DNC and the RNC: the good, the bad, the ugly

1,620 Comments

  1. Patrick Enders said:

    Well, for starters, Obama’s speech was simply spectacular. Even Pat Buchanan was gushing effusively – so much so that on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann had to cut him off to go to a commercial break. Contemplate that for a second.

    Barack Obama is a truly great orator, whose only rival in the gift of inspiring and persuading in the last half-century is Ronald Reagan. That’s a very good thing, because Obama’s skills are used in service of a sane, positive vision for our future, and because we desperately need to bring about a dramatic course correction after the terrible, foolish mistakes of the last 8 years.

    The fights will go on, but there is no way that the grumpy old man with an evolving reflexive vocal tic of “noun, verb, and ‘because I survived in a P.O.W. prison camp'” can ultimately prevail against Barack Obama and the Democrats. Ours is an inspired, inspiring, and thoughtful leader, and we have the advantage of being right.

    August 29, 2008
  2. Patrick Enders said:

    Bruce wrote, on another thread,

    What? No cardboard cutout of McCain? Perhaps that’s because his positions are complex and not just platitudes? 😉

    More seriously, maybe his supporters are not as much into a cult of personality. Though next week may prove me wrong. But I am sure we won’t hear too many people weeping with emotion over him.

    Bruce,

    It’s not so much about a cult of personality, but rather a recognition that great oration is a necessary skill for great leadership.

    For an example of how a lack of the same leads to failure: Kerry, anyone?

    Speaking of him, Kerry actually gave a great convention speech… four years too late.

    August 29, 2008
  3. Anne Bretts said:

    Let’s see, being too popular is a bad thing? The fact that Obama drew 94,000 people and McCain can’t give away enough tickets to fill 10,000 seats for his VP announcement means McCain is the serious candidate. Obama’s celebrating the anniversary of the “I have a dream” speech and McCain is celebrating his campaign pick on the anniversary of the Katrina nightmare.
    Now it makes sense. And when McCain loses, he should come to Northfield. He’d fit right in at City Hall.

    August 29, 2008
  4. Patrick Enders said:

    Bruce,
    I’ll also go out on a limb and bet that there’ll be plenty of wet eyes during the RNC convention, as well. I guarantee that McCain’s P.O.W. years will be presented to great effect, and many tears will be shed. Of course, it will be during someone else’s speech. But does that make it any less of a ‘cult of personality’ thing? I would say not.

    It would be a lot of work, but if it would help you to cast a vote for Barack Obama, I could force myself to sit through (well, skim, anyway) the entire RNC convention, and put together a tape of teary eyes for you.

    August 29, 2008
  5. Curt Benson said:

    Patrick, speaking of great convention speeches, did you ever hear Hubert Humphrey’s 1948 convention speech? It was revolutionary, and risky–alienating the southern Democrats.

    MPR did a show on it earlier this summer:

    http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/07/14/midday2/

    August 29, 2008
  6. Patrick Enders said:

    Curt,
    No, that was before my time. I’ll give it a listen this morning.

    August 29, 2008
  7. Patrick Enders said:

    Curt,
    Thanks for the tip. You’re right, that was a great and important speech. I was passingly familiar with Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrat rebellion, as well as Truman’s order for desegregation of the Army, but I had not realized Hubert Humphrey’s prominent role in that fight. That was impressive.

    August 29, 2008
  8. Curt Benson said:

    Patrick, my father and his brothers were active in the DFL, starting in the mid 40’s. They knew Humphrey and Mondale etc. When I was old enough to become politically aware, in the mid 60’s, it seemed odd to me that they thought of Humphrey as a sort of forward looking groundbreaker. At the time, Humphrey was LBJ’s loyal vice president. I remember reading about how he sat in the White House and could hear the chants of the protesters outside, “Hubert Humphrey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today!”

    Anyway the 1948 convention speech gives one an idea of Humphrey’s true role in this nation’s history.

    And yes, Obama’s speech last night was great.

    August 29, 2008
  9. Griff Wigley said:

    Anyone have a prediction on whether there’ll be a “Recreate ’68!!” debacle next week in St. Paul? I hope the hell not.

    August 29, 2008
  10. Rob Hardy said:

    The speeches by Obama, Kerry and the Clintons were all great and full of drama. The governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, was highly entertaining. I really could have done without the Spielberg films and the Superbowl halftime production values. I’m a loyal Democrat, but I have a hard time squaring the repeated emphasis on middle class values and ordinary working Americans with the over-the-top Hollywood glitz of last night.

    August 29, 2008
  11. I hate to break up this love fest, but I thought the Obama speech was way too long and boring. He said some good things, no doubt. My favorite was that government was here to help us, not hurt us. Also, I loved when he said we are not blue states and we are not red states, we are the United States of America, and he got what I believe to be the loudest response from the gathering of 75,000 – 84,000 people. That’s where Obama shines, unification, but only if he doesn’t have a great and proper opponent.

    But as for substance, and how he was going to deliver all this help without taxing the middle class at all…and how he made it seem like he was going to save anyone in this country who has any problem at all, well, I think he took it too far. He tried to show the people that it was they who needed to do the work, but I don’t think that message got very far…when Kennedy did the same thing, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country, people took it to heart. Different times, I suppose. Well, we will see what McCain does. He will have to come up with an Oscar winning level performance to out do Obama. We shall soon see.

    He also gave the Clinton, as in Bill, lineabout hoping to reduce the number of abortions, by reducing teen pregnancies. Weak attempt at grasping for the middle road here. And there is also that line again about restructuring the military…on his website, he plans to get 65,000 more army recruits and almost 100,000 more military personnel, besides the National Guard. He doesn’t say how.

    I don’t think anyone is taking apart his words. He’s not THAT smart. And Biden, I will say again is old school. Way old school foreign policy that DFLers say has failed over and over again. Plus Obama didn’t vote against the law recently passