off topic but I don't give a shit cause its more interesting than hearing Nichols discuss Cheney's Impeachment for the 4,000,000,000,000,000, time.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/14/2007 @ 1:11pm

  8. I'll use this opportunity to share 2 emails I sent recently, 1 to the Judiciary Committee & the other to Pelosi.

    2007-11-16 Letter to Judiciary

    To All Judiciary Committee Members, Recently a resolution to impeach the Vice President was brought before you and I hope to present a view of this issue that may not have been previously presented. Moving this resolution forward would represent the beginning of the best foreign relations and diplomacy strategy the Congress could undertake. It seems unrelated, but I will explain. Over the past few years, the U.S. has lost the trust and respect of almost every nation and government in the world. Our leaders have destroyed relationships that took generations to develop and squandered the sympathy and good will we enjoyed after 9-11. As I see it, the only way we can regain all that we lost, is to show the world that we are willing to clean up our own government before we continue meddling in the governments of others. To this end, impeachment would be a great start. Consider it.

    2007-11-28 Letter to Pelosi

    It seems that with no support from our Democratic leadership, the resolution to impeach the Vice President is destined to die of old age in committee. After spending most of the past 6 years in disagreement with President Bush, I now find I agree with his statement, "This action will embolden our enemies." In fact, after 6 years of demonstrating that they (the Bush administration) have no respect for the constitution, your first action as Speaker of the House was to announce that "impeachment is off the table." By doing this, you told an angry American public and an administration with no respect for the law, that the executive branch can continue doing whatever they want and there will never be any consequences. This serves only to "embolden our enemies." Would you tell a person suspected of murder not to worry, because even if we do collect evidence against them, you will make sure they are never brought up on charges? The joke of impeaching Clinton over a personal indiscretion has poisoned the process for many in Washington, but our founding fathers included this option to deal with a constitutionally flawed administration like this one and YOU SHOULD HONOR THOSE FOUNDING FATHERS GOOD INTENSIONS. The amount of additional damage that can be done between now and January 20, 2009 can be devastating unless this Congress puts a stop to it. Do what's right, not what's politically safe!

    Posted by Reasons103 at 12/14/2007 @ 1:37pm

  9. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/14/2007 @ 1:11pm

    Actually CHIP, according to the Book of Mormon, in addition to Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar...there were two other Magi whose gifts were...

    ribs and Diet Coke.

    (Just wanted to see that vein in LVLIB's neck start to pop out at the mention of "heresy"...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 1:45pm

  10. LOL

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/14/2007 @ 1:50pm

  11. WTF, John, it's your blog.

    Cheney's not gonna stop pissing on the Constitution.

    The facially obscured one will continue to maskurbate.

    Keep putting it out there.

    Posted by drhammer at 12/14/2007 @ 1:50pm

  12. Here's a few other commentators on impeachment--

    Harry Reid----(on JUST CENSURE) "The president already has the mark of the American people that he's the worst president we've ever had, and I don't think we need a censure resolution in the Senate to prove that."

    Nancy Pelosi----"Impeachment is off the table."

    Nancy Pelosi----""The question of impeachment is something that would divide the country," Pelosi said this morning during a wide-ranging discussion in the ornate Speaker's office. Her top priorities are ending the war in Iraq, expanding health care, creating jobs and preserving the environment. "I know what our success can be on those issues. I don't know what our success can be on impeaching the president."

    Barack Obama----"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."

    John Conyers----(to Cindy Sheehan and company) "our only recourse is elections"

    Howard Dean----"Americans don't want impeachment, they want healing."

    Al Gore!!!!!----Pressed on whether he believed that impeachment is a good use of time, Gore replied, "I don't think it is. I don't think it would be successful."

    Throw in Rahm Emmanuel, Steny Hoyer, George Miller (D-CA), Earl Pomeroy (D-ND).....

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 1:51pm

  13. Oh, and sell some books, too.

    Posted by drhammer at 12/14/2007 @ 1:51pm

  14. Posted by DRHAMMER 12/14/2007 @ 1:50pm

    Fine, Doc...from now until Mr Nichols finally gives up on the idea of (or stops hawking a book about) something was 95% dead back LAST January when Pelosi said "off the table" and was 99% dead when John Conyers kicked Cindy Sheehan out and called the cops on her....

    I'll just quote the above--Posted by MASK 12/14/2007 @ 1:51pm.

    And John Nichols can quote all 35 members of the Progressie Caucus that he quotes EVERYTIME he has a "This is it, folks! Any day now!" chunk of un-cooked sirloin he wants to throw out and watch the Blogosphere gobble up.

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 1:54pm

  15. Impeachment, while a novel idea, will never happen. It takes 2/3 majority to convict in the Senate and impeach, right? Dem's can't get the votes to override a veto, much less impeach the president (er, I mean VP [same difference]).

    Doesn't the speaker of the house become the VP if impeachment actually were to go through? Thereby making the speaker of the house suddenly vulnerable to impeachment herself?

    Posted by FritztheCat at 12/14/2007 @ 1:57pm

  16. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 12/14/2007 @ 1:57pm

    One error and one fantasy explanation from the Impeachment Crowd...

    the error-- It takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate to REMOVE FROM OFFICE...actual "impeachment" is a vote in the House of Reps.

    the fantasy-- "See, once Cheney is impeached...and the Senate holds its trial, ALL the evidence of his crimes will be laid bare to the American people and the Senate Repubs will HAVE NO CHOICE but to remove him from office or face the wrath of the public!"

    Note...this is the EXACT same argument used by hard-line Righties in the Clinton impeachment. "Once he's put on trial in the Senate, the people will see that it's 'not just about sex' but PERJURY and the Senate Dems will have no choice but to remove him from office or face the wrath of the public!"

    They don't seem to consider that Cheney will not only fight back...but fight back by pulling all the transcripts of all the meetings WITH DEMOCRATS for the last 5 years in the Intell Committee and put out Pelosi signing off on TORTURE....

    and BEFORE the impeachment vote in the House.

    Then the Democrats lose the vote...look silly...and "beholden to their Fringe Base"...and go into the 2008 Elections trying to explain why they not only didn't get much done, but THE most major Constitutional crises in 8 years...flopped on them.

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 2:14pm

  17. "Vulnerable to impeachment herself"!? Every executive branch wrongdoer, every public servant maybe, is "vulnerable," more bound by their oaths and honor, to remain accountable for their words and deeds.

    I'm proud of our Florida representative, the Honorable Robert Wexler, for attempting to prompt the Democratic Leadership into appropriate, constitutionally provisioned action against Darth Cheney.

    Get on the ball Fritz. And, as usual, keep up the excellent reporting Mr. Nichols!

    Posted by lewwelge at 12/14/2007 @ 2:24pm

  18. Or is it that "Genius of Impeachment" has dropped to Amazon's #145,883 and it's time to boost it back to #145,880?

    Posted by MASK 12/14/2007 @ 12:19pm

    MASK, You're starting to sound like Happy.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 2:25pm

  19. Mask, thanks for the clarification. Perhaps if the Democrats had this [truthdig.com] a while back, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 12/14/2007 @ 2:25pm

  20. Bored people are boring Jomama. Blog elsewhere if drowzy here, dude.

    Posted by lewwelge at 12/14/2007 @ 2:27pm

  21. Speaking of an imperfect world, even if Cheney did deserve impeachment, it's never going to happen because you guy have cried wolf too many times for anyone to bother to figure out if you're right.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/14/2007 @ 1:37pm

    Not so MBB. Crying Wolf for the same thing is what has been going on. But, since you bring up the point, the Bush administration has pretty much been of the idea that they answer to no one. Not Congress, The Supreme Court nor the American people.

    Since the executive branch has been operating from that perspective, that alone deserves to be viewed as an impeachable offense since that perspective is in direct violation of the constitution, or do you have a problem with the executive branch following the constitution and the laws of the land.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 2:31pm

  22. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/14/2007 @ 1:11pm

    transiberian orchestra?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    HELP!!!!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 2:35pm

  23. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/14/2007 @ 1:35pm | ignore this person

    Here, this will make you feel better ...

    Seymour Hersh, who first broke the Abu Ghraib story in April 2004, and who said the following, when speaking to an ACLU event in July 2004: "Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib. . . . The women were passing messages out saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror."

    Additionally, former prisoners from Abu Ghraib have given U.S. military investigators detailed descriptions of the rape of a boy prisoner at Abu Ghraib by an American soldier, and have described other types of abuse of children there.

    The insurgency came out of Abu Graib. As it was meant to. Pretending there is ambiguity, even as a foundation for denial, is moral cowardice.

    Posted by V at 12/14/2007 @ 2:38pm

  24. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 12/14/2007 @ 1:57pm

    finally, someone pointing out the obvious.

    it's a shame. but it's obvious.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 2:40pm

  25. Posted by V 12/14/2007 @ 2:38pm

    slippery slope, indeed.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 2:42pm

  26. MASK, You're starting to sound like Happy.----Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/14/2007 @ 2:25pm

    On THIS silliness...sure, why not? Again, it's like a "stalker fantasy"...you know where the cops or psychiatrists say to the stalker "She put out a restraining order against you" and he says "That wasn't HER idea, her parents made her do that...they object to our love!" ...or "She's marrying somebody else!" and he says "No, she's just confused. Once the day comes, she'll realize it's ME she loves and dump that guy at the altar!"

    Well, same with impeachment. Mr Nichols is the "stalker". Pelosi says "off the table"...no matter, says John Nichols. Reid poo-poos CENSURE (not even impeachment)....who cares?, says John Nichols. Conyers ...the CHAIRMAN of the Judiciary Comm., tell Cindy Sheehan....just three months ago..."no way" and calls the cops on her...

    John Nichols says "No problem, Dennis Kucinich and 3 guys on the Committee will TELL John Conyers to do it"..."and if he still doesn't?" the sane ones ask....what does John Nichols come up with next (and there WILL be a "next"...there always is)?

    JOMAMMA is right...it's approaching the delusional state of HSUBFOOLS and his "Gore will announce his candidacy within weeks!"

    Except John Nichols is SUPPOSED to be a professional political analyst and not a nutty art teacher.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22217110

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 2:44pm

  27. This was for this post [msnbc.msn.com]....more serious and atleast SLIGHTLY more realistic.

    Howard Fineman saying Her Nibs might lose....FOUR IN A ROW!

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 2:45pm

  28. Posted by V 12/14/2007 @ 2:38pm

    Man, what a bunch of sick twisted bastards. Hey, MBB, this also was done in our name. Do you have a problem with that, or is this something that is justifiable if it could stop a possible attack? Where do you draw the line?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 2:50pm

  29. V:

    On the money. MARYBRETBRAD seems to think that calling the Bush administration on the carpet for multiple examples of the same egregiously illegal behavior is the same as crying wolf.

    I wonder if he ever considered that Bush has racked up numerous reasons for impeachment... oh wait, that would involve thinking critically and objectively about our esteemed President and Veep, something he (and Maasch, and Happy, and Frankshitz, and USC1 and countless other right wing apologists) have been loath to do on practically any issue.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 2:50pm

  30. V posts: "The insurgency came out of Abu Graib. As it was meant to. Pretending there is ambiguity, even as a foundation for denial, is moral cowardice."

    Precisely. "Was meant to be." No insurgency = no more war = no further funding = no Patriot Act, no more black sites, no endless funding, no perpetual fear. Who wants that result? Provoke. Provoke. Provoke. This is W&Co policy. And will continue to be US policy under any GOP president in '09 or under any one of the 3 top Dems who is now guaranteeing US military presence in Iraq to at least 2013.

    Posted by sloper at 12/14/2007 @ 2:54pm

  31. FROSTY:

    What, man, you don't like the TSO?? Their freakin Great! Give me one of your favorites & we'll see our musical tastes, just for the hell of it.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/14/2007 @ 2:56pm

  32. TSO is little more than muzak. Sorry.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 3:02pm

  33. Posted by JORCHEIM 12/14/2007 @ 3:02pm

    What about Mannheim Steamroller?.....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 3:19pm

  34. SLOPER:

    It was precisely the same throughout the Cold War. There is a long litany of evidence that has proven unequivocally that the Soviet threat was grossly over-exaggerated.

    For what purpose, I wonder... oh, right... without an external threat, the military/industrial complex loses its raison d'etre.

    Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.

    James Madison

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 3:29pm

  35. Fuck Mannheim Steamroller.

    :D

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 3:29pm

  36. "I wonder why anyone bothers to read the blog here anymore..."

    Posted by JOMAMMA 12/14/2007 @ 2:23pm

    And the obvious question raised by this post...

    Posted by drhammer at 12/14/2007 @ 3:32pm

  37. LOL @ DRHAMMER.

    That's called a BURN. Hey MAASCH... you want some aloe for that?

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 3:34pm

  38. TSO is little more than muzak. Sorry.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 12/14/2007 @ 3:02pm

    What is TSO? I'm a semi-old-timer.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 3:42pm

  39. TSO = Trans-Siberian Orchestra

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 3:43pm

  40. I am not saying they are not talented... but it's kind of like having N'Sync doing a cover of a James Brown tune. It just... it's just wrong...

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 3:44pm

  41. TSO = Trans-Siberian Orchestra

    Posted by JORCHEIM 12/14/2007 @ 3:43pm

    Thanks.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 3:47pm

  42. JORCHEIM

    muzak? BARBARIAN, May you be stuck in a Dentists Elevator with nothing but Republicans for company for 10,000 Generations!

    :) Have an excellent weekend

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/14/2007 @ 3:55pm

  43. There is a long litany of evidence that has proven unequivocally that the Soviet threat was grossly over-exaggerated.----Posted by JORCHEIM 12/14/2007 @ 3:29pm

    JORCH, do you think that...

    the Hungarians in 1956..

    the Czechs in 1968...

    or the Afghans in 1980...

    thought that?

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 4:06pm

  44. May you be stuck in a Dentists Elevator with nothing but Republicans for company for 10,000 Generations!

    :) Have an excellent weekend

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/14/2007 @ 3:55pm

    That, sir, is over the top!!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 4:06pm

  45. FROSTY:

    What, man, you don't like the TSO?? Their freakin Great! Give me one of your favorites & we'll see our musical tastes, just for the hell of it.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/14/2007 @ 2:56pm

    monk, stravinsky, skattelites, coltrane, the who, marley, poulenc, white stripes, zeppelin, piazzolla, desmond decker, martinho da vila, diomedes diaz, dr. lonnie smith, did i say coltrane?

    oh and sun ra, rush, hank williams (the real one), ricky skaggs, cachao, compay segundo,

    and,

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 4:23pm

  46. Posted by MASK 12/14/2007 @ 4:06pm

    MASK, The Soviet threat to the United States was grossly exagerrated. How about that? The U.S. got all pissed off because the Soviet Union wanted to put a few missiles in Cuba while we had one and more to come pointed right at them. The first missile site was called Alpha (president Kennedy's ace in the hole) just outside of Great Falls Montana. Alpha 1 was the ace in the hole actually.

    Right now, we have a navy that can pretty much go where it wants with nuclear weapons and destroy any country it wants. I would say that the American threat to other nations is pretty damn scary right now.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 4:23pm

  47. I am not saying they are not talented... It just... it's just wrong...

    Posted by JORCHEIM 12/14/2007 @ 3:44pm

    you mean like dragonforce?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 4:28pm

  48. Good morning children. Today, we discuss impeachment, and we'll focus on the late 20th century, and early 21st century. Can anyone explain why sex in the white house is impeachable, but lies, war crimes, and treason are not? Please use factual examples and limit your answer to one hour. Remember, we have our weekly thought reports being taken for home security at 11.

    Posted by tompoe at 12/14/2007 @ 4:28pm

  49. MASK:

    I never said the Soviets were not dangerous, just that we purposefully were duped into believing the threat was greater than it actually was. But allow me to paint you a different picture from the accepted conventional wisdom of the west.

    After WWII, the Soviets saw a hostile world to the west, a world that had invaded the motherland 4 times in a little over 100 years (Napoleon, Germany, the US/Great Britain, Germany yet again). While I am neither exonerating nor condoning their behavior, but I understand why they were trying to build up a belt of buffer states between the west and themselves. Before WWII was even over, the US and Great Britain were starting to agitate for more aggressive foreign policy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, and the invasion of Arkangel was still fresh in the minds of the revolutionaries-turned bureaucrats of the Soviet machine.

    The bottom line is, the much ballyhooed missile gap, for example, was bullshit. The Berlin Wall? A direct response to a number of aggressive overtures by the west, particularly the US. The Cuban Missile Crisis? A direct response to the Titans sitting in Turkey pointed right up Moscow's cave of shame.

    Afghanistan was simply a war of empire. I never said the Soviets didn't fall into the same false tropes that the west did, they just did it later, and not nearly as effectively.

    I would highly recommend a book for you, The Global Cold War, by Odd Arne Westad. It is a fascinating read by one of the foremost authorities on the subject. Far from being an apologist for the Soviets, he takes a balanced look at the Cold War, especially as it affected the Third World.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 4:28pm

  50. Posted by MASK 12/14/2007 @ 4:06pm

    what about the grenadians?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 4:29pm

  51. FROSTY ZOOM:

    PRECISELY like Dragonforce. It's like they took all that was bad about Yngwie Malmsteen, 80's hair metal, Dream Theater, and Rush, and distilled it into a huge steaming pile of elephant faeces, that is then somehow through tech-magic, imprinted onto cds for retail sale.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 4:31pm

  52. Posted by TOMPOE 12/14/2007 @ 4:28pm

    "mornin', mr tompoe, sir."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 4:31pm

  53. especially as it affected the Third World.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 12/14/2007 @ 4:28pm

    amen!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 4:32pm

  54. CHIP THORNTON:

    That was completely uncalled for... but funny as hell.

    LOL

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 4:33pm

  55. Posted by JORCHEIM 12/14/2007 @ 4:31pm

    don't forget to add 1 and 3/4 cups of dungeons and dragons

    and

    a lively helping of dragon ball z.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 4:38pm

  56. Posted by JORCHEIM 12/14/2007 @ 4:28pm

    JORCH, isn't it easing a BIT into "Blame America First"ism to think that the problem of the Cold War was....Stalin was scared of US?!??!?

    As for "I am neither exonerating nor condoning their behavior"...it seems your entire post WAS doing that. No mention of Soviet expansionism (funding and supporting revolutions from Asia to Africa to Central America).

    You explain away Hungary-1956 and Czechoslovakia-1968 as them "scared of us"...but admit Afghanistan-1980 was a "war of empire"....why couldn't the OTHER two be "wars of empire"?

    Answer...because if the Soviets were engaged in wars of empire from '56 (or go back to the Berlin Airlift 1949)...then the "It's OUR fault that there was a Cold War...those poor, scared Russians were just panicking and 'over-reacting'".

    This is the PRIME reason the Left has been viewed suspiciously by the American people since the late 60s. The idea that NEW liberals (post-McGovern) are not the same liberals (Truman, Kennedy) who DIDN'T look at US first, when they're looking for an international bad guy.

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 4:39pm

  57. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/14/2007 @ 4:29pm

    Well, I'm sure some here might think of a Marxist who outlawed all other political parties as a "democratic revolutionary"....I think many others would have a different view of Maurice Bishop.

    But...no doubt his picture will appear on sportswear!

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 4:44pm

  58. FROSTY ZOOM:

    Touche'!

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 4:44pm

  59. MASK:

    You say I was exonerating the Soviets, when in actuality, I was simply giving air to an alternate point of view, one that, particularly recently, has gotten very little attention, despite a great deal of evidential and anecdotal support. I was not saying that the Russians did not participate in wars of empire... quite to the contrary. But to paint them, as we did throughout the Cold War, as this monolithic evil intent upon world domination, without then also considering our own policies and intentions in that regard, is both myopic and dishonest. It does not truthfully describe the reality of the era. And that is what I am all about... truth, no matter ho badly it hurts.

    It is not a matter of "Blame America First". which is a common line of bullshit that is tendered so often, and supposedly considered legitimate discourse. It is a matter of calling a spade and spade, and not falling victim to the "My country, right or wrong" trope that seems to infest any attempt at social commentary or erudition on the part of the right, scholarly or otherwise.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 4:50pm

  60. "a spade a spade"*

    Sorry... damned flu.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 4:51pm

  61. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/14/2007 @ 4:28pm

    Those dudes can play guitar. Their singing isn't that great, but damn the guitar sounds good.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 4:53pm

  62. WOLFGANG1:

    Oh, again, I never said they aren't amazingly talented. But their songwriting skills are... well... nonexistent.

    If you would like to hear true virtuosity paired with amazingly good songwriting, check out Tool.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 4:56pm

  63. Posted by MASK 12/14/2007 @ 4:44pm

    what about the shah, then?

    why wasn't he taken out for being nasty?

    oh, that's right. he was OUR nasty.

    the wheels on the bus go,

    round and round,

    round and round................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 5:01pm

  64. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/14/2007 @ 4:56pm

    MBB, You've smoked too much crack.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 5:05pm

  65. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/14/2007 @ 4:56pm

    so everything's going great, right?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 5:05pm

  66. --Fabulous shortlist, FZ ;-)

    Even so, I suspect you might have overwhelmed the chipster's circuits though.

    Back to the topic at hand.

    I'm dredging up an old posting for Maskot's delectation.

    From the Online Beat 9/17/07:

    b kool says:

    Nichols- Now, the new Congress has a simple, basic, yet essential Constitutional duty. Its members must impeach the president.

    Right on of course, but these are strange times. The nation has devolved --and the downward spiral has quickened dramatically under Dick and Dubya-- into a fattened and ethically/morally weak empire. You know it, I know it and the American people know it --or are at least they're dimly aware of a rotten stench wafting out of Washington.

    We are in the hail mary stage of the game in regards to saving what's salvageable in an American democracy that has been increasingly sickly over the last several decades.

    We should all be hoping --and praying if you're so inclined-- that a tsunami of sensibility hits our mainland soon. Very soon.

    maskot says:

    Didn't the fact that John Conyers NOT ONLY told Cindy Sheehan no on impeachment a month or so back...but HAD HER ARRESTED...tell you something?

    or your hero Russ Feingold shooting it down on Kos? Or Gore coming out against it? Or Howard Dean on Air America?

    What does it take to make you see, it isn't going to happen???

    b kool replies:

    Just to clarify Maskot, Nichols isn't making any predictions here. He's simply stating the obvious --that impeachment is called for now as never before.

    Just because we are living in a land that's rich in ignorance, confusion and mass media propaganda doesn't make the sky green.

    Interpretation for Maskot: Impeachment is very unlikely at this point, but that doesn't mean that it is any less necessary or speaking of it any less imperative.

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 09/16/2007 @ 7:38pm

    (PrEparE fOr tHe BaRkFeSt iN rEply ;-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/14/2007 @ 5:06pm

  67. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You said:

    Crying wolf, let me count the ways:

    1) Bush stole the election! Much hyperventilating ensued. Six months later the NYT consortium said Bush won under under every conceiveable scenario. (Gore had more votes under one scenario that nobody asked the courts to use, but it took six months to count and the presidency would have been decided in Bush's favor in the House by that time.)

    My response:

    I would recommend you checking out Greg Palast's exhaustive research into precisely this issue, both in 2000, and in 2004. The evidence is clear. The election was, in fact, stolen, just not the way we were told it was.

    You said:

    2) Bush LIED! about the British intelligence. Nope, the British did have that intelligence. That it was based on an Italian forgery was only learned after SOTU address. And the Forgery was like Mark Furman's OJ glove: It was planting evidence on the guilty.

    My response:

    Obviously you never read the Downing Street memos. It is a veritable smoking gun proving that Bush lied. As far as planting evidence, I have yet to see the US get upset at Israel or South Africa having nukes. So your cries of Iran being guilty are about as hypocritical as I would expect from you.

    You said:

    3) Bush LIED! about Iraq having nukes. No, Bush said "sought" unranium and an Iraqi diplomat (nuke expert and abassador to Vatican) did visit Niger inquiring about uranium, as Ambassador Wilson confirmed.

    My response:

    Talk about dishonesty! Am I the only one who remembers the whole "mushroom cloud" talk, or the "London can be attacked in 45 minutes" spiel?

    You said:

    4) Bush SPIED! on americans. No, call were all over seas and Supreme Court and Congress said okay.

    My response:

    That is simply not true. James Risen's book State of War disputes this dubious claim, and even brings evidence to the fore that proves that Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping before 9/11 occurred... and, that it was not just limited to overseas calls.

    Add to that the Project Echelon, which, admittedly was begun under Bush Sr and expanded greatly under Clinton, and you are simply blowing smoke.

    You said:

    5) Bush tortured prisioners. Nope, waterboarding doesn't meet legal definition of torture. It was later revieled that Pelosi and Kenedy were fine with it and wondered if it was tough enough.

    My response:

    Wrong again. Waterboarding was deemed torture under the Geneva conventions, to which we as a nation are signatories. More importantly, in 1947, we found a Japanese soldier, Yukio Asano, guilty of war crimes for using waterboarding. Can't you get anything right?

    You said:

    6) Bush outed Plame! Nope, Dick Ameritage at state did. But what about Rove? When novak said he heard Plame was CIA, Rove said, "I heard that too." Fitzmas found no, "there" there. What about Libby? He lied about non-events because he thought he was being set up to take the fall to appease the left. No conspiracy to out an agent.

    My response:

    No one ever said that Bush personally outed Plame. If I remember correctly, it was pretty much agreed by everyone that it was Rove, under orders from Cheney. Now, because of Bush's granting a commutation (rather than a pardon) he is essentially participating in a felony, i.e. obstruction of justice.

    You said:

    7) Americans flushed the Koran at Git-mo. Oops, guess not. It was a wild exaggeration. Sorry about all the people killed in the rioting our false allegations set off.

    My response:

    Again, you're wrong. And to add to it, there have recently been documented cases by the Red Cross of child sodomy at Abu Ghraib.

    You said:

    8) The Rosenbergs were innocent. Oops guess not as the KGB files prove.

    My response:

    What do the Rosenbergs have to do with anything we are discussing here? Do you just revel in being wrong and inappropriate, or are you just an idiot savant at doing such things?

    You said:

    So now, the latest charges are that Cheny lied about Iran and US soldier are raping little boys. Good luck getting anyone to listen.

    My response:

    First, Cheney has lied about so much else, how is it such a stretch that he lied about Iran? And regarding sodomizing little boys... that part is true and documented.

    Sorry, you score a big, fat zero for today.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 5:16pm

  68. Sorry, you score a big, fat zero for today.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 12/14/2007 @ 5:16pm

    MBB scores a big fat zero most every day.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 5:24pm

  69. Losers always see the pain and suffering of others as their win...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/14/2007 @ 5:34pm

  70. http://tinyurl.com/2bkfch

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/14/2007 @ 5:39pm

  71. Okay...Mr Nichols...give us the date, the final, "This is it or else it ain't happening" date...

    Posted by MASK 12/14/2007 @ 12:14pm

    What Frita is really saying is that she's been on 'hold' too long with the Psychic Line, which she also oft frequents, and needs relief from her multitude of bizarre insecurities.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/14/2007 @ 5:52pm

  72. MARYBRETBRAD:

    Remaining sanguine about being wrong and on the winning side, instead of being incensed and enraged about the injustices you itemized is precisely what is wrong with this nation, the summit of vicarious triumphalism that does nothing but undermine what originally made this country great. The victory of your side always justifies whatever unsavory tactics or crimes were perpetrated to secure such a "win".

    You are either completely amoral, or a complete moron... and frankly, I haven't determined into which category you fall.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 6:05pm

  73. MARYBRETBRAD:

    Here is yet another fallacy in your thinking. You actually believe the Democrats represent us? I know for a fact that they don't represent me or any of my interests. They represent the interests of the same amoral, profit-driven carrion-birds that remain the paymasters of the Republican party. Is it any wonder that the same companies and individuals that contribute the largest amounts in toto to the Republicans are in fact the same companies and individuals who contribute the largest amounts to the Democrats?

    I feel sorry for you... genuine sympathy. Lacking a soul or lacking a brain... either way you're a sheep.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 6:08pm

  74. MBB, congressional dems still poll better than repubs in the congress; granted not by much anymore, but they still do. Sure I'd like them to do more kicking repub butts-- it's a hard maneuver during a dic'tatorship and with just enough new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, hard to get a super-majority vote.

    Yet I see that dem are starting to acknowledge those that did the stink finally by pointing out that repubs like the Iraq war. And then there are the repubs that are finally calling hsuB the liar that he is for pardoning Libby but not the border guards. Like global warming, this could very well be a tipping point that gets dems and repubs together against the dic'tatorship.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/14/2007 @ 6:11pm

  75. "Good morning children. Today, we discuss impeachment, and we'll focus on the late 20th century, and early 21st century. Can anyone explain why sex in the white house is impeachable, but lies, war crimes, and treason are not? Please use factual examples and limit your answer to one hour. Remember, we have our weekly thought reports being taken for home security at 11."

    Posted by TOMPOE 12/14/2007 @ 4:28pm

    Morning dad. If not WH fellatio, you must then be referring to all the lies the Clintons et al propagated about Saddam's WMD prior to 2000. And putting the idea of knocking off Saddam into the head of his "incompetent", "imbecilic", "deranged", "war focussed" and "Constitution ignoring" successor.

    You no doubt see where true moral responsibility rests. Bully for you.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/14/2007 @ 6:56pm

  76. as this monolithic evil intent upon world domination....Posted by JORCHEIM 12/14/2007 @ 4:50pm

    Take it in pieces, JORCH.

    Was there a Soviet bloc that MONOLITHICALLY followed Moscow's orders?

    Was the Soviet system "good"?...was it "neutral"?...third option?

    Was "world-wide revolution" NOT an "intent"?

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 7:35pm

  77. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/14/2007 @ 5:06pm

    B_KOOL, at some point, it moves from a "desired and achievable goal" to....a tiny clatch of delusionals who think "everything good eventually happens...on OUR schedule". (See--Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/14/2007 @ 5:52pm...still waiting for his "Gore in '08" announcement..and will continue to wait for it until NEXT Halloween)

    Mr Nichols is supposed to be smart...if he is, he's either not applying his intellect...or simply throwing out a "red meat" issue that EVERY MAJOR LEADER in the Democratic Party has rejected. That the Speaker of the US House (originator of impeachment bills) has rejected. And that the CHAIRMAN of the House Judiciary Comm. (where they would be written) has rejected.

    And yet once a month (or more) he comes up with some low-level "progressive Dems" putting out a resolution...or a bill with no more than 40 co-sponsors...or "3 guys 'demanding' something"...

    stirs up the easily stirred-up (again see Posted 12/14/2007 @ 5:52pm)....and while true, not "predicting it"..."hints" that "This time, yeah, THIS time, it's really going to happen!"

    And a month passes...and another and another and another...from 2005...2006...2007...3 weeks til 2008.

    Now AT SOME POINT, he concedes it isn't going to happen...or he's fooling himself...or PERHAPS, keeping alive a hope that JUST HAPPENS to coincide with his last published work.

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 7:42pm

  78. MASK:

    The point I was making is, it was no worse than what we were doing. Again, ask people in the third world. The reality on the ground (which is what I am interested in, not the theoretical war of ideas with which you are obviously so enamoured) is that, whether it came from the Soviets or the US, it felt very similar. Now to take your points in detail...

    You said:

    Was there a Soviet bloc that MONOLITHICALLY followed Moscow's orders?

    My response:

    No, quite the contrary, actually. Does that mean that Moscow did not wage an incredible amount of influence in these Warsaw Pact countries... but it was far from a monolithic bloc, contrary to the claims of the west.

    You said:

    Was the Soviet system "good"?...was it "neutral"?...third option?

    My response:

    It was none of the above, and all of the above. As many have tried to explain to you here, MASK, on numerous occasions, issues as complex as the Cold War are rarely so easily categorized and labeled. I realize that you tend to see most everything in pure monochromatic myopathy, but reality is more complicated than that.

    You said:

    Was "world-wide revolution" NOT an "intent"?

    My response:

    Actually, no it was not. If you knew anything about Soviet history, you would realize that the world-wide revolution concept was almost strictly an idea which died (at least in the Soviet Union) with Lenin and Trotsky. In fact, one of the most glaring issues here is Stalin's own antipathy toward spreading "communism" abroad following WWII, owing to his realization that, rather than finding himself in a multi-polar imperialist international milieu, it was a uni-polar one. This point cannot be over-emphasized. Stalin, ever the pragmatist, opted to turn inward, as well as to secure the belt of buffer states across eastern and central Europe. This conflicts greatly with the views of Lenin and, particularly, Trotsky, who was by far the most ideologically and idealistically motivated of that particular trio. It was not until AFTER Stalin's death that the Soviet Union "rediscovered" the third world as a vector for world-wide revolution, and even then, it was hesitant... much the opposite of how the Soviet Union was portrayed at this time.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 8:03pm

  79. Posted by JORCHEIM 12/14/2007 @ 8:03pm

    JORCH....

    1. So when the tanks rolled into Budapest and Hungary....Moscow wasn't calling the shots?

    2. So Sovietism had its good points? Odd that so many people tried to defect, leap over the Berlin Wall, and fly their own MIGs into Japan.

    3. "...that the Soviet Union "rediscovered" the third world as a vector for world-wide revolution"

    So it was, then it wasn't, then for the majority of the Cold War (after Stalin's death)...it was. Seems you just agreed to my point.

    And the point is, the "The West was mostly or HALF the fault of the Cold War" is the post-60s revisionist left-wing history, whereby we "must look at ourselves" where by free markets, democracies, and the place people escaped TO....is the "moral equivalent" of the socialist dictatorships...

    and the reason?

    The socialism of course...but a deeper psychological need to "not take sides" and CERTAINLY not to impart the GOOD qualities on the "evil, hypocritical, and NOT PERFECT" system that they live in.

    As bad as America is...it was never "equally bad" or even "1/4 as bad" as the Soviet Union.

    Doubt it?...find a few Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, East Germans...and RUSSIANS...and ask them. And get out of the AMERICAN coffee-houses and student unions.

    Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 10:14pm

  80. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/14/2007 @ 5:28pm

    No MBB, you are on the losing side for many reasons. 1) You aren't smart enough to know that the shit is eventually going to hit the fan for all the crap the Bush administration you love so much has done. Bush and Cheney may not have to pay the piper, but the rest of this country will and that includes you.

    2)If your idea of being a winner is breaking the law and getting away with it, you are no better than the people you accuse of taking money on welfare when they could be working. They can get away with it so it makes them winners by your definition.

    3) You are delusional. You can't piece information together and reason worth a damn. If you really do what you say you do for a living, I have a hard time seeing anyone trusting your calculations on anything since you can't even comprehend what's going on in the world around you.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 10:47pm

  81. As bad as America is...it was never "equally bad" or even "1/4 as bad" as the Soviet Union.

    Doubt it?...find a few Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, East Germans...and RUSSIANS...and ask them. And get out of the AMERICAN coffee-houses and student unions.

    Posted by MASK 12/14/2007 @ 10:14pm

    MASK,

    Are you sure you want to ask that question? How about asking a a few people from these countries: Vietnam (roughly 2 million killed by the U.S.), Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, half the countries in Central and South America, and this is just for approximately the last 50 or 60 years.

    We created Chavez in Venezuala by letting our oil companies be complete greedy jackasses there. It shouldn't come as any surprise that someone like him would come to power one day and kick the oil companies out of "THEIR" country.

    We don't have a better batting average with foreign countries than the Soviet Union did. They weren't nice and we sure as hell aren't either. Both countries played and still play hard ball. You are kidding yourself if you think our government has only been 1/4 the villain that the Russians were.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 11:02pm

  82. MASK:

    You said:

    1. So when the tanks rolled into Budapest and Hungary....Moscow wasn't calling the shots?

    My response:

    I never said it wasn't. What I said was, the Warsaw Pact was not as monolithic and unitary as it was proclaimed in the west. Geez, don't you read? I could recommend a few rudimentary courses in reading comprehension for you.

    You said:

    2. So Sovietism had its good points? Odd that so many people tried to defect, leap over the Berlin Wall, and fly their own MIGs into Japan.

    My response:

    I know quite a number of Russian ex-pats, but from my time living in Europe (Berlin, to be precise) and from those I have met here in the states. They all have told me the same joke, regarding the Soviet Union. Here goes.

    What did capitalism do in less than 10 years that the Soviet Union couldn't do in 70?

    Answer: Make Communism look good.

    Yes, it was a bad system. Any totalitarian regime is. And I am no apologist for any sort of autocratic or totalitarian regime, regardless of economic stripe. but to say it was universally bad is a complete pile of bunk. And what replaced it, the almighty unmitigated free market that Friedman recommended as panacea, simply reinforced in many peoples' minds that, hey... maybe things weren't so bad as they thought. Which is why so many Russians support Putin, for they see in him a chance to return to some of the collectivist policies of the Soviet Union (even if that is nothing but a pipe dream).

    So many people on the right conflate the issue, and try to make the claim that people were fleeing from the Soviet Union because of its economic structure. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Sure, some, especially bourgeoisie ownership class members fled the economic system. But for the most part, the economic system took care of the poor and needy much better than our current system does. No, what most people fleeing from the USSR were leaving was the tyranny, the authoritarianism, the totalitarianism, the abrogation of basic political freedom. And despite your black and white Weltanschauung, there is a distinct difference between the political and the economic. Just as "free markets" do not equal democracy, neither does communism necessarily ipso facto denote totalitarianism.

    You said:

    3. "...that the Soviet Union "rediscovered" the third world as a vector for world-wide revolution"

    So it was, then it wasn't, then for the majority of the Cold War (after Stalin's death)...it was. Seems you just agreed to my point.

    My response:

    No, actually I didn't. I said that it was much more complicated than what you stated. Again, you should learn to read better.

    The gist of what I said was, basically, that to blame the Soviet Union for the Cold War, to label it the "Evil Empire", to demonize it so thoroughly, all without sufficiently acknowledging our own substantial culpability throughout that entire period, does a disservice to the truth... again, I realize that concept is a nebulous one for you. But that is the issue.

    You said:

    And the point is, the "The West was mostly or HALF the fault of the Cold War" is the post-60s revisionist left-wing history, whereby we "must look at ourselves" where by free markets, democracies, and the place people escaped TO....is the "moral equivalent" of the socialist dictatorships...

    My response:

    The fundamental difference between the US and the USSR during the Cold War is a minor one. The US did not bring the "sorrows of empire" (to quote Chalmers Johnson) home to the average American in the form of overt political control the way the USSR did. We made sure that, at least while the USSR was still in existence, the only people who felt the bootheel of capitalist tyranny were banana republics, brown people, niggers, and commies (epithets intended). Once the USSR was disposed of, well, looky here at what has occurred since 1990. We are allowing precisely the types of overt abrogations of our freedoms that for 70 years we lambasted the USSR for. So long as there was an alternative form of modernity that was still extant in the Soviet Union, the screws couldn't be put to our own population quite so hard. Indeed, that was precisely what the New Deal was all about. It wasn't the advent of socialism in the US at all. It was precisely the sort of cold, hard pragmatism that the ultimate, even original practicioner of realpolitik, Otto von Bismarck, resorted to in order to essentially buy off the lower and low middle classes in Germany in order to prevent a communist revolution. Much to the contrary of what all the idiot right-wingers believe, Roosevelt, being a patrician himself and a capitalist to boot, wanted to save capitalism from the depredations of itself, precisely because there stood in the USSR a shining example of an alternative system to capitalism, even if the reality of that system paled in comparison to its utopian promises.

    You said:

    The socialism of course...but a deeper psychological need to "not take sides" and CERTAINLY not to impart the GOOD qualities on the "evil, hypocritical, and NOT PERFECT" system that they live in.

    My response:

    No, it has nothing to do with not taking sides. I most definitely take sides... my own. And I acknowledge the failings of all systems, regardless of whether they are my own or not. That type of objectivity, my friend, is something of which you are not only unfamiliar, but more importantly, incapable.

    You said:

    As bad as America is...it was never "equally bad" or even "1/4 as bad" as the Soviet Union.

    My response:

    It all depends on whom you ask. If you ask Americans, you're right. If you ask Guatemalans, or Chileans, or Cubanos, or Haitians, or Dominicans, or Peruvians, or... the list goes on... I'm sorry to tell you, you would get an entirely different answer. And therein lies the weakness of your argument. You are only considering the perspectives of Americans and people who were in fact able to escape from the former USSR. What about those who could not escape Viet Nam or Laos Cambodia, as we literally bombed those countries back to the Stone Age? What about Iranians or Guatemalans, whose hopes and dreams for a legitimate democratically elected representative government were shattered for 50 years by the US meddling in those countries' sovereign affairs.

    You said:

    Doubt it?...find a few Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, East Germans...and RUSSIANS...and ask them. And get out of the AMERICAN coffee-houses and student unions.

    My response:

    I could say precisely the same thing to you, except substitute third worlders for the people you named.

    In closing, I would just reiterate that you are taking a very narrow of view of how you are determining "how evil" one nation is compared to another. By focusing only on one perspective of the actions of a nation, you severely limit yourself from a pure standpoint of being truthful, even if your goal is not necessarily to be untruthful. By discounting our own evils during that time (and the time now), you discount the losses of those who were victims of our own heinous inhumanity... inhumanity which, any way you measure it, was every bit as "evil" as what the Soviets perpetrated.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 11:03pm

  83. This is the PRIME reason the Left has been viewed suspiciously by the American people since the late 60s.

    MASK,

    Last I checked, those of us on the left are also Americans. Just because we don't believe you pursue foreign dipomacy at the point of a gun doesn't mean we aren't U.S. citizens. It just means we disagree with killing for conquest.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 11:09pm

  84. WOLFGANG1:

    It just means we disagree with killing for conquest.

    Extremely good point.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 11:12pm

  85. Leave it to RIO BRAVO to drop and leave a completely inconsequential, nonsensical, moronic comment... You're starting to sound like FRANKSHITZ and ALLUDRA. Keep up the good work!

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 11:39pm

  86. By the way, RIO BRAVO, it's just not right stealing my line. I came up with the right-wingnut-jobbers line. Even though you made a couple of changes, it's still the same basic idea. Can't you even find an insult that is original? I mean, come on!

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 11:55pm

  87. By the way, RIO BRAVO, it's just not right stealing my line. I came up with the right-wingnut-jobbers line. Even though you made a couple of changes, it's still the same basic idea. Can't you even find an insult that is original? I mean, come on!

    Posted by JORCHEIM 12/14/2007 @ 11:55pm

    JORCHEIM,

    You know that Rio Brickhead isn't interested in what's right other than rightwing politics.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/15/2007 @ 12:10am

  88. hank williams (the real one), ricky skaggs, cachao, compay segundo,

    and,

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/14/2007 @ 4:23pm

    FROSTY,

    Sorry, I missed this earlier. How did Hank friggin Williams end up in that list? That guys singing sounds like someone dropped a piano on his foot and he's in severe pain.

    Have you ever heard some of Deep Purple's stuff off Machine Head? There's a song called Lazy that kicks ass. It's old stuff but it still rocks.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/15/2007 @ 12:22am

  89. You know that Rio Brickhead isn't interested in what's right other than rightwing politics.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/15/2007 @ 12:10am

    i think wrongwing politics would be more apt in mr. bravo's case.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/15/2007 @ 12:25am

  90. Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/15/2007 @ 12:22am

    oh yeah! machine head.

    hank williams is great. kinda like neil young. so what if they can't sing.

    duke (i believe) said, "there's only two kinds of music: good and bad" (or not good if you're a canadian).

    lazy, live 1972 [youtube.com]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/15/2007 @ 12:35am

  91. think wrongwing politics would be more apt in mr. bravo's case.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/15/2007 @ 12:25am

    I stand corrected, or righted.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/15/2007 @ 12:49am

  92. I stand corrected, or righted.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/15/2007 @ 12:49am

    at least i will never wrong you.

    (fingers crossed jamais dit "jamais")

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/15/2007 @ 01:00am

  93. It is good to see that some Democrats understand that justice must be served by impeaching Cheney for his crimes.

    Posted by Tom Paine Jr at 12/15/2007 @ 01:38am

  94. chain-bushey now!

    or is it cain-n-steeroid'enabler?

    they, Dick-n-W, don't follow the constitution, nor precedent, nor procedure, much less logic. screw getting 2/3 votes and lalala!

    it was a coup in 2000, followed by a foreseeable/designed catrostrophe, followed by stiffled debate and irrational hatred....war, trillions of dollars.

    why follow "procedural" mazes designed to protect the powerfull? fiddling while rome burns...

    Posted by bloggod at 12/15/2007 @ 02:55am

  95. Posted by TOM PAINE JR 12/15/2007 @ 01:38am

    It is good to see that some Democrats understand that justice must be served by impeaching Cheney for his crimes.

    Yeah, and after they're impeached, then we can worry about those accusations, if then.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/15/2007 @ 05:33am

  96. JORCHEIM, I believe if you look up 'Soviet apologist' in the dictionary, you will find a picture of yourself there.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/15/2007 @ 05:35am

  97. Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/15/2007 @ 05:35am

    And if you look up 'Bush apologist' you will find a picture of a Ficus there (i.e. a self portrait).

    Troll.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/15/2007 @ 08:55am

  98. 3) You are delusional. You can't piece information together and reason worth a damn. If you really do what you say you do for a living, I have a hard time seeing anyone trusting your calculations on anything since you can't even comprehend what's going on in the world around you.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/14/2007 @ 10:47pm

    remember, this is an alleged actuary that actually claimed obesity does not increase healthcare costs for all. A "personal responsibility " type that weighs in at 300 pounds of delusional fear.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/15/2007 @ 09:16am

  99. A "personal responsibility " type that weighs in at 300 pounds of delusional fear.

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/15/2007 @ 09:16am

    If MBB weighs in at 300lbs, then MBB could go over to Iraq as two soldiers instead of one and twice the work could be done in the war of spreading corporate interests, I mean democracy abroad.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/15/2007 @ 09:27am

  100. Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/15/2007 @ 05:33am

    Looky who it is, PONTIFICUS the Wrong. For anybody that might want to read Pontis posts with anything other than a box of salt, lets look at his record:

    !: He thinks no other people celebrate a day of thanks.

    2: He thought Saddam had wmd's

    3: He said that the Bush admin has never lost a court case.

    4: He claimed for a year that there was a democratic witch hunt to get Scooter Libby over the outing. He can produce not a single dem name.

    5: He claims that Plame was not covert, in direct contradiction of the CIA's employment status document.

    6: He claims Libby was never convicted of obstruction of justice. Pursuant to the grand jury leak investigation, Libby was convicted on March 6, 2007, on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, and he was acquitted of one count of making false statements

    7: He claimed that the Niger documents were perfectly reasonable and up to date. That Chimpy was in the right to use the fear mongering words in his SOTU speech.

    8: he comes here from 7 am to 4 pm, then says he does not have time to produce evidence of his statements.

    9: He says the war in Iraq has been won, but we cannot pull out troops or reduce levels.

    What did I miss?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/15/2007 @ 09:39am

  101. Oh yeah,

    10: He said nobody associated with Chimpy has made any money off the war in Iraq.

    Ponti should run for office as a republican neo-con. He would fit right in with the golden plate guy, the 6000 year old Earth guy and the Actor.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/15/2007 @ 09:52am

  102. Thank you, Jorcheim, for skewering MBB yet again in an itemized uncontrovertible manner. And Rese thanks for the link to the "Loose Change Store" where I purchased two copies of the documentary and am looking forward to viewing and furthering my belief that impeachment not only should be "on the table," but that with the investigation and accountability afforded by the impeachment process, THE means specified in our Constitution, we're all, all we patriotic citizens might as well be "under the table" and "tabled" by these nefarious criminal traitors pretending to nationalistic hypocritical pieties.

    Posted by lewwelge at 12/15/2007 @ 10:08am

  103. Er...I meant to say WITHOUT impeachment we're lessened almost to the point of irrelevancy.

    Posted by lewwelge at 12/15/2007 @ 10:11am

  104. WOLF, JORCH....if you want to push the "We were just as bad as the Soviets" or "They weren't THAT bad" line...feel free.

    It plays well on the campuses and left-wing blogs and some coffee-house.

    But as the line goes "money talks, and bulls**t walks"...so too in politics...

    and the only guy who even APPROACHS saying something similar to your view on the Cold War...polls 3% among Democrats!

    Posted by Mask at 12/15/2007 @ 11:39am

  105. Got the rest of the day off and my TransSiberian Orchestra Tickets just came in the mail.

    Enjoy the show, Chip. My wife and I have gone 3 times in past years, and it's nice to see a daytime concert where all age groups are present. They have a very nice lightshow and feature several different singers. There's a black guy who's a tenor that's just awesome. Last time they also used local high school kids in their orchestra. They tell a great Christmas story that's well arranged and very professionally done. It will tend to open up and get a little thrashy/self-indulgent at the end, but it's a great show.

    Posted by Sliver at 12/15/2007 @ 11:48am

  106. >>>> Impeachment, while a novel idea, will never happen. It takes 2/3 majority to convict in the Senate and impeach, right? Dem's can't get the votes to override a veto, much less impeach the president (er, I mean VP [same difference]). >>>>

    This poster obviously has some doubt about Mr. Cheney's guilt. I don't...but the only way to satisfy the doubters is to hold impeachment hearings and lay all the evidence on that proverbial "table". What's complicated--or impossible--about that?

    I'm sure I read somewhere that Congress was supposed to represent The People who elected its members. Congress has a responsibility to assure us that our government is operating lawfully and efficiently.

    I don't feel assured that everything is hunky-dory in the Executive branch of "our" government; and I'm not alone in suspecting there is something rotten in the White House. If the opinion polls are to be believed, a substantial number of my fellow citizens share my misgivings...because we can smell the stench coming from this White House way out here in the hinterlands.

    Mixed in with THAT stench is another odor that seems to be emanating from Congress. Is Dennis Kucinich the only person who smells something rotting in our own House (and Senate)? If the current Congress can't smell it, or refuses to smell it, we've got a much bigger problem--"our" democracy has become nothing more than an illusion.

    There's still one other smell that apparently hasn't reached the noses of our representatives in Congress. It's the smell of tar and feathers. There are a LOT of very angry people out here who are baffled by the inaction of the Congressional "leadership". They should not be blamed for suspecting the worst...unless they see some evidence that Congress takes its duty seriously.

    Posted by Aybayb at 12/15/2007 @ 11:49am

  107. To OustBush:

    (A reply to you from Nichol's Online Beat column on Obama, politics, and cynicism.)

    Kool,

    Thanks for asserting yourself in this manner. I know that most are frustrated by the Democratic party, but Edwards is clearly the best of the three determined as front runners. Edwards is speaking the truth, and the best his critics can do is maintain that he's lying or promising things he will not stand behind. To not support him will lend credence to the cynics asserting that his message doesn't resonate with Americans. Obama is a perpetual disapointment, while Hillary is little better than the Republicans.

    ~OUSTBUSH 12/13 @ 10:45am

    Thanks, OB, for the kind words and especially for the succint, on target post. Well done.

    I have to say that in some ways I'm as irked by Obama'a limp-wristed campaign as I am by Hillary's "brought to you by Murdoch Inc" campaign.

    I had a discussion recently with "Bridoc" who seemed to take umbrage at my comparison of Obama'a campaign to Kerry '04. His beef was that Obama is so much more inspiring than the "wet trout" Kerry.

    I think Bridoc is missing something here that, unfortunately, far too many Americans are clueless about. What in the hell ever happened to the concept of taking a strong stand on issues of conscience?

    The Democrats are playing themselves right into the hands of the Swift Boat butchers if they go into the fall of '08 with a bambi candidate.

    Not only that, but even if Obama is elected prez in '08 on his central campaign plank of "let's make nice now", how is going he to roll back the enormous damage wreaked by Dubya's dreadnought of disaster?

    The hapless Jackasses have been playing nice with Dubya and his "whores of war" --thanks to one of the Blackwater moms for that phrase-- for seven achingly painful years now and our answer is essentially, "Why can't we all get along?".

    Well, excuse my latin but Uck-fay At-they!

    Aren't we all just about at our wits end with "the politics of Pelosi"?

    The reality is that we are truly F#@&ed if we don't start fighting back. At least John Edwards is spoiling for a fight, and he's got the intellectual tools to be successful.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/15/2007 @ 12:01pm

  108. Simple experiment...

    In 3 weeks or so, Congress will be back in session after Xmas recess.

    One month from now...pull out Mr Nichols' article....do a Google search, go to Drudge or HuffPost or MSN or whatever, look at the front pages of the NY Times, WashPost, LA Times, Chicago Trib....

    and see if there's any mention of Wexler, Gutierrez, or Baldwin's move working.

    If there is...impeachment might happen. If there isn't...it won't.

    And even if the latter...John Nichols will come back before Groundhog's Day with ANOTHER "More movement on the impeachment front!" article and start it all over again. Guarenteed.

    Posted by Mask at 12/15/2007 @ 1:10pm

  109. I am sure few here are going to agree with the following:

    "There is no basis for the impeachment of any member of the executive branch of the Bush administration."

    This is a fact.

    How can I prove this?

    The fact that the Democrats, in charge of both houses of Congress, are not perusing articles of impeachment is proof. Does anyone here think that if the Democrats believed that there was any possible way they could make the case that they would not proceed? They know the charges would fail and they would look foolish.

    Posted by Econ Major at 12/15/2007 @ 1:30pm

  110. Trying to impeach a dic'tatorship is much harder to do than moving towards impeaching merely a president. (And so too running for dic'tatorship IS much different than running for a presidency.)

    ABC/WP 12/9 poll shows hsuB and congress with virtually the same job approval, 32-33%, but with hsuB at 64% disapproval and congress at 60%, hsuB may still beat out congress as worse.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/

    http://americanresearchgroup.com/impeach/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7lDTuBhb2Y

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/15/2007 @ 2:42pm

  111. CBS/NYT 12/9 poll show both hsuB and congress job approval in the 20's %, 21-28%, and with virtually the same disapproval 64-65%.

    That one becomes as incompetent as the other has more to do with the function of a dic'tatorship than the purpose of our constitution. That our congress still has enough repub new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, to thwart our laws, should only be a surprise to those that have chosen to be blind these last 6 years.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/15/2007 @ 3:06pm

  112. Posted by ECON MAJOR 12/15/2007 @ 1:30pm

    This would be akin - in cyberspace - to trying to prove that you don't have skid marks in your drawers.

    You seem like a likeable enough person; here's a word of advice - quit the College Republicans. They are not your friends. You can do better than that. Tomorrow, when you get up in the morning, look yourself squarely in the eye and say, "I can do better than those College Republicans."

    And then got right out and do so.

    Posted by skeletonman at 12/15/2007 @ 3:54pm

  113. MASK:

    You said:

    But as the line goes "money talks, and bulls**t walks"...so too in politics...

    and the only guy who even APPROACHS saying something similar to your view on the Cold War...polls 3% among Democrats!

    My response:

    I find it enlightening that you mention money with regard to politics. For we all know that if money were not the deciding factor in politics, and it were a true referendum on ideas, you and your free-market, Friedman-ite authoritarians would lose, and lose resoundingly.

    The sad state of affairs of our country, the way money determine everything, and how much money one has determines not only one's access, but one's volume in the public debate, has more to do with that 3% that Kucinich gets than any honest debate of his ideas.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/15/2007 @ 4:25pm

  114. ECON MAJOR:

    I disagree with your assertion. Why?

    Simple... the Democrats are just as much handmaidens to Big Money, the impeachable offenses, and this war as the President. They are all whores. You call yourself an econ major. I personally think you need to stay in school.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/15/2007 @ 4:27pm

  115. http://www.brasschecktv .com/page/237.html [brasschecktv.com]

    This is just fucking eerie. FROSTY ZOOM, I definitely want your opinion on this.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/15/2007 @ 4:48pm

  116. Pelosi won't allow impeachment hearings because the Bush domestic spying operation has something on her: potential political threats are always the first target of these STASI operations

    Posted by bill jones at 12/15/2007 @ 4:54pm

  117. BILL JONES:

    That is most likely precisely the case. And, nice reference to the STASI...

    By the way, I have been to the Stadtssicherheitsdienst headquarters in Berlin-Lichtenberg. It's a fucking spooky place. It really is a mini-Gitmo right in the middle of the city.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/15/2007 @ 5:03pm

  118. What a colossal waist of time and energy. This doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Just throw it on the heap of Democratic failures.

    Posted by Person at 12/15/2007 @ 5:30pm

  119. Right... maintaining the honor, dignity, and legality of our republic intact is a waste of time and energy.

    Riiiiiiiiiiight...

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/15/2007 @ 6:26pm

  120. Posted by ECON MAJOR 12/15/2007 @ 1:30pm | ignore this person

    Analysis of the strings, the warp and weave of the political process, must be a new thing for you, hopefully ...

    "What a colossal waist of time and energy. This doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Just throw it on the heap of Democratic failures."

    Posted by PERSON 12/15/2007 @ 5:30pm | ignore this person

    Perhaps .... If you wouldn't mind, maybe you could, enlighten us, further; usually, slaves, need some external impetus, outside, measures ... such as a bullet or whip, say, to enforce their obsequiousness, their (complete), submission. Tell us if you would, what is it like to be one for whom the outcome (justice as "a colossal waist of time and energy") can be obtained, without their inspiration? Such being foreign, and largely unknown to those (of us), for whom justice is not to be denied, by a perpetrators social standing, or, mere, circumstance ... You know, the bent over, cheek spread, flavour of your patriotism.

    Posted by V at 12/15/2007 @ 6:40pm

  121. Posted by ECON MAJOR 12/15/2007 @ 1:30p

    that's not why.

    the don't have the votes in the senate,

    or the balls in their hearts.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/15/2007 @ 6:50pm

  122. The sad state of affairs of our country, the way money determine everything, and how much money one has determines not only one's access, but one's volume in the public debate, has more to do with that 3% that Kucinich gets than any honest debate of his ideas.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 12/15/2007 @ 4:25pm

    That comment just shows your political naivety. Huckabee and Kucinich are in the same boat with the so-called big money. But one has high popularity ratings the other is not even on the radar.

    "Intellectuals" like to think that policy issues should be the arbiter of popularity and electability. That is not so as electability primarily has to do with other factors, such as charisma, physical attractiveness and likeability.

    The fact that Kucinich has none of these assets and Huckabee has them in oodles can hardly be blamed on the big money class.

    As far as access to public debate is concerned he is a poor communicator of radical ideas (in the American context) that need to be nuanced rather than thrown in the face of the electorate.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/15/2007 @ 7:22pm

  123. Posted by JORCHEIM 12/15/2007 @ 4:48pm

    whoa,

    that IS eerie. don't know what to say. i've done the all night conspiracy searching and i guess the best thing to tell you is that if people are thinking all these things,

    and are being lied to all the time by their government,

    then something is just not right.

    not to trivialize,

    but there is an episode of the "superfriends" (hanna-barbera) from about '73 where the legion of doom takes out one of the towers, AND IT FALLS SIDEWAYS, not straight down.

    life does imitate art quite frequently.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/15/2007 @ 7:28pm

  124. As far as access to public debate is concerned he is a poor communicator of radical ideas (in the American context) that need to be nuanced rather than thrown in the face of the electorate.

    Posted by LRJONES4 12/15/2007 @ 7:22pm

    ain't it sad..................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/15/2007 @ 7:30pm

  125. http://www.brasschecktv .com/page/237.html [brasschecktv.com]

    This is just fucking eerie. FROSTY ZOOM, I definitely want your opinion on this.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 12/15/2007 @ 4:48pm

    Was it the Ayn Randers or the Rothchilds?

    Posted by LRJONES4 12/15/2007 @ 7:22pm

    Maybe it has something to do with Kucinich and UFO's vs Tax Hike Mike Huckleberrys direct line to God. If you lived in the US you would understand that the American Taliban run the GOP now. It is no longer enough to be a conservative, one needs to also be the "right kind" of Christian. But, wait, Ol Tax Hike Mike has a closet of jangly bones that have yet to meet the light of day. Can you say Willy Horton II? Or "I want to take America back for the Christians."?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/15/2007 @ 7:35pm

  126. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/15/2007 @ 7:28pm

    Me, Solomon Grundy, sorry for taking out towers without say so from Mr. Lex.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/15/2007 @ 7:37pm

  127. More Legion of Doom time tricks

    Official US time

    19:29:51

    Saturday, December 15, 2007

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/15/2007 @ 7:41pm

  128. Saturday, December 15, 2007 8:02:13 PM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/15/2007 @ 8:12pm

  129. ain't it sad..................

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/15/2007 @ 7:30pm

    Nope. Just human nature. Sort of similar criteria as is used for picking a wife.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/15/2007 @ 8:40pm

  130. Sort of similar criteria as is used for picking a wife.

    Posted by LRJONES4 12/15/2007 @ 8:40pm

    damn! my wife picked me.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/15/2007 @ 8:48pm

  131. Posted by CRABWALK 12/15/2007 @ 7:35pm

    That may be so Crabs but Huckky is off to a flying start on the basic criteria. I hope Liberty is not listening and though I understand his concerns, Romney would be at the top of my list in terms of sheer "can do" governing ability and personal integrity. If I were an American Evangelical or American Christian of any variety I would be putting a man's one wife per lifetime policy near the top of my personal integrity list.

    Though Bush may be an exception to the rule, as he is to most that are imposed on him, I suggest that such a person would have the best practical credentials as a peace candidate. (as we all have observed many peace candidates can't live at peace with anyone).

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/15/2007 @ 9:04pm

  132. "Intellectuals like to think that policy issues should be the arbiter of popularity and electability. That is not so as electability primarily has to do with other factors, such as charisma, physical attractiveness and likeability."

    Posted by LRJONES4 12/15/2007 @ 7:22pm | ignore this person

    From your mouth, to Lucifers ears. I see that intellectuals, are to be cast somewhat as "liberals"are, now. They are people who ‘think too much' ... I spose. If intellectual means someone with a brain, or who have some parts (hopefully, the majority?) in common with rationality. Then you are at least, partly, correct. In point of fact, it's more like denial, masked, on your part, than political naivety, on his. Charisma, physical attractiveness and like-ability? You take the end result ... of the process for which he defines the ultimate triggers, and make it causal.

    "Romney would be at the top of my list in terms of sheer "can do" governing ability and personal integrity. "

    Posted by LRJONES4 12/15/2007 @ 9:04pm | ignore this person

    On charisma, physical attractiveness and like-ability I presume? There being no intellectual, basis, for such a comment.

    Posted by V at 12/15/2007 @ 11:55pm

  133. Posted by LRJONES4 12/15/2007 @ 9:04pm | ignore this person

    "On charisma, physical attractiveness and like-ability I presume? There being no intellectual, basis, for such a comment."

    Well V (I noticed that you are not a sheila as I once thought but a male engineer, so you are one of my mob) as I said to Mask some time back, Romney should appeal to the Intellectual American Woman being 6'2" and by far the best looking candidate on either side. That's the dimension the "intellectuals" overlook with Kucinich and instead want to blame the monied interests. He wouldn't have a hope in hell even if he had a synthesis of the most electorally popular policies.

    Where you (those lads and lassies) have also got it wrong is thinking the way to change the political culture is top down. That is the sort of thoughtless "intellectual" approach that fails to see why a Kucinich just won't cut the mustard in your contemporary political milieu.

    Know what the Fabian Socialist approach is? That's what has by-passed the type of "intellectual" I mentioned. You need to change the political culture bottom up before you can start salivating over the chances of a radical like Kucinich.

    My view of a political leader is that he should first and foremost have good management skills and be across his brief. In other words a good CEO. This is a snippet that indicates he has the score on the board to be a competent CEO type president. The prevailing political culture at any given time is, I suggest, formed by different forces including a large number of "intellectuals" and wing nuts as well as a few real Intellectuals. Which class, incidentally, is a very rare breed in any culture. Anyway here is the complementary brain food stuff:

    Romney served as president and CEO of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games held in Salt Lake City. In 1999, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks. Plans were being made to scale back the games in order to compensate for the fiscal crisis.[36] The Games were also damaged by allegations of bribery involving top officials, including then Salt Lake Olympic Committee (SLOC) President and CEO Frank Joklik. Joklik and SLOC vice president Dave Johnson were forced to resign.[37]

    On February 11, 1999, Romney was hired as the new president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee.[38] Romney revamped the organization's leadership and policies, reduced budgets and boosted fundraising. He also worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by coordinating a $300 million security budget.[39] Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million, not counting the $224.5 million in security costs contributed by outside sources.[40][41]

    Romney contributed $1 million to the Olympics, and donated the $825,000 salary he earned as President and CEO to charity.[42] He wrote a book about his experience called Turnaround.[43] wikipedia.

    Sort of competence with (a generous) integrity; don't you think?

    I notice his political enemies are a little concerned because he changes his mind on certain issues. That probably indicates that unlike most "intellectuals" he is not a rigid political or ideological fundamentalist.

    Also failing the best of all worlds viz. an engineer as president, it would be interesting to have another of the MBA variety. Over here solicitors rank down with journalists and used car salesmen and, over there, apart from the odd preacher that's about all that is on offer in candidate territory.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/16/2007 @ 04:22am

  134. Posted by JORCHEIM 12/15/2007 @ 4:25pm

    For we all know that if money were not the deciding factor in politics, and it were a true referendum on ideas, you and your free-market, Friedman-ite authoritarians would lose, and lose resoundingly.

    Hmmm. And if it wasn't for gravity, we could all fly like birds. And if you disregarded the price of oil and oil-related items, there would have been virtually no increase in the PPI last Friday. And if the Queen had balls, she'd be king. JORCHEIM, you need to get a REAL job.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 05:30am

  135. Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 05:30am

    For we all know that if money were not the deciding factor in politics, and it were a true referendum on ideas, you and your free-market, Friedman-ite authoritarians would lose, and lose resoundingly.

    JORCHEIM, in the real world, ideas get field tested and the score is kept with money and peoples' lives. You seem to never have learned that nature does not care who tells the best fairy tale.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 05:38am

  136. Posted by MASK 12/15/2007 @ 11:39am

    WOLF, JORCH....if you want to push the "We were just as bad as the Soviets" or "They weren't THAT bad" line...feel free.

    I'll bet those guys HATE Ronald Reagan. We had a lot of folks that sounded like WOLF and JORCHY before RR won the Cold War (particularly during Jimmy Carter's term), not so many any more.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 05:42am

  137. Posted by CRABWALK 12/15/2007 @ 09:39am

    CRABBIE, you are the most accomplished slayer of straw men I have ever seen. You must be universally feared in the straw man kingdom.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 05:48am

  138. More missives from the 'peace-loving' left:

    DEATH THREATS AT PRINCETON:

    Four officers of the Anscombe Society and a prominent conservative politics professor received threatening emails Wednesday evening from off-campus email addresses.

    The five individuals received identical messages telling them they would "suffer," ordering them to "shut the fuck up" and declaring that "you are not welcome here." "We will destroy you," the message said.

    Though the message did not explicitly mention the Anscombe Society, the four students who received emails were Anscombe vice president Jonathan Hwang '09, president Kevin Staley-Joyce '09, former president Sherif Girgis '08 and administrative committee chair Francisco Nava '09. Politics professor Robert George -- who has publicly supported conservative causes, including the Anscombe Society's goal of promoting chastity -- also received the message.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 05:57am

  139. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/15/2007 @ 8:12pm

    Just curious, FROSTY. Would it be fair to say that you think that the only thing standing between free health care and American society are greedy Republicans?

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 06:01am

  140. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/15/2007 @ 8:12pm

    Just curious, FROSTY. Would it be fair to say that you think that the only thing standing between free health care and American society are greedy Republicans?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 06:01am

    no.

    whether someone calls themselves republocrat or demokin is irrelevant. they are just pawns of the insurance industry. (or the auto industry, or pharma, or the bomb makers, or telecoms or etc.)

    odd question, given the thread.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 08:24am

  141. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/16/2007 @ 08:24am

    whether someone calls themselves republocrat or demokin is irrelevant. they are just pawns of the insurance industry. (or the auto industry, or pharma, or the bomb makers, or telecoms or etc.)

    I think I see. Would it be fair then, to say that you think that the only thing standing between free health care and American society is the insurance industry?

    odd question, given the thread.

    Since impeachment is a non-starter and the Nichols monthly impeachment article is just an occasion for an intellectual circle-jerk here at the Nation, I take it as free rein to discuss other issues.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 09:20am

  142. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/16/2007 @ 08:24am

    Actually, FROSTY, I'll generalize the question. Would it be fair to say that you think that the only thing standing between pretty much free everything for everybody are the greedy capitalists who are hoarding all that free stuff and keeping the infinitely benevolent government from redistributing all of those goodies fairly to the uniformly deserving masses?

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 09:22am

  143. This would dovetail nicely with what I believe is JORCHEIM's belief that money in politics is a corruption and that those WITH means should essentially be on the same footing as those WITHOUT means when it comes to the politics of redistribution, i.e., the government playing Robin Hood.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 09:42am

  144. Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 09:20am

    I think I see. Would it be fair then, to say that you think that the only thing standing between free health care and American society is the insurance industry?

    mornin', pontí. peace be upon you.

    no, that is not correct. free health care is impossible.

    it must be paid for through taxes. it is the same difference. except there is a larger volume of customers, and it's non-profit.

    Since impeachment is a non-starter and the Nichols monthly impeachment article is just an occasion for an intellectual circle-jerk here at the Nation, I take it as free rein to discuss other issues.

    rather crass for sunday morning, ponti. it is the sabbath (for some people, at least), after all.

    wanna talk invasive species?

    Actually, FROSTY, I'll generalize the question. Would it be fair to say that you think that the only thing standing between pretty much free everything for everybody are the greedy capitalists who are hoarding all that free stuff and keeping the infinitely benevolent government from redistributing all of those goodies fairly to the uniformly deserving masses?

    hey, that's funny.

    actually, the iraq war has been "free". have you had a raise in taxes to pay for it? nope. have you asked your great-great-grandkids what they think about having to pay for it?

    the chinese are getting skittish about their dollar reserves. i wonder which of these: Aetna, CIGNA, Kaiser Permanente, Humana, Health Net, or Wellpoint are on their shopping list. gotta use those greenbacks soon!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 09:42am

  145. This would dovetail nicely with what I believe is JORCHEIM's belief that money in politics is a corruption and that those WITH means should essentially be on the same footing as those WITHOUT means when it comes to the politics of redistribution, i.e., the government playing Robin Hood.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 09:42am

    So, are you the Sheriff of Naughty Ham?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 09:44am

  146. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/16/2007 @ 09:42am

    it must be paid for through taxes. it is the same difference. except there is a larger volume of customers, and it's non-profit.

    You seem to invest a lot of faith in this word 'non-profit'. What exactly does that mean? Do the health care workers under a 'non-profit' system work for free? We in the US have a LOT of non-profit organizations.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 09:50am

  147. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/16/2007 @ 09:42am

    Let me ask you a question, FROSTY. Who was the most famous person to hypothesize that the Earth revolved around the Sun, instead of vice-versa, and how did he discover that?

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 09:54am

  148. Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 09:50am

    obviously, people get paid.

    i don't know where you get this idea of "free".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 09:56am

  149. Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 09:54am

    elvis? he recorded for sun records.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 09:56am

  150. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/16/2007 @ 09:56am

    obviously, people get paid.

    Why yes, come to think of it, people do expect to get paid for their time. And you agree that that is all well and just. But this pay must come from what you call 'profit', right? So, you agree that not all profit is bad?

    i don't know where you get this idea of "free".

    Well, if I get you right, you're presuming that pretty much all of the problems with the current health care system will be solved if we put the government in charge and make it 'non-profit', right? So all of the issues now, stemming from a lack of resources that some people have will be resolved? And all of this will be accomplished by taking all of the 'profit' out of the system?

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 10:02am

  151. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/16/2007 @ 09:56am

    naw, that couldn't be.

    probably the mayans around 600 a.d.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 10:03am

  152. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/16/2007 @ 09:56am

    elvis? he recorded for sun records.

    No, actually it was Galileo. Do you know, or can you guess, what instrument he used to observe the heavens?

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 10:03am

  153. Why yes, come to think of it, people do expect to get paid for their time. And you agree that that is all well and just. But this pay must come from what you call 'profit', right? So, you agree that not all profit is bad?

    if you want to call taxes paid, "profit", go ahead.

    Well, if I get you right, you're presuming that pretty much all of the problems with the current health care system will be solved if we put the government in charge and make it 'non-profit', right? So all of the issues now, stemming from a lack of resources that some people have will be resolved? And all of this will be accomplished by taking all of the 'profit' out of the system?

    so you admit there are problems.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 10:07am

  154. No, actually it was Galileo. Do you know, or can you guess, what instrument he used to observe the heavens?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 10:03am

    ¿the profitascope?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 10:08am

  155. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/16/2007 @ 10:07am

    if you want to call taxes paid, "profit", go ahead.

    How do you define 'profit'? If private doctors are paid through 'profit', then what are public doctors paid with?

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 10:14am

  156. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/16/2007 @ 10:08am

    ¿the profitascope?

    No, FROSTY, it was the TELESCOPE. Close though, and not bad for a public education. And who do you think invented the telescope, and why?

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 10:15am

  157. Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 10:15am

    ¿mr. tele?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 10:17am

  158. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/16/2007 @ 10:17am

    ¿mr. tele?

    No, it was actually a few different guys in Europe, all pretty much at the same time. But did you know why Galileo improved on the design and started using one?

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 10:22am

  159. Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 10:22am

    ¿he didn't have cable?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 10:23am

  160. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/16/2007 @ 10:23am

    ¿he didn't have cable?

    No, FROSTY, they didn't have TV in those days, and you would have had almost nothing to do.

    No, he improved on it and used it to determine which ships were bringing goods into port in Venice, so that he could get a jump on the market. That was his motivation: profit. Is that bad?

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 10:27am

  161. The point, FROSTY, is that 'profit' is what gets people off their fat asses and out the door in the morning. Maybe it's a little bit of profit, that just allows them to pay their bills. Or maybe it's a lot of profit, that leads them to create products like the telescope or the PC or Microsoft Windows. Societies where there is no profit are stagnant and lifeless, like Cuba, the old Soviet Union, or in some respects, Canada. Profit is what motivates people, whether you like it or not. It's a part of human nature, just as much as lust, gluttony, or any other evil. Properly harnessed, it is highly productive and essential. Take it away, and society stagnates. In other words, your dream of a profitless system is a fantasy that is contrary to human nature.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 10:36am

  162. CRABBIE, you are the most accomplished slayer of straw men I have ever seen. You must be universally feared in the straw man kingdom.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 05:48am

    And you must fear reality. Whats it like to be wrong about so much, so often?

    Care to spin some more fantasies for us? How about how Raygun single handedly brought down the Soviets?

    Or how about a Straw Man ?

    Just curious, FROSTY. Would it be fair to say that you think that the only thing standing between free health care and American society are greedy Republicans?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 06:01am

    Or how about taking one action by a few and using that as a template for all others that you consider to be "liberals"?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 05:57am |

    Meanwhile, we KNOW that the rightwing NEVER does anything bad towards libs or doctors or child care centers or FBI headquarters.

    April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device. [14]

    May 9, 2007 An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

    Some organisations in the United States which oppose abortion either explicitly or implicitly advocate violence against abortion providers in contrast with the majority of the pro-life movement. Two such organizations are The Army of God, an underground network of activists who believe that the use of violence is an appropriate tool for fighting against abortion, and the American Coalition of Life Activists, who published the Nuremberg Files.

    The Nuremberg Files was a controversial anti-abortion web site which published the names, home addresses, telephone numbers, and other personal information of abortion providers – highlighting the names of those who had been wounded and striking out those of which had been killed. The site was accused of being a thinly-veiled hit list intended to incite violence; others claimed that it was protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.[19] A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision finally shut the site down in 2002 after a prolonged debate.

    Or is it that you dig and dig till you find something that fits your preconceived notions?

    BTW, I called the CIa and told them about their agent being outed. Their response? They asked for a special prosecutor and that led to the conviction of obstruction of justice by the Vice Presidents Chief of Staff, along with convictions for lying under an oath to God

    As you brought up "straw men", I got to thinking about your theme song:

    (Scarecrow) I could wile away the hours

    Conferrin' with the flowers

    Consultin' with the rain

    And my head I'd be scratchin'

    While my thoughts were busy hatchin'

    If I only had a brain

    I'd unravel any riddle

    For any individ'le

    In trouble or in pain

    (Dorothy)

    With the thoughts you'd be thinkin'

    You could be another Lincoln

    If you only had a brain

    (Scarecrow)

    Oh, I would tell you why

    The ocean's near the shore

    I could think of things I never thunk before

    And then I'd sit and think some more

    I would not be just a nuffin'

    My head all full of stuffin'

    My heart all full of pain

    I would dance and be merry

    Life would be a ding-a-derry

    If I only had a brain

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2007 @ 10:36am

  163. PONTI, nobody her, that I know of, is against profit. That is your imagination again. What many of us are against is obscene profits.

    are you all about the obscene?

    I thought so.

    Care to tell us again how nobody associated with Chimpy has made profits off the war in Iraq to free the wmd's held by Saddam?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2007 @ 10:44am

  164. "nobody here"....

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2007 @ 10:45am

  165. FZ, I do believe you have found the correct way to debate PONTI-FLOGIC. Using documentation and logic have zero effect on him, so treating him like the child he is is at least amusing.

    Did you enjoy your Canadian Thanksgiving that does not exist in Ponti's world?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2007 @ 10:49am

  166. Oh, another thing we are against is the tremendous overhead costs America has in it's healthcare administration.

    did you know that Canada has actual private practices that make ..... profits, within their evil socialist system?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2007 @ 10:52am

  167. Posted by CRABWALK 12/16/2007 @ 10:44am

    PONTI, nobody her, that I know of, is against profit.

    Well, I guess you just haven't been paying attention again. FROSTY here says he's going to save enough, by making our health care system 'non-profit', to provide health care for everyone. That sounds like he's anti-profit to me.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 11:00am

  168. Posted by CRABWALK 12/16/2007 @ 10:44am

    What many of us are against is obscene profits.

    Define 'obscene' in the cotext of 'obscene profits'.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 11:02am

  169. Who deserves the profit? Doctors, lab techs, radiologists, nurses...

    Or CEO's, shareholders and paper shufflers?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2007 @ 11:03am

  170. Posted by CRABWALK 12/16/2007 @ 11:03am

    Or CEO's, shareholders and paper shufflers?

    Define 'deserve'.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 11:06am

  171. Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 11:02am

    Richard Scrushy

    William McGuire, of UnitedHealth Group, the nation's leading insurer, was the third-highest-paid CEO on the Forbes list. His pay of $124.8 million could cover the average health-insurance premiums of nearly 34,000 people.

    In 1973, CEOs made 45 times as much as workers, according to pay expert Graef Crystal. In 1991 -- when Crystal said that the imperial CEO "is paid so much more than ordinary workers that he hasn't got the slightest clue as to how the rest of the country lives" -- CEOs made 140 times as much as workers. Last year CEOs made more than 300 times as much.

    Executive pay now takes more than double the bite out of company earnings that it did a decade ago, according to a recent study by Lucian Bebchuk, a Harvard professor of law, economics, and finance, and Yaniv Grinstein, of Cornell University's School of Management. Looking at data for thousands of publicly traded companies, Bebchuk and Grinstein found that pay for the top-five company executives rose from 4.8 percent of aggregate net company income during 1993-95 to 10.3 percent of aggregate net income during 2001-03

    Obscene salaries are bad for business.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2007 @ 11:09am

  172. See ya Ponti.

    Define "wrong a lot" .

    See: PONTIFICUS

    Deserve:CEOs can win big even when the company loses. Merck, for example, had to pull its Vioxx pain medication off the market, because it increases stroke and heart-attack risk, and Merck stock was down 28 percent last year -- but CEO Ray Gilmartin got a supposedly performance-based bonus. His total 2004 compensation was $37.8 million, and he received a new grant of 250,000 stock options.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2007 @ 11:13am

  173. Oh, before I go, Do you have that list of witch hunting democrats available for publication yet?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2007 @ 11:14am

  174. CEO pay within the healthcare industry.

    http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0109/0109.compmon.html

    Compare to average primary care physician salaries.

    http://www.physicianssearch.com/physician/salary2.html

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2007 @ 11:17am

  175. Average family practice : 147,000

    Average CEO pay: tens of millions.

    My definition of obscene.

    Executives with the largest value of unexercised stock options

    NAME TITLE COMPANY COMPENSATION

    William W. McGuire CEO UnitedHealth Group $357,865,646

    Stephen J. Hemsley President & CEO UnitedHealth Group $144,928,886

    Norman C. Payson Chairman & CEO Oxford Health Plans $115,375,414

    Wilson H. Taylor Retired chairman Cigna $66,141,372

    Leonard Schaeffer Chairman & CEO WellPoint Health Networks $64,610,759

    H. Edward Hanway Chairman & CEO Cigna $43,385,939

    James G. Stewart Executive VP & CEO Cigna $41,049,922

    Jeannine M. Rivet Executive VP & CEO, Ingenix UnitedHealth Group $39,450,395

    R. Channing Wheeler CEO, Uniprise UnitedHealth Group $32,506,870

    John W. Rowe President & CEO Aetna $25,026,549

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2007 @ 11:21am

  176. It's a part of human nature, just as much as lust, gluttony, or any other evil. Properly harnessed, it is highly productive and essential.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 10:36am

    so, evil is essential?

    mask, quick! open notepad.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 11:26am

  177. )....and while true, not "predicting it"..."hints" that "This time, yeah, THIS time, it's really going to happen!"

    And a month passes...and another and another and another...from 2005...2006...2007...3 weeks til 2008.

    Now AT SOME POINT, he concedes it isn't going to happen...or he's fooling himself...or PERHAPS, keeping alive a hope that JUST HAPPENS to coincide with his last published work.

    Posted by MASK 12/14/2007 @ 7:42pm

    Frita musta gotten a bite from the Psychic Line. And my advise was to be, before being distracted by real life--

    DON'T HUMOR HER!

    It does not solve her illness-- it is not a temporary lasp; it's permanent and only makes her act-out more... As we all know from experiencing her delusional creations of straw.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/16/2007 @ 11:57am

  178. Take it away, and society stagnates. In other words, your dream of a profitless system is a fantasy that is contrary to human nature.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 10:36am

    so, canadians and icelandians and frenchians and britinians and geraniums and etceteranians aren't humans?

    or just, unnatural humans.

    we're talking about helping people.

    let's read a few words from the man (men? ladies? spaghetti monster?) upstairs:

    a) And be on your guard against a day when no soul shall avail another in the least.

    b) If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up!

    c) I have heard that a superior man helps the distressed, but does not add to the wealth of the rich.

    d) For charity itself fulfills the law, And who can sever love from charity?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 12:07pm

  179. Oh, before I go,

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/16/2007 @ 11:14am

    this is great! another crabfrostywalkzoom/pontiflogicus battle!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 12:09pm

  180. Define 'obscene' in the cotext of 'obscene profits'.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/16/2007 @ 11:02am

    i guess that's when they "pad" their wallets excessively!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 12:12pm

  181. Average family practice : 147,000

    Average CEO pay: tens of millions.

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/16/2007 @ 11:21am

    $213,088: Average OHIP billing by a family doctor in 2005 (gross, before overhead such as salaries and office expenses).

    so, they make about the same. maybe a little less.

    dammit harper! f*ck the tanks. pay the doctors more.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 12:21pm

  182. William W. McGuire CEO UnitedHealth Group $357,865,646

    wow.

    i paid 3.49 for a bottle of generic tylenol yesterday.

    that's 102,540,299 bottles of tylenol.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 12:22pm

  183. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, or so the saying goes...

    The American dream has been over for around a hundred years. Hasn't anyone noticed. For a hundred years we've had a government Of the gangsters, By the gangsters and For the gangsters.

    I once respected the Mafia for two reasons: 1)they took care of "famiy" and 2) they were a buffer between government and the people. Then a sad thing happened; It dawned on me that Mafia IS government.

    Once I understood this simple fact two things became clear: 1) the world finally made sense and 2) there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.

    I am now a happy man because I don't worry about such things as governmental rape, murder, extortion, bribery and world wars any more.

    "Ho hum, Babe, pass the mashed potatoes, please..."

    Posted by Joe13 at 12/16/2007 @ 12:42pm

  184. PONTIFICUS:

    I come back, and what have you done? Gone and spewed more bullshit all over this blog. When are you going to learn?

    You said:

    Hmmm. And if it wasn't for gravity, we could all fly like birds. And if you disregarded the price of oil and oil-related items, there would have been virtually no increase in the PPI last Friday. And if the Queen had balls, she'd be king. JORCHEIM, you need to get a REAL job.

    My response:

    First off, I have a real job, thank you very much. And I'm self-employed. Second, you seem to think, as do many conservatives, that however things are, that's the way they should stay. I'm not really sure whether that is due to you being a lazy sad sack and frankly couldn't give two shits, or because you actually like it that way. Money in politics is not a foregone conclusion, it is not an indisputable law of nature. Money is in politics because we have allowed its corrosive effects to taint what should be a clean process. And all you want to do is make smarmy, mealy-mouthed excuses about how it's always been like that, and it always will...

    Your problem is that you are an apologist for all the worst aspects of our society. You ought to be ashamed of yourself... but instead, you're just fat, dumb, happy and stupid.

    You said:

    JORCHEIM, in the real world, ideas get field tested and the score is kept with money and peoples' lives. You seem to never have learned that nature does not care who tells the best fairy tale.

    My response:

    That comment shows how woefully ignorant you really are about how the system actually works. It's really rather pitiful.

    You said:

    WOLF, JORCH....if you want to push the "We were just as bad as the Soviets" or "They weren't THAT bad" line...feel free.

    My response:

    No, it's not a matter of pushing a line. It's a matter of looking at as many of the facts as possible from an objective perspective, and then drawing conclusions from that. You are the opposite. You go in burdened with a whole bunch of ideological baggage, and then try to shoehorn the facts to fit such a narrow Weltanschauung. And you can denigrate my process all you want. You're still wrong. And you have done nothing to support your position. Why am I surprised? That's what you always do.

    You said:

    I'll bet those guys HATE Ronald Reagan. We had a lot of folks that sounded like WOLF and JORCHY before RR won the Cold War (particularly during Jimmy Carter's term), not so many any more.

    My response:

    Reagan didn't win the Cold War. If you want to look at the Cold War as something that was "won" or "lost", then it was most certainly a culmination of the efforts of 50 years and countless people. Reagan was simply there when the final curtain came down. But again, you are showing your monumental ignorance of the history of the Cold War and the Soviet Union. I would take the time to explain it to you, but I've done it in the past already, and quite frankly, you're a waste of my time.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 3:23pm

  185. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/16/2007 @ 11:57am

    Al Gore is not going to run for President in 2008.

    Posted by Mask at 12/16/2007 @ 4:48pm

  186. Posted by JORCHEIM 12/16/2007 @ 3:23pm

    I believe it was me, not PONTI who said you guys were pushing the "moral equivalency" line on the Cold War.

    And history, not political ideology, will eventually see which version of the truth gets the final say.

    Again, all I'll point to is the rate of defections...and in WHICH DIRECTION they went.

    Posted by Mask at 12/16/2007 @ 4:51pm

  187. BTW, on PONTI...odd he brings up Galileo...

    after all he was a scientist and the theory of heliocentrism that he pushed was "just a theory"...

    like all those scientists and that so-called "theory" of global warming!

    Posted by Mask at 12/16/2007 @ 4:54pm

  188. like all those scientists and that so-called "theory" of global warming!

    Posted by MASK 12/16/2007 @ 4:54pm

    Mask,

    There have been lots of consensus scientific theories that have been abandoned as more data became available and new theories seemed to better fit the observations.

    The problem in Galileo's day was that the science of mechanics was lagging a bit and the scientific consensus then was that if Galileo was right and the earth was rotating and orbiting around the sun we would all fly off into space and seeing this had never happened Galileo was clearly wrong.

    Which was quite a logical conclusion if there was no such thing as a counter balancing force now known as gravity. Thus Galileo became the father of modern mechanics.

    Quite famously there was, until fairly recently, another consensus scientific theory that told us the universe had no beginning. Bertrand Russell believed in this theory with all his atheistic heart for obvious reasons. Now the Big Bang Theory may suffer the same fate as the AGW theory also may but then that's consensus science for you.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/16/2007 @ 5:34pm

  189. MASK:

    You said:

    I believe it was me, not PONTI who said you guys were pushing the "moral equivalency" line on the Cold War.

    My response:

    Go back and read PONTIFICUS's post. He was most certainly referencing our tete-a-tete regarding the Cold War. The point is, you guys are just being very honest about how our policies affected the world, that your only metric was how our policies affected anyone was how well we performed vis-a-vis the Soviet Union in terms of making them buckle... yet in the same breath you critique the USSR for imperialism of which we were most certainly guilty. Not only were we guilty of it, but by all measures, we were much more effective at pure exploitation than the USSR was. My entire point was, you guys maintain a double standard with regard to judging the two powers.

    You said:

    And history, not political ideology, will eventually see which version of the truth gets the final say.

    My response:

    Riiiiiiight. Because we all know how little effect political ideology has on how we perceive, or even catalogue, history. As George Orwell once said:

    "He controls the past, controls the future. He controls the present, controls the past."

    We all know, at least intrinsically, that history is written by the victors, regardless of the actual truth involved.

    You said:

    Again, all I'll point to is the rate of defections...and in WHICH DIRECTION they went.

    My response:

    Again, this is a much more complicated issue. You always like to boil things down to a single black and white issue, which is rarely, if ever, black and white. The people who wanted out of our system of repressive empire had no-where to run. Why? Because they were being gunned down by death squads. Operation Phoenix, anyone? And last time I checked, it is a hell of a lot easier to jump a wall than it is to make your way through an entire continent.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 5:53pm

  190. Posted by LRJONES4 12/16/2007 @ 04:22am | ignore this person

    What you thought I was, or was not, is more a revelation of, and, about you, than your's truly. Showing much the same level of insight, and on a par with your assigning of the quality of intelligence to George Bush, for his being able to keep his place on a teleprompter. Were you truly adept in the psychological arena you'd have kept them to yourself, as you would not think them, exactly, flattering. The point you really should have come away with is, this; that if I am anything it is most surely is not one of someone else's, let alone (seemingly of but one discipline, alone?) your's, mob. In any case.

    I see by your response that it was not denial per se, but in point of fact the very same adjective you meant to impose upon Jorchiem, naivete. When you speak you do so through an historically illiterate prism, typical, and more likely as not, the defining pre-requisite found among, and necessary to belonging to the "group" known as, "conservatives." Begging the question; are you truly that ignorant, or are you a willful fascist? The self knowledge contained in the latter would at least garner you some modicum of respect. Using the "Fabian Society" as an example of, and, or for the democratic process, is similar to using blankets carrying smallpox for the purposes of healing. And manifests the same level of ignorance, in then expecting the subject of your attentions to be eased of their afflictions, instead of being murdered by the cure you would impose.

    What I consider, my view as it were of "top down," is called education, in some quarters. To not educate is to but pander to the again, finished product of the, (you are once again, at least partly correct, though not in the way you wished) "Fabian processes." When you aren't, in your response eschewing pandering, you simply project. You have spent some effort characterizing, (proving in another fashion, actually) but not refuting, my earlier assertion; You take the effluent, the end of the process, and attempt to make it causal ... Your "reasoning" in regards to Romney effects blindness, self lying, and willed ignorance, in an attempt to make his obvious character flaws seem like, "flexibility." While at the same moment de-constructing your own arguments, in regards to charisma, etc.

    So, while there is, I stand corrected, an intellectual basis for what you say. I will now say, that there are simply none non dysfunctional, or pathological.

    Posted by V at 12/16/2007 @ 7:10pm

  191. MARYBRETBRAD:

    Whoa, Nelly!!! Ok... here you go again. You should just step away from the keyboard, before you hurt yourself. It's obvious you are playing with something you don't quite understand... sort of like the unfrozen caveman lawyer. The difference is, you aren't going to win this case.

    You said:

    It's frustrating. When I try to explain the world to you guys I imagine it's like trying to explain electricity to a tribe of lost Amazon warriors during one of their Lightning God rituals.

    My response:

    I know PRECISELY what you mean. It's almost as if you just don't quite get the entire concepts of facts and proof... you know. like when you show your dog a new trick, and he or she just sits there with their head cocked to the side like "What you talking 'bout, Willis?". Yeah, I know what you mean.

    You said:

    First, money is nothing. Econimics is not the study of money; it is the study of human motivation. Money is only a proxy for human desire.

    My response:

    Actually, wrong. You must have failed economics 101. For had you paid attention, literally the first day of class, the professor would have explained to you that economics is the study of scarcity. As in, there is a zero-sum game out there and everyone is trying to get a piece of the pie... just like George and Weezy.

    You did get one part of that statement correct, though. Money is simply a medium. More on that later, however.

    You said:

    If you guys understood anything, you'd stop bitching about republicans and corporation and, instead, would bitch about human nature. But you're smart enough to know that you're never going to change human nature so you bitch about Republicans, because you tell yourself that you can do something about the republicans: you can expose their highly secretive conspiracies. (Or replace Republicans with corporations, or Bush lovers, or war profiteers, or whatever your boogeyman is today.)

    My response:

    Actually, if you understood anything about the fundamental philosophical underpinnings of Western-style representative government, you would never say something so asinine. It is precisely the existence of government which is supposed to act as a buffer against human nature, to ensure that the weak are protected from the strong, and that tyranny, either from the wealthy few, or from the unwashed masses, would be checked. The issue, as most people here with a brain would acknowledge, is not the Republicans, per se. It is the fact that money (for money is the medium through which power exercises itself upon the political process in our system) has permeated the entire process in such a way as to render the interests of the weak and the underrepresented almost moot, and certainly mostly ignored. The fact that the Republicans, up until recently, were the primary (though certainly not solitary) purveyors of such plutocracy is simply happenstance. Hence, people like FROSTY ZOOM and myself (along with others who will remain nameless) are rarely or never hesitant to call the Democrats on the carpet for kowtowing to the same anti-democratic interests that have been running the Republicans for almost a century.

    You said:

    Yes, in a perfect world everyone would think exactly like you do and value exactly the same things you do, but those damn Republicans/corporations/war lovers/etc. just keep spoiling everything. I mean, it's not like any intelligent and rational person could possibly disagree with anything you think, could they?

    My response:

    Ok, see, that's just hitting below the belt. None of us, at least, none with whom I have ever conversed would want such a boring place. And your flippant comments do nothing to further this discussion one iota. What we do want, to the contrary of what you think, is fairness of access to the process. We are tired of money and power determining whether someone's voice gets heard or whether someone receives proper justice for their grievances. It's the simple concept of fairness.

    I personally believe that not everyone should be according the same, that your actions, for good and ill should bring the appropriate rewards or punishment. However, I do not believe that those who have been more successful should then be granted more power just because of happenstance or hard work. You're right. It is an issue of power. And power should be completely equal. Access should be completely equal. The money... ah yes, the money. It should also be irrelevant. And it should not be a vector through which the haves should impose their will on the have-nots.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 8:18pm

  192. MARYBRETBRAD:

    Your understanding or stock options is as incomplete as your understanding of basic economics.

    You didn't mention stock options with repegging options built in. These essentially allow the holder to set a different (better) strike price, depending upon how the stock performs.

    Also, stock options make the "pump and dump" strategy very attractive. Think Enron, think Adelphia, think Global Crossing. If you've seen the movie Boiler Room, they show a very rudimentary strategy for doing precisely that. With CEOs and stock options, oftentimes what has happened is they will perform accounting "magic", make the numbers look really great for a year or two, then bail out of the stock, right before the proverbial shit hits the fan. Hey, everyone's doing it, so it must be right! Even George Bush did that with Harken! Actually, he did it with actual shares, rather than options, but the strategy was the same.

    I guess none of this willful ignorance should surprise me. You only want to see negatives when it has something to do with someone with whom you disagree.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 8:26pm

  193. Posted by V 12/16/2007 @ 7:10pm

    I don't know V, but I wish the hell I knew what you were trying to convey. I take it you are one of those engineers who never learned to use the language in the orthodox way. A sort of slide rule and cypher man. Either that or you were pissed when you created that little "masterpiece". If that is the case then you may do me the favour of decoding it in order that I may learn something from it.

    If you were not inebriated forget it.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/16/2007 @ 8:26pm

  194. Posted by JORCHEIM 12/16/2007 @ 3:23pm | ignore this person

    First off, I have a real job, thank you very much. And I'm self-employed.

    Couldn't possibly be anything important. Perhaps you sell balloons in the park, because your ignorance regarding how our society works is appalling.

    Second, you seem to think, as do many conservatives, that however things are, that's the way they should stay.

    What I believe is that there generally are very good reasons for things being the way they are, and that substituting your theories for these realities is ludicrous, especially when its been tried so MANY times before.

    Money in politics is not a foregone conclusion, it is not an indisputable law of nature. Money is in politics because we have allowed its corrosive effects to taint what should be a clean process.

    If you want the money out of politics, get the politics out of the money. If you lefties think you can use the government to get and redistribute other people's money, a) you're severely deluded and b) your politicians will be bought and sold like the whores they are. Ask Hillary Clinton about those trades she made that netted her $100,000 why don'cha.

    And all you want to do is make smarmy, mealy-mouthed excuses about how it's always been like that, and it always will...

    I just think that if you want to change the world, you should at least have a clue as to how it works. I really don't think you do.

    Your problem is that you are an apologist for all the worst aspects of our society. You ought to be ashamed of yourself... but instead, you're just fat, dumb, happy and stupid.

    I'm not an apologist, I'm an observer. I don't make the rules, I just live by them. I think it's especially funny when you folks say that people like me 'adore' the free market. I don't 'adore' the free market anymore than I 'adore' the law of gravity. I simply realize that it's a natural phenomenon and it's better to work with it than against it. You lefties haven't learned that yet, you think you can substitute your theories about how you think the world should be versus the way it is. Thus, we have socialism tried again and again and again, with the expectation of different results.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/16/2007 @ 9:25pm

  195. MARYBRETBRAD:

    AS per usual, you purposefully misrepresent what I said. What part of WESTERN-STYLE REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT don't you get? I was not talking about divine right kingships or totalitarian despotism. So you can declare bullshit all you want, but you're still wrong.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 9:30pm

  196. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/16/2007 @ 7:32pm

    BTW, that list that CRAB published...."when" the health insurance industry is wiped out (as IS the ultimate goal of much of the American Left....read the blogs)...

    THOSE guys will Golden Parachute out quite nicely. It's the million or so that work UNDER them that will be thrown out of a job...unless they want to work for the massive Federal bureaucracy of "universal health care".

    Posted by Mask at 12/16/2007 @ 9:37pm

  197. PONTIFICUS:

    You said:

    Couldn't possibly be anything important. Perhaps you sell balloons in the park, because your ignorance regarding how our society works is appalling.

    My response:

    Actually, I am a self-employed financial planner, and would be willing to bet that I make more money that you, not that it matters. The fact that you provide absolutely zero cogent points in any of your posts seems to undermine your claim to my ignorance of the true nature of society.

    You said:

    What I believe is that there generally are very good reasons for things being the way they are, and that substituting your theories for these realities is ludicrous, especially when its been tried so MANY times before.

    My response:

    Precisely the sort of sophistry we heard prior to women winning the right to vote, blacks eliminating slavery and Jim Crow and segregation, the poor abolishing the poll taxes, unions winning the rights to keep children from being forced to work in mines and sweatshops... shall I go on?

    You're right, there are reasons things are the way they are... but I would certainly refrain from calling them good.

    You said:

    If you want the money out of politics, get the politics out of the money. If you lefties think you can use the government to get and redistribute other people's money, a) you're severely deluded and b) your politicians will be bought and sold like the whores they are. Ask Hillary Clinton about those trades she made that netted her $100,000 why don'cha.

    My response:

    If you spent half as much time reading my posts as you do having coniption fits that everyone here doesn't agree with you, you might be aware of the fact that;

    a) I loathe Hillary Clinton, and believe that she and her husband are criminals (much like our current dissembler-in-chief)

    b) I pray to God that she doesn't get the Democratic nomination

    In the same vein, I never hear about you wondering aloud about the trades of Harken stock (illegally) that netted Bush over $800k, which then allowed him to buy into the Texas Rangers, which then allowed him to be granted what amounted to a gift of around $11mil upon his leaving the franchise.

    As far as the first part of that statement, I am still rather befuddled as to what the hell you actually meant. Is it possible for you to even make a well-reasoned point that is somehow backed up by reality and fact? If so, I would love to see it.

    You said:

    I just think that if you want to change the world, you should at least have a clue as to how it works. I really don't think you do.

    My response:

    See, that is your problem... you are thinking. And seeing as pretty much everyone recognizes that you are operating with half a load to start with, and zero facts to back up your assertions, if I were you, I would refrain from trying to impress people with claims that anyone else is unaware or ignorant of how the world really works.

    You said:

    I'm not an apologist, I'm an observer. I don't make the rules, I just live by them. I think it's especially funny when you folks say that people like me 'adore' the free market. I don't 'adore' the free market anymore than I 'adore' the law of gravity. I simply realize that it's a natural phenomenon and it's better to work with it than against it. You lefties haven't learned that yet, you think you can substitute your theories about how you think the world should be versus the way it is. Thus, we have socialism tried again and again and again, with the expectation of different results.

    My response:

    Actually, wrong again, slappy. The so-called free market is, in actuality, a highly regulated system designed to force as much wealth as possible into the hands of as few as possible. It is no more "natural" than socialism. Even the father of modern economics, Adam Smith, recognized that the worst possible feature of capitalism would be monopolism and market failures, both of which we have in spades.

    You say that socialism has never, and will never work, yet it does work, and it works well, every single day, in places as varied as New Zealand, Iceland, Sweden, Canada, France, Norway...

    You're just plain, flat-out wrong. On a level that is stupendous in its magnitude.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 9:45pm

  198. It is precisely the existence of government which is supposed to act as a buffer against human nature...

    Posted by JORCHEIM 12/16/2007 @ 8:18pm

    I declare bullshit! Government, at it's most fundamental level is a collection of people acting in concert, Rousseu (sp?) said something about foregoing certain rights to obtain other rights. When cavemen banded together and did whatever the strongest dictated, I doubt it was to restain human nature.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/16/2007 @ 9:20pm | ignore this person

    to ensure that the weak are protected from the strong, and that tyranny,

    Posted by JORCHEIM 12/16/2007 @ 8:18pm

    Maybe that's the way things work in Jorcheim-u-topia, but last I checked, the fact that you wish things worked a certain way will not overrule the reality of human nature.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/16/2007 @ 9:23pm

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    ...read that on a peice of paper, somewhere....

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/16/2007 @ 9:45pm

  199. MALCONTENT:

    Precisely!

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 9:53pm

  200. Posted by LRJONES4 12/16/2007 @ 5:34pm

    actually,

    the mayans were way ahead of the flat earthers (yeah, i know about the turtle thing).

    then the noble europeans came and burned all their "heathen" texts.

    oh well.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 10:04pm

  201. the fact that you wish things worked a certain way will not overrule the reality of human nature.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/16/2007 @ 9:23pm

    what?

    that we are all assholes.

    no thanks.

    i guess i'll just have to find another species, then.

    "hey penguins, you guys busy?..........."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 10:09pm

  202. Securing Life and Liberty have become much cheaper.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/16/2007 @ 10:04pm

    dunno, the iraqis are sure paying a heavy price.........

    wait! your great-great-great grandkids, too!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 10:11pm

  203. THOSE guys will Golden Parachute out quite nicely. It's the million or so that work UNDER them that will be thrown out of a job...unless they want to work for the massive Federal bureaucracy of "universal health care".

    Posted by MASK 12/16/2007 @ 9:37pm

    so,

    you defend people who essentially work in a mucked up system,

    yet, care little about the people whose work is lost due to china's "inevitability"?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 10:15pm

  204. You say that socialism has never, and will never work, yet it does work, and it works well, every single day, in places as varied as New Zealand, Iceland, Sweden, Canada, France, Norway...

    Posted by JORCHEIM 12/16/2007 @ 9:45pm

    HELP!!!!!!!!! WE MUST ELIMINATE THE MENACE OF VICEROY HARPER

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 10:17pm

  205. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You said:

    Should should should should should....

    Last I check we were talking about the real world. We were not engaging in an excercise of mental masturbation.

    Life isn't fair and government can't make it fair, mostly because no two people can agree on what's fair. There is a huge gaping chasm between completely equal power (fantasy of the collectivists) and complete anarchy (fantasy of the Libertarians). We are somewhere in the middle and with each election we move marginally left or right, yet remain billions of miles from either absolute. So we have a political process that largely removes force and fraud from people's lives. That's a big improvement over the middle ages. And we have it, not because of a bunch of egghead college professors sitting around theorizing about what's fair, but because technology has improved communications between and among the masses. We have better governments because technology has improved a nation's ability to build defensive weapons to impede and even thwart the ability of other nations to steal their natural resources. We have more freedom, because it is a basic desire of human nature, and our government are instituted to help us secure things that we would be unable to secure on our own.

    My response:

    Wow... did you come up with all of that, or did your buddy Rush help you with it?

    Ok, let's go through this bit by bit, shall we?

    This recurring canard that government cannot remedy things is such bunk. I guess segregation was, in your mind, a bad thing... I guess the breaking up of the trusts was a bad thing... getting us out of the Great Depression was bad... oh, and your favorite that you certainly don't want to hear, that the government ensures a safe investment climate and stable market for your much-ballyhooed "free market"... and on and on and on...

    You're right on one point, though. There is a huge gaping chasm between what is and what is moral, right, and fair. The main difference is, you are fine just sitting back and enjoying the fruits of everyone else's toil to make this a better world. And then you poor-mouth us when we try to make a difference, or when we point out the obvious, that it's not a very fair place to be. You make excuses,and then you complain that we are optimists with our heads in the clouds. Actually, we are realists. Realists who believe that the world can in fact be improved. You are a cynical, selfish, nattering naybob of negativity (thank you Spiro Agnew).

    We have a better life now than the middle ages in part, sure, because of technological advancements, but more importantly as a result of the actions and contributions of true patriots and humanists, who believed that the struggle is, was, and always shall be worth the fight, even if we don't succeed just yet.

    You think technology guaranteed our forefathers freedom? You think they weren't eggheads? Perhaps I could refer you to Thomas Jefferson, who was one of the most erudite men to ever hold the reins of power in ANY nation, much less our own.

    How about James Madison, the father of the constitution, who was as renowned a political theorist as this country has ever known...

    Or Benjamin Franklin, whose experimentations in physics as well as his civic activism and prodigious writing would certainly put him firmly in the category of "egghead".

    And those are just 3 of them.

    No, sir. Technology did not guarantee, or even make possible, our freedom. It was ideas. It was morality. It was a collective dream for a better world.

    You, sir, are no patriot. You would have been sitting on your hands, assisting the Redcoats, preventing this nation from being born, aborting it in utero.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 10:21pm

  206. We have better governments because technology has improved a nation's ability to build defensive weapons to impede and even thwart the ability of other nations to steal their natural resources.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/16/2007 @ 9:52pm

    ooooooooh, this is excellent. a grammatical freudian slip.

    your defensive weapons stop other nations from stealing your resources in their countries.

    you mean like in iraq (2003), iran (1953), canada (2032), panama (1989), guatemala (1954), venezuela (2017)?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 10:25pm

  207. not because he has inside information that would lead a knowledgable individual to believe the stock was headed down.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/16/2007 @ 10:13pm

    how could he not? it was a company run by g. w. bush, after all?

    ain't one way but down...............

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 10:27pm

  208. oh well.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/16/2007 @ 10:04pm

    Oh well? Oh no FZ my brain is still reeling from the drunken assault upon it by V.

    What's the damage likely to be from this mugging of our noble Enlightenment? Mayan scientific predictions of AGW courtesy of our great Industrial Revolution?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/16/2007 @ 10:28pm

  209. The same goes for France, where a Xenophobic extremist came in second in the Presidential race a few years back.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/16/2007 @ 10:22pm

    so, tancredo has your support?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 10:30pm

  210. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You spew bullshit at such an alarming rate, I find it difficult to keep up. But I soldier on.

    You said:

    If I remember, the question in the Harken transaction was wether he traded on inside information. The stock went down after he sold. The SEC investigated long before any politician said anything and concluded that Bush sold the stock to buy the Rangers, not because he has inside information that would lead a knowledgable individual to believe the stock was headed down.

    My response:

    Actually, he was investigated by his father's appointment to the SEC and there was never any resolution to the investigation. It was essentially swept under the carpet.

    The Nation did a decent piece on it a while back.

    It's here...

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020722/leopold20020718 [thenation.com]

    The timeline is as follows:

    * June 6, 1990: Bush (who was at the time on Harken's board and a member of its audit committee) received the company's "flash report," which according to the Washington Post, predicted second quarter losses in the neighborhood of $4 million.

    * June 8, 1990: According to the Los Angeles Times, Ralph Smith, a stockbroker, placed a "cold call" to Bush offering to purchase his Harken shares. Bush said he would reply within a couple of weeks.

    * June 11, 1990: Bush attended a meeting at which a representative of Harken's audit firm, Arthur Andersen, warned of a loss that "could be potentially significant." Although no amount was specified in the meeting, the auditors indicated that the losses would surpass the $4 million forecast in the "flash report." (In fact, Harken would ultimately report a loss of $23 million.)

    * June 22, 1990: Shortly after getting the transaction approved by Harken's lawyers, Bush sold 212,140 of his 317,152 Harken shares for $848,560.

    * July 10, 1990: Under SEC requirements, this was the deadline for Bush to publicly report his sale of the stock. He failed to file the report until March of 1991. For reasons Bush has not explained, although he signed the form, he did not date it.

    * August 20, 1990: Harken publicly announced second quarter losses of just over $23 million. The stock, which had opened at $3 per share, closed at $2.37.

    * August 21, 1990: Despite the losses reported the day before, Harken's stock price rebounded to $3 per share. However, the overall trend was downwards, and by the end of 1990 Harken's share price had dropped to $1. (Today, Harken's stock trades for about the price of a candy bar on the American Stock Exchange.)

    The issues were, most certainly, that he traded on insider information, and that he failed to file required documentation with the SEC as a registered insider. The investigation, as I said earlier, went no where because... oh gee, I guess it had nothing to do with the fact that his father was the President at the time.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 10:30pm

  211. What's the damage likely to be from this mugging of our noble Enlightenment? Mayan scientific predictions of AGW courtesy of our great Industrial Revolution?

    Posted by LRJONES4 12/16/2007 @ 10:28pm

    the damage is the dehumanization wrought by the ignorant.

    it's kinda like the rainforest. a treasure trove of possibilities in each hectare.

    yet the "nobles" insist on flattening it in order to pave the way for more hamburgers.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 10:33pm

  212. MARYBRETBRAD:

    On to your next steaming pile of bullshit...

    You said:

    Actually, your full of shit. Nobody "designed" the market for the explicit purpose of concentrating wealth. The market was designed to accomodate commerce. It is credited with being the most efficient method of allocating scarces resources among competing desires. I don't pretend that it is without fault, that it can't be manipulated unfairly, that it isn't suseptible to "malfuntion" in the face of monopolies or insider information, or that it works equally well for transportation, education, healthcare, energy, or food.

    My response:

    It's commentary like this that keeps me coming back for more. Really. The market was very much "designed" to work precisely as it does by those whose interests would be best served by it. You know, it's the Golden Rule, "He who has the GOLD makes the RULES."

    You claim to be so worldly and knowledgeable about how the world works, yet you can't quite grasp that one simple truism? How truly sad.

    Instead of going through an entire history of the creation of the modern US market, I am just going to tell you to go do your own research. You are so woefully misinformed on this that your comments beggar belief. Honestly, you seem pretty hopeless.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 10:34pm

  213. MARYBRETBRAD:

    Yet more bullshit from you... I am truly amazed at your hubris.

    You said:

    Socialism worked great in Russia, until it didn't anymore. Canada and England are having trouble with thier healthcare systems and are badly in need of reform, which is badly delayed because it is up to the central planners instead of market forces.

    My response:

    There was never true socialism in the USSR. Period. And no matter how you wish to paint it, it isn't going to change the facts.

    True, Canada and England are having issues with their health care systems. Yet I would trade our problems for theirs any day of the week. Paying $7000 a year for health insurance for my family, all in great shape, all young (I'll be 32 next month, by significant other is 30, one 4 year old, and another on the way), and yet we still have wait lists? Oh right, bet you never hear that one here in the US. Yes, we have waiting lists. In order to get certain basic care (and let's not even talk about the more specialized care) we have waiting lists here. And yet, not everyone is covered. That's not the case in Canada or England.

    You said:

    The Netherlands are suffering from a "brain drain" as bad or worse than Canada because the EU makes it easy for the smartest and most industrious to work in countries with lower income taxes.

    My response:

    That's their own fault. Again, something the government could remedy if it wanted to. You make it sound like people aren't going to try to go where they would make the most money, legally (or even illegally in some cases).

    You said:

    Sweeden and Norway worked pretty good for a long time, most because the population was so ethnically homogenious. With the huge influx of middle easterners, eagar to life off of generous welfare benefits, but extreamly resistant to assimilate any of the underlying cultural mores, these countries are having a hard time as well. The same goes for France, where a Xenophobic extremist came in second in the Presidential race a few years back.

    My response:

    So again, you expect there to be zero problems anywhere there is socialism, and if there are any problems whatsoever, that automatically means that socialism is a failure. Meanwhile you gloss over the abject failure that is our own system and tell us "Oh, it's just the market."

    Really now... can you get any more intellectually dishonest?

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 10:44pm

  214. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You said:

    There's nothing in the constitution about checking human nature or making people's power equal or making people's money equal. Hell, the constition didn't permit an income tax until the 16th Amendment was ratified on Feb 3, 1913. There's noting about making life fair.

    My response:

    First, you might want to learn how to spell Rousseau's name, before you start acting like you're some sort of authority on him.

    Nothing about making life fair? Really now... obviously you never read anything by Thomas Paine or John Locke, who were the true intellectual foundations upon which our governmental guiding principles are based.

    I reckon that whole idea of "one man, one vote" just HAPPENED to work out as fair, eh?

    You said:

    Establish justice. We have a federal court system and a system of state court to apply the law to individuals without regard to race, religion, or sex.

    My response:

    Ah, yes... but in that self-same system, money DOES matter. Hence, it is not a fair system.

    You said:

    Promote domestic tranquilitiy. Provide for the general welfare. That's not welfare payments.

    My response:

    I never implied such. And that includes welfare payments to large corporations and wealthy individuals, as well.

    You said:

    Noticably absent are education, housing, transportation. We've decided to add those things through amendment or state action

    So quoting Rousseu is far from "asinine".

    My response:

    And those have been added for two main reasons... to promote a more generalized sense of fairness (particularly universal education) and to support interstate commerce.

    I would still recommend actually reading Rousseau before throwing around his concepts and misrepresenting his ideas so.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 10:53pm

  215. MARYBRETBRAD:

    The market was very much "designed" to work precisely as it does by those whose interests would be best served by it.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 12/16/2007 @ 10:34pm

    Can you give me thier names and the day the designed it?

    I told you, I am not going to do your work for you.

    But some important terms of note, just to get you started...

    Google the following:

    Federal Reserve

    Securities and Exchange Commission

    Chicago Board of Trade

    American Stock Exchange

    New York Stock Exchange

    Breton Woods

    That should get you started...

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 10:57pm

  216. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You said:

    Of course there wasn't, but there were "True Socialists". Just like the "True Socialist" here who think that they are smart enough to impose "True Socialism" in place of individuals' own choices. There will never be "True Socialism." That's our whole point about Utopian fantasy.

    My response:

    Ok, I honestly just don't even know what the hell you are talking about here. Obviously you are just blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Do you even know what you are talking about?

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 10:58pm

  217. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You said:

    You have a wait lfor your preferred physician. You are free to choose another doctor who can see you sooner. The Canadians and English don't have that choice.

    My response:

    And if I don't go to a "preferred physician" guess what... I have to pay MORE out of my pocket. What part of that sounds like a good deal?

    The point is, I would gladly pay $7000 more in taxes a year if I did not have to pay my health insurance premiums, if I knew that no matter what, everything that I needed health-wise would be covered, with no more out-of-pocket expense.

    Oh, and by the way... Canadians and Brits can go to any doctor they want. They are not told which doctors they can see and which they can't.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 11:01pm

  218. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You said:

    Sure, all they need to do is to tyranically restrict people's freedom for the good of the collective. Of course, that's nothing like being a slave owned by the state.

    My response:

    So now you're a pure anarchist? The government doesn't have the right, even the responsibility, to pass laws and rules that ensure in the interests of the greatest number of its citizens?

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 11:03pm

  219. You can't expect the same level of social cohesion in the US because of that bastard, human nature and our tendency towards tribalism.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/16/2007 @ 11:03pm

    'specially with you pounding the xenophobe drum SO LOUDLY.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 11:09pm

  220. I'm talking about "True Believers" who sat around in their dorms smoking dope and telling themselve that if only they could get their hands on the political power, they would make the world better by making better choice for people than they could make for themselves.

    and some of them invented the personal computer and made the world a better place for everyone.

    Posted by Hondo at 12/16/2007 @ 11:19pm

  221. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You said:

    No I don't. I know better. The people who try so sell socialism/collectivism are the ones who promise there won't be any problems. We can give everyone free healthcare without dimishing the quality. Bullshit.

    My response:

    First off, I'm not sure you do. You certainly seem to make claims that would warrant everyone here thinking that you don't know better.

    Second, I don't know which "people" you are talking about who are trying to "sell" socialism to you, but everyone on this blog, at the very least, who advocates for such a system is well aware of some of the failures, and want some system even better than that. And since we supposedly live in the "GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD" we should be able to achieve it.

    Third, and most importantly, who said anything about free health care? Last time I checked, taxes do not equal free. And since most people here who want some sort of socialized health care are advocating socializing the COSTS, not the CAREGIVERS. There is a HUGE difference there. I personally do not want socialized health care, but I do believe that creating what would be essentially an enormous not-for-profit funding source into which everyone would pay, and everyone would receive benefits, is the best idea. It's basically a non-profit insurance company, with no opt-outs and no redlining and no turning down of coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Sounds pretty darned right to me. Seeing as I work in the insurance field (unfortunately, I might add), I can tell you this would really fix most of our problems here. And if people would like to purchase more coverage, let them! That's how France works, and it has worked exceptionally well for them.

    You said:

    We can feed and house every person in this country and provide them dignity, and all we need is a 90% tax rate above 150,000. Bullshit.

    My response:

    I said nothing about feeding or housing. You assume a lot. You assume I want to just give stuff to people and they must do nothing in return. Far from it. And you know what? I cannot think of a single progressive or even communist who thinks that way either.

    But they ALL want fair compensation for good work... and they want dignified labor, rather than demeaning service work. Your assumptions are making an ass out of you, and pissing everyone else, including me, off.

    you said:

    I understand that under capitalism there are winners and losers. From where I sit I see a country where 90% of the population lives above the poverty line and has the freedom to choose how they live thier lives. It hasn't alway been 90%. In decades past it has been considerably higher, but our capitalist system has made consistent (though sometimes uneven) progress in reducing the number of people in poverty. (And that is will a moving definition of poverty. Today's poor have TVs and Cellphones and X-boxs") The "rich" in the depression didn't have anything close. Our system has consitently made life easier. Our system has consistently improved life expectency.

    My response:

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but 90% of Americans do not live above the poverty line. Actually, according to the UN, which defines poverty among high-income OECD countries as those earning less than 50% of the median, 17% of Americans lived in poverty between 1999 and 2002.

    And our system consistently made life better until the USSR fell. Since then, now that there is no other alternative "viable" conception of modernity (according to the received wisdom), the state of the US economy and citizenry is the worst it's been in 50 years.

    You said:

    As I Look back at history in places where they've tried socialism/collectivism I don't see that. In Cuba, poverty is appallingly high. They've basically got the same economy they had in 1959 right after the Revolution. In Russia, it is still 50%. In Russia, alcholism is largly credited with a sharp drop in life expectancy.

    My response:

    Gee... Cuba's economic woes couldn't have anything to do with the US embargo, and forcibly preventing others from trading with them, and undermining the country every chance we get... no... of course not.

    In Russia, those numbers only spiked once the USSR fell. As I said a while back, capitalism did in Russia in less than 10 years what communism couldn't do in 70... make communism look good.

    You said:

    Socialism in Sweeden has fared much better, but they are a small country where everyone looked the same, until very recently. You can't expect the same level of social cohesion in the US because of that bastard, human nature and our tendency towards tribalism.

    My response:

    Or perhaps it's because we have other issues to deal with, like overt and covert racism, sexism, open class warfare against the poor and middle class...

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 11:24pm

  222. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You said:

    Far from an anarchist. Earlier tonight I wrote there is a huge chasm between socialist and anarchist.

    My response:

    I was simply pointing out the inconsistencies in your own posts.

    You said:

    However, just 'cause I'm not an anarchist doesn't mean I think the government can put up a wall and shoot you in the back if you try to escape. Just because I was born on a certain patch of dirt doesn't mean the government that exercise soveriengty over that dirt has a claim to any or all of my future productive efforts.

    My response:

    Actually, it does. Otherwise, you should move. That's pretty much what it means to be a citizen of a nation. It's called basic social studies. You should look into it.

    You said:

    I think government assoication should be strictly voluntary and if you want to leave, leave. Rights and responsibilities. If you give up the responsibilities you give up the rights as well, but it is a choice.

    My response:

    Um, you already can do that. That's why we have immigrants and emigrants.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 11:28pm

  223. Posted by LRJONES4 12/16/2007 @ 10:28pm | ignore this person

    Your brain should be reeling, just as MaryBretBrad's should be, and for pretty much the same reason(s); You have internalized "conservative," propaganda, and then for whatever reason(s) you come to a site, such as this. By the largesse of, and, in a medium, that seeks to approach the sum total of human knowledge.

    While the adherents of a party or group to the doctrines of fascism while attempting to disguise it as another political movement, (the functional definition of crypto fascist) have to spin it into its current flavour, mask their double speak, as "conservative." Therefore rendering it of no moment, no greater depth, than the latest pundit dribble. The truth whether historical, or cognitive, can be "reduced," to first principles.

    So, there is very little of the (pseudo intellectual, when not simply mere, opinion) propaganda you eschew, that cannot be pounded into dust sized particles, smaller than the wisps of smoke you allowed to be blown up your respective backsides.

    Posted by V at 12/16/2007 @ 11:30pm

  224. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You said:

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but the UN definition of poverty doesn't measure poverty, it measure economic inequality.

    My response:

    Actually, it measures both. Let's do some numbers, shall we?

    In 2006, the median income for a family of 4 was $48,201.00. By those numbers, according to the UN, 50% of that number would be $24,100.50. And that would mean that, again, according to the UN measurement, 17% of the population in the US makes less than that. So tell me again exactly how that doesn't accurately portray the number of people in this country who live in poverty?

    For completeness' sake, in 2006, the poverty line for a family of 4 in the US was $20,000.00. The number under that line was 12.7%, 27% more than you originally claimed. That extra $4,100.50 the UN numbers would include adds an additional 4.3% to the total.

    You said:

    When I wrote that 50% of Russians live in poverty, I meant they don't have adequate basic resources. The median (50%) doesn't have basic resources to live. Only a fucking idiot would define poverty to be people who earn 50% of that.

    My response:

    So by your own words, if someone cannot provide adequate basic resources, which I would imagine would include water, food, shelter, heat, and electricity, (some would include health care as well, but for this purpose I won't) they are poor.

    Well, guess what... $24k per year for 4 people pretty much meets your own criteria for poverty.

    So I guess you're the fucking idiot here.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 11:58pm

  225. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You said:

    This was my point. Castro and Stalin would put a bullet in your back if you attempted to move. They put up a wall and if you tried to move/escape you were imprisoned or killed. Actually, that's redundant. Cubans, Russians, and East Germans lived in a prison. They weren't free to move. That was my point about not having a claim on all future productive efforts. It should be voluntary so I can leave.

    My response:

    Actually, they were allowed pretty much free reign throughout the Warsaw Pact countries. How do I know this? I know (or knew) a lot of people who lived in East Berlin before the wall came down. I knew a lot of Russian emigre's as well. They just weren't allowed to visit the west. But hey, guess what. We weren't allowed to visit them, either.

    Now, before you try to paint me into a corner, and I somehow get branded an apologist for totalitarianism, I am not. I am just saying that a great deal of the received wisdom regarding that time is simply wrong... which has been my point, all along.

    And as far as people getting killed... I would again challenge you to chat up some South and Central Americans who wanted out of their hell that we imparted upon them. They may not give such the rosy picture of us that you may imagine.

    You said:

    This started about the Netherlands and people leaving and you said the govenment could "fix" it. I assumed you meant like Castro and Stalin.

    My response:

    Nope... don't assume. Ask... and actually READ what I write, instead of trying to read into what I write what you want to attribute to me.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/17/2007 @ 12:05am

  226. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You said:

    With Cuba, blame America first. The Soviet Union propped them up as long as they could afford to. The demise of the subsidy is what really hurt them.

    My response:

    True, the USSR did back Cuba, just as we propped up Japan and Germany (BRD, at least).

    I am not blaming America first. But to not acknowledge at all the deleterious effects our policies have had directly upon Cuba is to simply not be honestly engaging the subject. You seem to try to attribute their failures completely upon their form of government and their economic system, yet you don't give any credence to the idea that we may have had a hand in those hardships... and yet in the same breath, you talk about how the US (and Reagan, specifically) forced the USSR are collapse. Well? Which is it? If the US could cause the USSR, a much larger, much wealthier nation to collapse, then why couldn't we have created massive problems for a much smaller nation which is substantially closer than the USSR, and which is an island nation, completely surrounded by our allies to boot?

    You said:

    If Communism looks so good, why don't they go back? I'll tell you why. It is because collectivism isn't sustainable. Human nature is to conserve effort. To get the most for the least expended energy. Under Socialism, you can't get any more, so people spend all of their time trying to figure out ways to do less. I've read Cuba's real economy has strunk every year for 45 years. Gee, I wonder why?

    My response:

    Right... it has nothing to do with the fact that the country is essentially run by the mob and former KGB officials (Putin, anyone) who have been complicit in the wholesale looting a la vulture capitalism of the entire nation.

    And you are only describing one type of socialism when you say that there are no extra fruits of your labor when you live in a socialist system. Not true. New Zealand, Iceland, Norway, Sweden are all socialist, yet they still have working markets as well. Germany, France, Great Britain to varying lesser degrees also have socialist tendencies, yet they have succeeded in preventing the free rider problem as well.

    So... I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/17/2007 @ 12:15am

  227. Thanks for the kind wishes regarding my family. Happy holidays.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/17/2007 @ 12:15am

  228. So, there is very little of the (pseudo intellectual, when not simply mere, opinion) propaganda you eschew, that cannot be pounded into dust sized particles, smaller than the wisps of smoke you allowed to be blown up your respective backsides.

    Posted by V 12/16/2007 @ 11:30pm

    Ha, Ha V, you certainly are a funny lad.

    Love your style but I still haven't got a clue what you are talking about, however accidentally, I discovered that if I put my hands on the monitor there is a strange vibration coming through from your posts. I'd also tried reading them upside down and right to left etc but it doesn't give me the same buzz I get with the hands on approach. Maybe your stuff is best understood at the vibrational rather than at the intellectual level?

    Please have another go when you next get the urge because you really do seem to be trying your hardest to say something intelligent. My advice would be to use the older expletives like, shit, bloody, bugger and bastard, in the richest combinations your state of inebriation will allow. I give this advice because fascist really is ambiguous, especially since Stalin said fascism and (democratic) socialism are twins (Presumably with the same mum and dad).

    The only thing of substance you have taught me is that your sort of "intellectual" does have a bit of a problem communicating the good oil to the real working class ie those who actually work. Which sort of gives one a flashback to Kucinich's problem.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/17/2007 @ 02:19am

  229. I like the fact that everyone is so cynical about the impeachment issue. For me, there is no doubt Cheney and Bush should be impeached. At this late part of the game, at least to keep historians from spinning them as good leaders in future history books. Also for me, keeping this issue alive helps me determine who I would support and who I would not support. Anyone who supported impeachment would get my support. Anyone else will simply get a very thin smile.

    Posted by jrevere at 12/17/2007 @ 08:05am

  230. Posted by JREVERE 12/17/2007 @ 08:05am

    So you'd never vote for...

    Nancy Pelosi?

    Harry Reid?

    BARACK OBAMA?

    Russ Feingold?

    Howard Dean?

    or....AL GORE?

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 09:13am

  231. We can feed and house every person in this country and provide them dignity, and all we need is a 90% tax rate above 150,000. Bullshit.

    My response:

    I said nothing about feeding or housing. You assume a lot. You assume I want to just give stuff to people and they must do nothing in return. Far from it. And you know what? I cannot think of a single progressive or even communist who thinks that way either.

    But they ALL want fair compensation for good work... and they want dignified labor, rather than demeaning service work. Your assumptions are making an ass out of you, and pissing everyone else, including me, off.JORCHEIM

    First, excellent refutations of Darins preconceived notions all around. It must just kill the neo-cons that the only self employed people around here are Evil Librools. (You, JohannesRolf[I miss you JR!] and me).

    second, I have to echo your comment that nobody I have read here EVER advocated giving away services for free. You are spot on that we want a system that is less top heavy in admin costs and does not take large chunks of our insurance premiums (aka a "private tax") and pass them up to the top 3 or 4 people at the insurance companies. Whether I pay 7000 to BCBS or a regional insurance pool handled by the gubment does not matter, IF the services obtained are similar. Many other industrialized countries have moved in this direction and are not in imminent danger of collapse. As a matter of fact, an awful lot of major CEO's are coming around to the idea that it would be good for their bottom line too.

    And DARIN, (MBB) I do know what a stock option is vs a salary, I included that to show that NOT ONLY IS THE CEO GETTING $$54,129,501 IN SALARY, HE IS ALSO GETTING A POTENTIAL $357,865,646. I find that to be obscene when so many little kids are running around without access to basic care. Maybe your God tolerates that as "the natural order", but I think it should change.

    Both you and PontiFLOGIC need to work on what you think "we"think vs what we are actually advocating. Too many times here I have been informed that what I want is not actually what I want or think should happen.For instance: I DO NOT want the terrorists to win, I DO want the GWOT to be fought from a moral high-ground, because in the end it is our ideals that will win over people, not our military might. I DO want the Iraqi war to be fought with as little graft and corruption as possible. Is it so hard for you to separate that out?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2007 @ 09:17am

  232. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/17/2007 @ 08:02am

    Think you should check the data you are being fed. NZ is certainly not a socialist country nor for that matter is Sweden. These countries may have more extensive welfare payments than America but then which country hasn't. That of itself doesn't make an economy socialist in a classical sense. Some obviously like to redefine socialism so they don't feel so irrelevant and on their lonesome in the world:

    Economy of New Zealand

    The Economy of New Zealand is a market economy which is greatly dependent on international trade, mainly with Australia, the United States of America and Japan. It is strongly dependent on tourism and agricultural exports, and has only small manufacturing and high-tech components. Economic free-market reforms of the last decades have removed many barriers to foreign investment, and the World Bank has praised New Zealand as being the most business-friendly country of the world.[1]

    Since 1984, the government of New Zealand has accomplished major economic restructuring, moving an agrarian economy dependent on concessionary British market access toward a more industrialised, free market economy that can compete globally. This growth has boosted real incomes, broadened and deepened the technological capabilities of the industrial sector, and contained inflationary pressures. Inflation remains among the lowest in the industrial world. Per capita GDP has been moving up toward the levels of the big West European economies. New Zealand's heavy dependence on trade leaves its growth prospects vulnerable to economic performance in Asia, Europe, and the United States. (wikipedia)

    The Economy of Sweden is modern and highly industrialised. It has a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, and a skilled labor force. Timber, hydropower, and iron ore constitute the resource base of an economy heavily oriented toward foreign trade. Main industries include motor vehicles, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and forestry.

    Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole of the 20th century, Sweden has achieved an excellent standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. The country is known for its high taxes and large public sector. According to the statistics collected by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (see List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP), Sweden has the highest total tax revenue as percentage of GDP of any other ranked country (as of 2005). It is also the only country in the world with a total tax revenue higher than 50 % of GDP.

    The Swedish government has announced that it will privatise a number of wholly and partly state owned companies.

    * Nordea - bank (19.5% owned by Swedish government[14])

    * OMX - stock exchange (6.75% directly owned by Swedish government[15])

    * Scandinavian Airlines System - multinational airline (50% owned by Swedish, Danish, Norwegian governments[16])

    * Telia Sonera - telecom (37,3% owned by the Swedish government[17]). Hitherto SEK 18 billion worth of shares has been sold reducing state ownership from 45,3% to 37,3%.[18]

    * SBAB - finance

    * Vin & Sprit - manufacturer and distributor of alcoholic beverages

    * Vasakronan - real estate (wikipedia)

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/17/2007 @ 09:19am

  233. Redaction, of sorts.

    While I do not want to "give away" health care to all, some are going to receive that care at no cost. Just as they do now. If you pay heath insurance premiums or out of pocket medical care costs you ARE PAYING for free care for people right now. I think that is something that the "free" marketeers keep missing.

    I also wonder how long the "free market" would last if the regulating agencies dissolved. Nobody would scream bloody murder faster than the parasites from Wall Street.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2007 @ 09:27am

  234. Posted by LRJONES4 12/17/2007 @ 09:19am

    WOW, you can be fair minded.

    Careful with that data, you might injure Darins brain stem. Darin does not react to data so much as he reacts to theories.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2007 @ 09:31am

  235. Which evil socialist, innovation squelching country has/had(?) a lock on the cell phone market?

    Think Nokia.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2007 @ 09:33am

  236. ITMFA!!!

    Chimpy broke the Law, that should be all that matters, especially to the Law and Order types.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2007 @ 09:39am

  237. What really cracks me up is that some of the most devout Christ followers are the most vocal opponents of attempting to achieve an equitable society. Was Jesus a capitalist supply sider?

    See the results here:

    http://www.beliefnet.com/story/132/story_13245_1.html

    I guess the cave dwellers just misread the Gospels.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2007 @ 09:41am

  238. Oh I wish the media had some kind of journalistic integrity, and I wish the Democratic leadership had some backbone. Why exactly did we give control to Pelosi and Reid?

    I love the fact that the Republicans have slowed Congress to a halt with all of the filibuster/veto threats, yet Reid refuses to actually make the Republicans put in the work to obstruct these bills, so Republicans get everything they want without trying, and then the Republicans can tell the public that the Democrats are being slow because Reid hasn't forced them to actually filibuster and SHOW that they are the ones obstructing the legislative process. Yet, thanks to Reid's waffling, Senator Dodd is going to have to filibuster his own party in the first real filibuster in a decade and a half. Can you say f'ed up?

    Posted by bridoc at 12/17/2007 @ 09:54am

  239. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/17/2007 @ 08:02am

    i'd live in cuba.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 10:02am

  240. Way upthread I realize, but Rese, I bought two DVD's of "Loose Change" so I could pass one on as a gift to a still undetermined someone who can "handle the truth" (at least the Truth that the official version of 9/11, like that of the Warren Report about JFK's assassination on 11/22/63 in Dallas, is a LIE).

    My wife, Nancy, skeptically/acquisitively asked me the same thing.

    Posted by lewwelge at 12/17/2007 @ 10:14am

  241. FROSTY, Responding from Friday, just got back,

    Zeppelin, Deep Purple (yes I'm that old) Beethoven, Mozart, Von Suppe, Twain, Underwood. Basically I'll take anything except Twangy Country. The "Ah hired uh drunk tuh paint the livin' room" kind of thing. Friend of mine in New York got me into Soundtracks years ago, specifically Goldsmith & Horner. But then, I'm wierd like that

    You and Fellow TSO-Hater Jorcheim have a good day.

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/17/2007 @ 10:17am

  242. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/17/2007 @ 10:17am

    hey dude,

    i teach zep and purple tunes to 8 year olds all the time.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 10:33am

  243. Bottom line is impeachment is necessary for our government to be constitutional. Right now what we have is a dic'tatorship. Pro-dic'tatorship people are anti-US constitution period.

    Pelosi put impeachment on the table before for Frita's AG Frito. Frita said that hsuB would never boot her Frito, but he did and Pelosi was persuaded to put impeachment on the table for Frita's Frito, even though Frita said Pelosi would never do that, but she did. Which proves as a fact that she can be persuaded to do so. Those arguing against that possibility are delusional or simply being deceptive, (what's new there).

    Saying that there are lots of new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, in congress to persuade, is not an indorcement of dic'tatorship-- nor a call to do nothing as the pro-dic'tatorship people here would like us to believe, but rather just a statement of fact. That some have stated that fact does not put them in the pro-dic'tatorship side as the anti-US constitution people would have believe. A too simple deception to knock down. But they'll pull the BS over and over again. Anything to save their precious dic'tatorship; save them from their obsessive fears, excessive insecurities.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/17/2007 @ 10:36am

  244. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/17/2007 @ 10:36am

    Yep, "any day now", HSUB....

    Bush and Cheney will be impeached and removed from office....and...

    Al Gore will announce his candidacy for President for 2008.

    "any day now".

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 10:50am

  245. Does that seem Obscene to you?

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/17/2007 @ 11:01am

    no,

    but one family using the resources it took, takes, and will take to power the gates' residence is more than obscene.

    heated driveways, anyone? [usnews.com]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 11:12am

  246. Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 10:50am

    Frita is scared to say 'NEVER', as the last time she said that about her Frito not ever getting the boot by her dictator hsuB (that she's against impeaching, hsuB BTW), hsuB booted her Frito, even as Frita was predic'ting that Pelosi would 'NEVER' put impeachment on the table for your precious Frito-- and as we all know Pelosi did and Frito got booted.

    Just admit it Frita, you're just another little delusional anti-US Constitution and deceptive pro-dic'tatorship shill.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/17/2007 @ 12:32pm

  247. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/17/2007 @ 12:32pm

    Happy to say NEVER on these two, HSUB.

    Bush and Cheney will NEVER be impeached and removed from office...

    and Al Gore will NEVER announce that he's running for President for the 2008 Election.

    Now....here's the difference between the two of us. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it and say so if either event occurs. And do it in a straight-forward, no holds-barred, CLEAR CUT manner.

    You will not.

    You will, uptil probably November 4th, 2008 (in the case of "Gore's candidacy"....still claiming on Election Day that "there's a big website here showing how Gore can be a write-in candidate and beat both **** and ****") ...

    and January 19th, 2009 (in the case of impeachment).

    And when those dates pass, NO un-varnished acknowledgement that you were wrong.

    Because in addition to being delusional...you're a monumental egotist (a common affliction of the "academic") and given your personal loathing of me....meaning that to admit error freely and openly would not only be an acknowledgement that "MASK" was right about something...worse...

    it would mean that YOU were wrong....and that simply is not allowed!

    (BTW, again, hope you aren't telling your students any of this "impeachment imminent" and "Gore in '08" stuff...otherwise, come next Fall Semester....they're going to be laughing their asses off at "Prof. HSUB"....heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 12:50pm

  248. BTW, here's an Oldie But Goodie---

    "hsuB pardons Libby and he's just a few days/weeks closer to getting impeached. hsuB has everything neccessary for being impeached and low poll numbers aren't helping him in any way not to be. I say he doesn't." ----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/05/2007 @ 8:33pm (my bolds)

    How MUCH closer? Maybe you meant "190-210 days" or "30-40 weeks" closer?

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 12:59pm

  249. Now....here's the difference between the two of us. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it and say so if either event occurs. And do it in a straight-forward, no holds-barred, CLEAR CUT manner.

    You will not.

    Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 12:50pm

    Show me even one place where I would not admit I was wrong about my timing? None, nada. I was off on when your AG Frito would get the boot-- but you were absolutely WRONG that Frito would NEVER get booted by your dic'tator hsuB and Pelosi would NEVER put impeachment on the table for your precious Frito. Well, we all know the story.

    Seems Frita has been the only one that has been proven absolutely WRONG and not just in her timing, but forever.

    Frita is just flinging BS because after all she is a pro-dic'tatorship and a anti-US Constitution shill.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/17/2007 @ 1:13pm

  250. Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 12:59pm

    Notice how delusional and obsessive Frita saves all my email... poor girl.

    Frita, your dic'tator hsuB hasn't 'pardoned' Libby, 'commuted sentence' - yes, pardoned - no. Plus even repubs are calling your precious dic'tator hsuB a liar for commuting Libby and not the border guards. Closer to impeachment sure, your delusional 'NEVER'-- not.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/17/2007 @ 1:19pm

  251. er, duh-- not email-- posts

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/17/2007 @ 1:20pm

  252. MARYBRETBRAD:

    Wow, I take time off for sleep and life, and you post your feeble attempts at response. Ok, you want to start this whole conversation up again? Let's do it.

    You said:

    Given your pathetic response, I take it you're conceding this argument as a win for me. I wrote that 10% in the US are in poverty. (The physicist in me only cares about orders of magnitude.) You pulled a bullshit UN statistic to tell me it was 17%. I explained why a poverty statistic based on relative wealth measured inequality, not poverty. So you responsed by quoting the actual statistic of 12.7%. So, if you knew the real number, why did you quote the UN's bullshit inflated number? You then called me a fucking idiot becasue $24,100 isn't all that different from $20,000 (Hey, there're just 20% different; you're clients wouldn't mind if you overcharged them 20%, right?)

    My response:

    Pathetic response? From where I am sitting, I just blew one up in your face, and you have nothing with which to respond.

    You keep referencing Russia as a place with 50% poverty, which may in fact be true. I don't know, as it's not really relevant to the point I am making, and let me explain why.

    As I stated above, the state of the Russian economy owes more to rampant vulture capitalism and Red Mafiya rule and ownership than to the remaining vestiges of sovietism. In fact, it is the poster child for Friedman-ite privatization strategies, and therefore, if anything, is an extremely poor choice of example for you to use, as it undermines all the other pseudo-economic claptrap you bandy about on this site.

    As for the UN statistic, you're right, it DOES measure relative poverty (relative to others within the same state) because, for a couple of reasons, it is a more accurate depiction of poverty than the US government's definition (particularly under Bush) of poverty. Prices in a nation are, by definition, relative. Hence, even though the value of our currency has plummeted in the last couple of years, most goods and services (with the exception of commodities, generally) have remained rather price-inelastic. But commodities are generally what hurt the poorest the most. Whether it is bulk wheat, or oil, or natural gas, those substantial price changes create considerably more problems for the poor than the wealthy.

    Now, to quote directly from wikipedia, this is the reasoning behind using a "relative" measure for poverty.

    Poverty in the U.S. is cyclical in nature, with individuals rising above and falling below the poverty threshold from time to time; as a result, far more than 12% of the population fall below the poverty line at some point over a given period of years:

    While in any given year 12 to 15 percent of the population is poor, over a ten-year period 40 percent experience poverty in at least one year because most poor people cycle in and out of poverty; they don't stay poor for long periods. Poverty is something that happens to the working class, not some marginal 'other' on the fringes of society.

    Now, you said that the physicist in you (I almost spit my Earl Grey on the screen when I wrote that) is only concerned with orders of magnitude. So what you are essentially saying is that a 27% difference between the facts and what you state is just what exactly? A rounding issue? I'm betting you haven't done much work in the actual physics world. If I remember my studies at Fermilab correctly, particularly with regards to particle physics, it is not orders of magnitude that are important, but the very tiniest of changes and differentials. So I call bullshit on you.

    You said:

    The point is, poverty is measured in an absolute fashion; it provides for basic needs (food and water, clothing, shelter) and it doesn't change just because your neighbor can afford secondary needs (healthcare, education, transportation) or even luxuries like a vacation at Disneyland.

    The bullshit UN statistic overstates poverty in the US and understates poverty in Russia because it doesn't measure poverty. It measures inequality and calls that poverty in order to confuse the issue and attempt to dishonestly win political arguments.

    My response:

    Um... no. Again, there are certain goods and services that remain static, and certain that do not.

    I am guessing you never did take those basic economics courses I recommended... did you?

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/17/2007 @ 1:38pm

  253. DARIN, implicit within your argument is the idea that CEO's make the company money all by themselves. The Doctors, nurses, clerks, accountants and all the rest of the people that make a healthcare franchise operate contribute to the stock price and profitability of a company. What makes the CEO 2,000 times more valuable than a primary care doctor within that organization? Without the doctor, the CEO would have nothing.

    As far as Bill Gates goes, his operating system has brought untold growth to our societies, but it is far short of what it could be. I would not want a car that ran like a Microsoft product. I find the fact that he made that much dough on marketing vs superior performance disturbing, but not unusual. I find his philanthropic uses of his money commendable, but like FROSTY, i find his home and other uses to be obscene.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2007 @ 1:46pm

  254. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You said:

    Prisoners can't leave the prison, so they aren't free. And even though I can go anywhere outside the prison, I can't go in, so I'm not free either. Is that your point?

    My response:

    My point was that by your own metric, the west was not much freer that the Soviet bloc. Now I actually descended into sophistry to make a point, which you fell for.

    Everyone knows that the former USSR was, for its citizens, generally a worse place to live than the US. That's almost universally accepted. My point was, and remains, that the only real difference between the US and the USSR was how it treated its own citizens. In fact, the citizens in the USSR fared much better than the citizens of, say, Chile, or Guatemala, or Haiti. Why? Because there was a certain standard of living that the Soviets guaranteed their citizens, even if political freedom was not one of the guarantees. In practically ALL of our satellites, the standard of living was considerably lower, and the prospects of having any freedom at all considerably less, than in the satellites of the former USSR.

    The point of this whole debate is, you, and people like you, refuse to admit the obvious truth... that the US was and is far from blameless regarding the Cold War and the subsequent years. Oftentimes, it was and is by the hands of the US herself that many in the world experience hardships, evils, and death, all for our so-called interests.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/17/2007 @ 1:47pm

  255. Show me even one place where I would not admit I was wrong about my timing? None, nada.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/17/2007 @ 1:13pm

    Show me one time you HAVE admitted it. You predicted impeachment by the end of October 2007....None, nada. You predicted Gore would announce "by the 20th or 30th" of October 2007....None, nada.

    Or is your "timing" going to (as I said) the timing of "No admission of error on Gore's candidacy until November 4th, 2008" and "No admission of error on impeachment until January 20th, 2009"?

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 1:52pm

  256. My point was, and remains, that the only real difference between the US and the USSR was how it treated its own citizens. In fact, the citizens in the USSR fared much better than the citizens of, say, Chile, or Guatemala, or Haiti.----Posted by JORCHEIM 12/17/2007 @ 1:47pm

    JORCH...isn't that a bit of disenenguouos conflation?

    You say "that the only real difference between the US and the USSR was how it treated its own citizens" (my bold)

    and then mention "USSR fared much better than the citizens of, say, Chile, or Guatemala, or Haiti."

    So first you want to dispute a "good" comparison of the US and USSR....but then your evidence is a comparison of the USSR and....three countries NOT the United States.

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 1:54pm

  257. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You said:

    I'll start with a correction. When I said the Netherlands is having a brain drain problem, I meant Denmark. I read an article last week about their 63% tax rate and independent contractor who just won't work their even though they were educated there.

    My response:

    That's fine. If an independent contractor decides to not work there, and not receive the benefits of living there, that is his choice. He can move out of the country. However, if he wants to remain a beneficiary of Danish laws, protections, etc., he will stay. If Denmark doesn't have regulations against this sort of free-riding, that's their own fault.

    You said:

    Now, on to the substance. I think we can all agree on shitty places to live. Russia, Cuba, and North Korea today, Cambodia and Vietnam circa 1970, China circa 1958. (The Chi-Coms Great Leap Forward caused the famine deaths of over 50 million people.)

    My response:

    True. Our disagreements stem from many of the reasons WHY these places are shitty.

    You said:

    I think we all agree that Canada, France, UK, Sweeden, Norway, Germany and Denmark are all pretty good places to live for the vast majority of thier citizens even though a very small percentage of their citizens live in poverty.

    My response:

    Actually, the difference between all those places you named and the US is, quite simply, these places have considerably better social welfare nets than we do. Hence, their "poor" are still generally much better cared for than ours.

    You said:

    So what's the difference? The good places trended Socialist/Collectivist over a long time and through democratic means. (Politics is the art of leading people very slowly.) The shitty places imposed collectivism very quickly through revolution and force. Why is this relavent? Because so many here think revolution is our only hope. Even though all of the quick collectivists were well-intentioned and failed miserably, the well-intentioned collectivist here thing they can impose their vision of collectism here quickly and end up like the good places. They fantasize about revolutionary change, like the kind Kucinich is talking about. They fantasize about imposing their view of how things should be, because our democratic process isn't moving fast enough for them. They imagine capitalist conspiracies (money in politics) that prevent a more robust social safety net being implemented tomorrow and how there's no difference between Dems and Reps.

    My response:

    I don't know what you have going on up in your dome, but it is rather disturbing. Do you honestly think Kucinich is calling for a socialist revolution? Do you realize that he would be considered a mainstream, middle of the road candidate in Europe? He would be part of the SPD, i,e. the mainstream left party, like the Democrats. He is no more calling for a revolution in the true sense of the word than you are. Stop lying. It's fucking pitiful.

    As far as "capitalist conspiracies" our own history in this country is rife with precisely that. I would challenge you to look up Smedley Butler, for one. Your problem is, you are so ignorant about history, and particularly US history, that when you make a point, you think it's valid, even when the facts completely undercut what you just said. So the S&L scandal was just a mistake, eh? Or the privatization of the power grid and subsequent gaming by Enron, El Paso, Duke Energy, etc. was just fun and games?

    Your problem is, you only see what you want to see, and you are so ideologically bent that when confronted with conflicting evidence, rather than folding that evidence into your understanding of the world, you disregard it. Well, disregard it at your own ignorance and peril.

    That's the difference between you and me. I want the WHOLE story, good, bad and ugly. That way, I can determine in the most objective way possible what is right and wrong. And guess what... if my preconceived notions are wrong, I change them, rather than remaining static and dead, like you.

    You said:

    All of those great places to live have their problems and need reforms. (Italy and Spain are really in a tough spot because of demographic changes. Birthrates of 1.21 and 1.19 children per female Ranking them 138 and 139 out of 142.) But they have a democratic process for addressing them. Too many here see "progress" of the '60s being rolled back (welfare reform) and think that the world is coming to and end, when the reforms were sensible and headed off problems before they the needed more radical reforms.

    My response:

    I guess your point is, you don't like rapid change, even when all evidence points to the need for immediate amelioration of a number of huge issues. Yep, staring facts in the face and denying them because they don't fit into your world view... that sounds just like you.

    You said:

    I think the US is a great place to live even though we have a higher percentage living in poverty (12.7% before government transfer programs such as EITC, food stamps, home heating assistance.) People here should acknowlege that there is something of a free-rider issue of the good places to live. The US for good or bad is the place that currently rewards creativity and innovation more than any other place on earth. It consistently rewards risk taking. The vast majority of all medical progress over the last generation occurred because of US companies, and the socialist contries of Europe benefited from our system. The vast majority of computer technology was developed here and the good collectivism places benefited from that. And the US managed to reduce poverty here while the progress was being made.

    My response:

    And yet, all of those trends are reversing, and have been for a long time now, because we continually try to outspend the world on defense, we ignore social welfare and justice problems until they literally blow up in our faces...

    You know, I just realized something. You really are a true American. Your dogged attempts to ignore problems, whether global warming, racism, poverty, etc., perfectly parallel our nation's attempts to do the same thing, whether that was slavery, racism, segregation, women's suffrage, global warming, etc.

    It's eerie.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/17/2007 @ 2:04pm

  258. MASK:

    You said:

    JORCH...isn't that a bit of disenenguouos conflation?

    You say "that the only real difference between the US and the USSR was how it treated its own citizens" (my bold)

    and then mention "USSR fared much better than the citizens of, say, Chile, or Guatemala, or Haiti."

    So first you want to dispute a "good" comparison of the US and USSR....but then your evidence is a comparison of the USSR and....three countries NOT the United States.

    My response:

    Actually, no, it's not disingenuous at all. Allow me to explain.

    The arguments emanating from the right on this issue have been, " hey the US is the greatest country in the world, ever" and "there is no comparison whatsoever between the US and the USSR during the Cold War." I may be missing some of the nuance and some of the lesser arguments, but if I am reading the flow of the debate properly, those are the crux issues, no?

    Ok. So my point was that the primary difference between the US and USSR was how the citizenry were generally treated, blacks and dissidents notwithstanding. (sorry, had to throw a cheap shot in)

    My comment regarding the citizens of Haiti, Guatemala, and Chile was to make a point about how our rhetoric about being so great and such bastions of freedom simply do not hold up under proper scrutiny. Perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been. I had not gotten my first cuppa down, thanks to MARYBRETBRAD almost making me spit it all over my laptop screen.

    To break it down like a fraction for you, it comes down to this. We all know the USSR was bad. But we tend to demonize everything about it, while sanctifying and beatifying the US and everything WE did. That is simply not good history, and it's pure fantasy. We perpetrated heinous war crimes and crimes against humanity, were a force counter to popular national sovereignty and self-determination, and waged aggressive war against countries who had never once attacked us... precisely the sorts of claims (justified, I might add) that we made against the USSR.

    We need to stop allowing our own sense of ego cloud our ability to see truth. That is the bottom line of this whole discussion.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/17/2007 @ 2:12pm

  259. I think JORCH's main point is that the US is not as benevolent a master as the neo-con nationalists would like to believe. It may not be nearly as bad as the Soviets (not even close) , but "we" are not completely blameless for the world situation, both good and bad, and there are plenty of dark sides to our imperialist adventures. Over 200 military bases worldwide grants me the use of the term imperialist, I think.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2007 @ 2:20pm

  260. Posted by JORCHEIM 12/17/2007 @ 2:12pm

    Sorry to jump your points.

    DARIN, do us all a favor, get up, go outside and exercise. It is good for your heart, and brain.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2007 @ 2:24pm

  261. Now....here's the difference between the two of us. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it ...

    You will not.

    Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 12:50pm

    Show me even one place where I would not admit I was wrong about my timing? None, nada.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/17/2007 @ 1:13pm

    Show me one time you HAVE admitted it.

    Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 1:52pm

    No, you made a false statement about me without any proof-- it's up to you to prove that it indeed is a true statement.

    If you can't, you need to admit to being a liar: "And do it in a straight-forward, no holds-barred, CLEAR CUT manner." Just as you said. Otherwise you're lying about that too.

    I'm waiting Frita.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/17/2007 @ 2:29pm

  262. CRABWALK:

    LOL no worries. It's all good.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/17/2007 @ 2:34pm

  263. Judge: White House Logs Are Public

    MATT APUZZO | December 17, 2007 |

    WASHINGTON -- White House visitor logs are public documents, a federal judge ruled Monday, rejecting a legal strategy that the Bush administration had hoped would get around public records laws.

    The ruling is a blow to the Bush administration, which is fighting the release of records showing visits by lobbyist Jack Abramoffadministration and prominent religious conservatives.

    The Visitor records are created by the Secret Service, which is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. But the Bush administration has ordered the data turned over to the White House, where they are treated as presidential records outside the scope of the public records law.

    http://tinyurl.com/2rrsj6

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/17/2007 @ 3:06pm

  264. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/17/2007 @ 3:06pm

    Maybe PONTIFLOGIC will regale us with more tails of how ChimpCo has not lost any court cases and how if they do it, it is defacto legal.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2007 @ 3:33pm

  265. You guys need to watch this. I about lost it when I saw it.

    http://www.t hefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=9576 [thefirstpost.co.uk]

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/17/2007 @ 3:41pm

  266. Takin my own advice, strappin on the snow shoes and goin fora stroll in our new winter wonderland!!

    Wheeeee!!!!!!!!!!

    C'mon down Frosty, I'll race ya!.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2007 @ 3:58pm

  267. Posted by JORCHEIM 12/17/2007 @ 2:12pm

    JORCH, you're making two different arguments.

    1. The United States as a nation-state in comparison to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a nation-state on the matters of personal freedom, standard of living, media freedom, ease of ex-patriation, etc. If you'd like to argue that WE had "Jim Crow" while they had "gulags", sure. But then we overthrew Jim Crow, while THEY were still putting political dissidents into insane asylums (since obviously anybody opposing the Soviet regime was "insane").

    2. The US versus the USSR in its FOREIGN policy. Such as "what WE did in Guatemala" compared to "what THEY did in Hungary in 1956".

    As for foreign policy, we made our bed with scum, in response to scum that weren't much better (despite the "free health care" and "free education). People tend to forget that for all its relative miseries, people didn't (and didn't have to) board a RAFT and float through shark-infested water or hide in an AIRLINER TIRE WELL to get out of Batista's Cuba.

    I'd also note that we FREED...OUR half of Europe after World War-II. Unless you want to argue that Poland didn't feel as if they were dominated by the Soviets...as Gerald Ford once stupidly tried to argue. Or that France was "just as bad" as East Germany?

    Either one BY ITSELF is fine. But I think you're deliberatel conflating 1 and 2 as a means of continually playing this "WE were no better than THEM" thing.

    Again, where the people escaping TO...and where were they escaping FROM? Lotta Americans packing up and heading for Moscow between 1917-1990? Reverse?

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 4:05pm

  268. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/17/2007 @ 2:29pm

    Sure...and happily watch you deny it all in that "Wasn't me" routine that Eddie Murphy used to do about guys cheating on their girls...

    Okay...translated.....you're calling for Bills of Impeachment out of the House of Reps by late October 2007? yes?----Posted by MASK 01/02/2007 @ 4:18pm

    Sounds about right. Or is that left to you?----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/02/2007 @ 4:20pm

    T-minus 57 days and counting. (Going as a "Gore in '08" placard or a Bill of Impeachment, for Halloween, HSUB?)----Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 3:20pm

    Both, I believe I've stated multiple times that both were going to happen.-----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/04/2007 @ 4:03pm

    BLOG | Posted 10/12/2007 @ 06:42am Gore Wins the Norwegian Primary by John Nichols To: Posted by NOVA 10/12/2007 @ 11:01am

    You're somewhat right, so Al will wait some. I'd say around either the 20th or the 30th of this month to announce that he's running. -----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/12/2007 @ 11:19am

    BLOG | Posted 10/29/2007 @ 3:54pm Al Gore: The Write-In Front-Runner by John Nichols

    And if I'm off by a few days?----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/30/2007 @ 09:46am

    "Party Game"---Posted by Laura Flanders at 10/09/2007 @ 4:48pm |

    So if I'm wrong, no problem, I'll say so.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/10/2007 @ 02:27am

    And here's the CLOSEST you ever got...before the fact--

    THE UNDER-RATED BILL RICHARDSON...Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 10/19/2007 @ 5:33pm

    If Al doesn't announce by the 30th of this month then I'm wrong.-----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/22/2007 @ 12:53am

    (NOTE: Come the 30th of October to TODAY, HSUB still predicting Gore will run, and NO admission of error on his previous prediction. Then he suddenly remembered that he said "30 days AFTER Gore wins the Nobel" (December 10th)--

    WILL GORE INFLUENCE '08?...Posted by Ari Berman at 12/10/2007 @ 3:51pm

    Why don't you dig up those posts of mine, you so ardently save, from a couple months back and see if I didn't say about 30 days 'after' he got the Nobel....?----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/10/2007 @ 5:04pm

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 4:14pm

  269. Sure...and happily watch you deny it all in that "Wasn't me" routine that Eddie Murphy used to do about guys cheating on their girls...

    Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 4:14pm

    Frita, stop right there-- You're not so delusional that you're now fantasizing that you're my girl and that I'm cheating on you as Freddie Murphy? Kinky Frita. Sad, really sad. (BWAHahahahahahah)

    BTW-- where in the long stream that you so obsessively saved, is it that I'M DENYING that I DIDN'T predict what I SAID? I've stated multiple times that my timing has been off, so?

    SO-- FRITA IS A LIAR AND WILL NEVER ADMIT IT NOR:"... do it in a straight-forward, no holds-barred, CLEAR CUT manner."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/17/2007 @ 5:00pm

  270. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/17/2007 @ 5:00pm

    Okay, back to Step 1---

    "Neither Bush nor Cheney will be impeached and removed from office."

    "Al Gore will not run for President in 2008."

    Oh and...

    "Art teachers aren't experts on politics, and their students eventually figure it out!"

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 5:06pm

  271. WOW Frita, even in the posts you cite from me I say I could be wrong a couple of times and in the last couple of weeks I've stated where I off in the timing. So how does that add up to never admitting I'm wrong? Isn't that like you saying that your Frito will NEVER get the boot-- don't you suppose maybe that's just a symptom of you being sooo pro-dic'tatorship and anti-US Constitution, that it causes you to be delusional in all aspects?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/17/2007 @ 5:12pm

  272. If you can't, you need to admit to being a liar: "And do it in a straight-forward, no holds-barred, CLEAR CUT manner." Just as you said. Otherwise you're lying about that too.

    I'm waiting Frita.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/17/2007 @ 2:29pm

    Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 5:06pm

    SO-- FRITA IS A LIAR AND WILL NEVER ADMIT IT NOR:"... do it in a straight-forward, no holds-barred, CLEAR CUT manner."

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/17/2007 @ 5:00pm

    Frita, I'm still waiting for you admit that you're a liar.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/17/2007 @ 5:18pm

  273. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/17/2007 @ 10:53am

    Yes I knew that but thought I would kill two birds with the one stone, which for Crabs sake, may have more to do with deviousness than fairplay.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/17/2007 @ 5:18pm

  274. C'mon down Frosty, I'll race ya!.

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/17/2007 @ 3:58pm

    thanks for the invite. as we have about 15cm of snow on the ground, i would look rather foolish in snow shoes here. i live in the canadian tropics.

    if my wife hadn't exams, we would have gone to the forest/beach yesterday. the forest is silentish in winter. hermoso.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 5:48pm

  275. Google Results 1 - 10 of about 592,000 for impeachment back on the table December 2007. (0.09 seconds)

    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/10/thinkfast-december-10-2007/

    http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/14/5839/

    http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=937

    http://www.thelangreport.com/?p=194

    http://americanendeavor.blogspot.com/2007/11/ impeachment-is-back-on-table.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/ put-impeachment-on-the-ta_b_54849.html

    http://virgotex.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/backonthetablenancy/

    http://putitbackonthetablespeakerpelosi.blogspot.com/

    http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/56012/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/17/2007 @ 6:22pm

  276. http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/

    http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/12/ putting-impeachment-back-on-table.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/17/2007 @ 6:26pm

  277. HSUB can do the same with his hysterical rants about dictatorship and tyrany 13 months before Bush leaves office forvere.----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/17/2007 @ 6:48pm

    Fortunately for HSUB, I pay attention to him. Hardly anybody else does here (they've figured it out), but I feel sorry for the insane little sphincter.

    He actually thinks that "justice in the Universe" will eventually "set things right"....Bush & Cheney impeached...Al Gore 'rightfully reinstated' to the office stolen from him....and order once again restored to the Cosmos.

    And he'll do it for the next year....and I'll try to buck him up by responding....and of course laughing my ass off at him.

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 10:17pm

  278. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/17/2007 @ 10:53am

    Yes I knew that but thought I would kill two birds with the one stone, which for Crabs sake, may have more to do with deviousness than fairplay.

    Posted by LRJONES4 12/17/2007 @ 5:18pm

    Not true. New Zealand, Iceland, Norway, Sweden are all socialist, yet they still have working markets as well.-JORCHEIM

    As I read it, Jorch agrees with you LeeRoy.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2007 @ 07:30am

  279. I have written tis many times, but no response. What do you neo-cons have against impeachment hearings? It would keep congress busy, they would have less time to think about ways to spend your money. They are only hearings to see IF ChimpCo has broken the law. If he has not, why are you so worried?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2007 @ 07:32am

  280. Hell, look at the mundane stuff:

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Bush administration acted illegally in moving to keep certain automobile safety information from the public, Public Citizen said in a lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today. The consumer advocacy group asked the court to find disclosure rules recently issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) unenforceable.

    The rules relate to the implementation of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act, enacted in 2000 by Congress in the wake of the Ford/Firestone tragedy. Before that, manufacturers had been accumulating data on problems with tire tread separation and rollover-prone Ford Explorers but had kept the data secret. Federal regulators failed to catch the defects before hundreds of people were killed in crashes. The TREAD Act seeks to prevent a recurrence of that tragedy by requiring manufacturers to give the DOT reports and data that could give an "early warning" about safety defects, including warranty claim information, auto dealer reports, consumer complaints, and data on child restraint systems and tires.

    Normally, such data are available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a law granting public access to most records held by federal agencies. However, in July 2003, the DOT issued a rule exempting the early warning data from disclosure because that could "cause substantial competitive harm" to manufacturers, an allowable FOIA exemption.

    But the DOT did not provide any proof as to why disclosure of such information, which manufacturers have yet to provide, would cause competitive harm. Similar information gathered by the DOT in defect investigations has been routinely disclosed in the past. Further, the rule is worded so strongly that the information would automatically be prohibited from disclosure.

    Sing us a song, little neo-con apologists, of how Chimpy is protecting people, not corporations?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2007 @ 07:36am

  281. Chimpies little war in Iraq to prevent terrorism seems to be hiccuping. attacks are down, but the Turks find it necessary to go in swinging. Why, after 4 1/2 years of GWOT, are the Turks doing this? Didn't Chimpy route the terrorists from Iraq? Isn't freedom ringing across the ME?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2007 @ 07:39am

  282. Darin, this is for you. A little old, but till relevant.

    2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.

    Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Right. But they did not come under the heading of self-defense.

    We now know how the Bushmen gathered their prewar intelligence: They set out to patch together their case for invading Iraq and ignored everything that contradicted it. In the end, this required that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. set aside the findings of analysts from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (the Pentagon's own spy bureau) and stake their claim largely on the basis of isolated, anecdotal testimony from handpicked Iraqi defectors. (See #5, Ahmed Chalabi.) But the administration did not just listen to the defectors; it promoted their claims in the press as a means of enlisting public opinion. The only reason so many Americans thought there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda in the first place was that the Bushmen trotted out Iraqi defectors making these sorts of claims to every major media outlet that would listen.

    Here is the verdict of Gregory Thielman, the recently retired head of the State Department's intelligence office: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq. This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude--we know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers." Elsewhere he has been quoted as saying, "The principal reasons that Americans did not understand the nature of the Iraqi threat in my view was the failure of senior administration officials to speak honestly about what the intelligence showed."

    4) The aluminum tubes were proof of a nuclear program.

    The very next sentence of Bush's State of the Union address was just as egregious a lie as the uranium claim, though a bit cagier in its formulation. "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." This is altogether false in its implication (that this is the likeliest use for these materials) and may be untrue in its literal sense as well. As the London Independent summed it up recently, "The U.S. persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges."

    6) The CIA was primarily responsible for any prewar intelligence errors or distortions regarding Iraq.

    Don't be misled by the news that CIA director George Tenet has taken the fall for Bush's falsehoods in the State of the Uranium address. As the journalist Robert Dreyfuss wrote shortly before the war, "Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency. The Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the agency to produce intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq. ... Morale inside the U.S. national-security apparatus is said to be low, with career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify the push for war."

    In short, Tenet fell on his sword when he vetted Bush's State of the Union yarns. And now he has had to get up and fall on it again.

    7) An International Atomic Energy Agency report indicated that Iraq could be as little as six months from making nuclear weapons.

    Alas: The claim had to be retracted when the IAEA pointed out that no such report existed.

    8) Saddam was involved with bin Laden and al Qaeda in the plotting of 9/11.

    One of the most audacious and well-traveled of the Bushmen's fibs, this one hangs by two of the slenderest evidentiary threads imaginable: first, anecdotal testimony by isolated, handpicked Iraqi defectors that there was an al Qaeda training camp in Iraq, a claim CIA analysts did not corroborate and that postwar U.S. military inspectors conceded did not exist; and second, old intelligence accounts of a 1991 meeting in Baghdad between a bin Laden emissary and officers from Saddam's intelligence service, which did not lead to any subsequent contact that U.S. or UK spies have ever managed to turn up. According to former State Department intelligence chief Gregory Thielman, the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies well in advance of the war was that "there was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist operation."

    Saddam was planning to provide WMD to terrorist groups.

    This is very concisely debunked in Walter Pincus's July 21 Washington Post story, so I'll quote him: "'Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists,' President Bush said in Cincinnati on October 7.... But declassified portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Friday by the White House show that at the time of the president's speech the U.S. intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely. In fact, the NIE, which began circulating October 2, shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States."

    In other words, CHIMPY LIED!!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2007 @ 07:47am

  283. but one family using the resources it took, takes, and will take to power the gates' residence is more than obscene.

    heated driveways, anyone? [usnews.com]

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/17/2007 @ 11:12am

    And the next thing to bring up is why does that one family have so much resources that it has more money than some countries? One man is richer than entire countries. What is wrong with this picture? P.S. I like Gates and Buffet but neither of them deserves the cash on hand that they both enjoy.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/18/2007 @ 08:06am

  284. So you'd never vote for...

    Nancy Pelosi?

    Harry Reid?

    BARACK OBAMA?

    Russ Feingold?

    Howard Dean?

    or....AL GORE?

    Posted by MASK 12/17/2007

    Pardon my being vague about what constitutes support. Support is not the same as voting. I will always vote for the person I believe to be the better of the candidates running for an office. By support I mean financial support.

    Posted by jrevere at 12/18/2007 @ 08:20am

  285. You have a wait lfor your preferred physician. You are free to choose another doctor who can see you sooner. The Canadians and English don't have that choice.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/16/2007 @ 10:51pm

    MBB, In most poor peoples' case, that choice is the emergency room. That is why our trama centers are going broke. The poor, who can't afford medical insurance, end up using the emergency room for doctor visits because they can't afford medical insurance.

    So, put yourself in the shoes of a poor person. Your kid is really sick and you have no insurance because it's a choice between eating and paying for your residence, so you opt out on the insurance. Your kid is really sick so you take him to the ER because you have no place else to go.

    The ER then presents you with a bill for $500 for a visit that would have cost around $10 if only you could have afforded insurance. There's the free market at work for you.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/18/2007 @ 08:21am

  286. (The physicist in me only cares about orders of magnitude.)

    MBB, Since when were you a physicist? Last I heard (from you) you were in the insurance business.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/18/2007 @ 08:24am

  287. The point is, poverty is measured in an absolute fashion; it provides for basic needs (food and water, clothing, shelter) and it doesn't change just because your neighbor can afford secondary needs (healthcare, education, transportation) or even luxuries like a vacation at Disneyland.

    MBB, You are sounding dangerously close to Charles Dicken's character Ebenezer Scrooge. How does it go, "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses (sweatshops in that timeframe). Good, from what you told me, I thought they'd closed and weren't available to provide a means for the poor.....If they are going to die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population".

    This is from memory so I'm sure I messed it up some. But, when you start talking about primary and secondary means, we're not talking about friggin Disneyland, Disneyworld or Epcot. That 10% or 12% are living in baad conditions, and then there's another 30% or so just a pay check or two away from joining the 10% that you think is such a great number.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/18/2007 @ 08:33am

  288. and the only guy who even APPROACHS saying something similar to your view on the Cold War...polls 3% among Democrats!

    Posted by MASK 12/15/2007 @ 11:39am

    MASK, I could give a crap less what polls match the way I think. First of all, I'm not running for office, and secondly, I don't base my reasoning off poll numbers.

    I certainly hope that you don't adjust your philosophical reasoning based on polling information.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/18/2007 @ 08:39am

  289. Simple... the Democrats are just as much handmaidens to Big Money, the impeachable offenses, and this war as the President. They are all whores. You call yourself an econ major. I personally think you need to stay in school.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 12/15/2007 @ 4:27pm

    Agreed.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/18/2007 @ 08:42am

  290. It's A Wonderful Presidency

    Just in time for Christmas, Weekly Radio Address brings us The White House Presents -

    IT'S A WONDERFUL PRESIDENCY, "A Heartwarming Holiday Series starring George W. Bush" in five very moving episodes. Episodes I to III are available for listening right now, with Episodes IV and V airing from 22 December and 29 December. Also appearing with George W. Bush are Dick(Dick) Cheney, Laura Bush, George HW Bush, Jenna Bush, God, and Clarence the Guardian Angel. Laugh, weep, as George is shown the horrors of the world which would exist if he had never been born: Universal health care, no $1.5-trillion-dollar debt, no oil industry buddies, no religious science advisers, Guantánamo closed, waterboarding declared torture, and everything's solar in Al Gore's America… [Also available on iTunes]

    Here is a taste. Episode I:

    http://valuesaustralia.com/blog/?p=477

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/18/2007 @ 09:05am

  291. If you can't, you need to admit to being a liar: "And do it in a straight-forward, no holds-barred, CLEAR CUT manner." Just as you said. Otherwise you're lying about that too.

    I'm waiting Frita.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/17/2007 @ 2:29pm

    Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 5:06pm

    SO-- FRITA IS A LIAR AND WILL NEVER ADMIT IT NOR:"... do it in a straight-forward, no holds-barred, CLEAR CUT manner."

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/17/2007 @ 5:00pm

    Frita, I'm still waiting for you admit that you're a liar.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/17/2007 @ 5:18pm

    Fortunately for HSUB, I pay attention to him.

    Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 10:17pm

    Frita, I'm still waiting for you admit that you're a liar.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/18/2007 @ 09:08am

  292. Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/18/2007 @ 08:39am |

    No...but I don't expect to WIN, if the numbers are against me.

    Just like (no HSUBNAMES needed) I don't imagine things I want are going to happen, when every bit of evidence is against it happening.

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 09:24am

  293. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/18/2007 @ 09:08am

    "Neither Bush nor Cheney will be impeached and removed from office."

    "Al Gore will not run for President in 2008."

    Oh and...

    "Art teachers aren't experts on politics, and their students eventually figure it out!"

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 09:26am

  294. Since college. I had a double major in math and physics. I did one year of graduate work in math before dropping out and getting an actuarial job.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/18/2007 @ 08:53am

    I see why you chose what you do over math and physics. Though EE is basically applied physics, it is far more interesting or fun than theoretical mathematics or physics, though the physics labs do some pretty interesting research.

    Physics is more of pure science whereas engineering is real world applications of that science. Do you apply your math background mostly to your present job?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/18/2007 @ 12:49pm

  295. Here is a taste. Episode I:

    http://valuesaustralia.com/blog/?p=477

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/18/2007 @ 09:05am

    HSUB,

    That's a riot. It's great!! Thanks for the link.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/18/2007 @ 1:01pm

  296. Not true. New Zealand, Iceland, Norway, Sweden are all socialist, yet they still have working markets as well.-JORCHEIM

    As I read it, Jorch agrees with you LeeRoy.

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/18/2007 @ 07:30am

    Sorry Crabs but a socialist state is primarily defined in terms of some degree of collective ownership as in this little piece from wikipedia. Every economy has markets of some sort, so that is hardly a profound qualification for anything:

    "Socialism is a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. [1] This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production."

    "The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century working class movement. In this period, the term socialism was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution, in which the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism."

    "Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. Various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformists and revolutionaries. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies."

    Now of course if we wanted to play silly little buggers as J and D did we could say that America is a socialist state because the government owns Amtrak and the US Post. Not sure if your IR (Tax Office) is privatised or not but if it isn't then on J's definition of socialism we could almost equate your economic system with that of Cuba. Which of course shows how misleading it is to refer to a mixed economy as socialist.

    That, despite some state participation in some industries, is why NZ and Sweden are not socialist economies. Iceland is not much more than a fishing village of about 300,000. As far as Norway goes a little googling will show that privatisation is on the march there also.

    Here is a Norwegian Hayek convert with a very pretty face (to brighten up your day.... if the missus is not watching). And a little bit on her disillusionment with socialism Norwegian style to whet your appetite:

    "The idea of the benevolent welfare state is compelling to our emotions, but as Hayek pointed out, it is a slippery slope. The more power gathered at the hands of a state, however benevolent in the outset can, and according to experience will, be turned against individuals."

    "It is hard for Americans to comprehend a life where choices are limited because of government regulation. Everything from what kind of juices you can get in the store, medications you can get in the pharmacy to major choices like what career paths are open to you. It is hard for Norwegians to comprehend that they do have limited choices. I can see it because I have been lucky enough to live in three different countries during my short lifetime. I can compare, and I do not like what I am seeing."

    The pretty face is here: http://tinyurl.com/2gjv8y

    Takes a while to download. (probably a socialist country server somewhere in the system).

    By the way I was going to suggest to Darin that Lefties are generally OK with their logic so don't chase every rabbit down its burrow. However I've found that Lefties have a fairly ambivalent attachment to facts. So start there. And that's what stood out viz. J's ignorance of the nature of the NZ economy. There seems to me to be a few other dubious claims (on both sides) but uno rabbit is enough to give one an idea of how "facts" can magically come into being.

    As a person who lives in an Australia flooded by Kiwis (NZers) coming over to get our superior welfare benefits I know what the difference is between a socialist state and one in which most if not all the state crown jewels have been privatised.

    The confusion in Jorcheim's thinking is the result of conflating two different entities viz. the welfare state and the socialist state.

    In Australia for example a booming private enterprise economy, have provided greater government revenues plus the availability of public funds that once were used to keep government enterprises afloat but which for some years now have been used to help fund all sorts of welfare lurks, sans a socialist economy, that you Americans can only dream about.

    Bottom line is that a basically deregulated private enterprise economy is likely to produce more of the folding stuff than a socialist one in a given economic situation and hence the possibility of a better funded "welfare state".

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/19/2007 @ 08:33am

  297. you can't, you need to admit to being a liar: "And do it in a straight-forward, no holds-barred, CLEAR CUT manner." Just as you said. Otherwise you're lying about that too.

    I'm waiting Frita.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/17/2007 @ 2:29pm

    Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 5:06pm

    SO-- FRITA IS A LIAR AND WILL NEVER ADMIT IT NOR:"... do it in a straight-forward, no holds-barred, CLEAR CUT manner."

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/17/2007 @ 5:00pm

    Frita, I'm still waiting for you admit that you're a liar.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/17/2007 @ 5:18pm

    Fortunately for HSUB, I pay attention to him.

    Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 10:17pm

    Frita, I'm still waiting for you admit that you're a liar.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/18/2007 @ 09:08am

    eh

    Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 09:26am

    Frita, I'm still waiting for you admit that you're a liar.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/19/2007 @ 10:08am

  298. Thanks for the link.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/18/2007 @ 1:01pm

    Yeah I laughed my ass off too. hsuB is good for something after all.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/19/2007 @ 10:10am

  299. Wonder what they're burning at cHeney's offices?

    Fire Controlled at White House Compound

    December 19, 2007 10:50 AM EST |

    WASHINGTON -- Thick black smoke billowed from a fire Wednesday on the White House compound in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071219/white-house-fire/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/19/2007 @ 12:25pm

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Bill Moyers Tells a Tale of Two Quagmires: Vietnam & Afghanistan | "Once again, the loudest case for enlarging the war is being made by those who will not have to fight it..."
John Nichols
65 Comments

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
114 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» Editor's Cut

An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
72 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
204 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
62 Comments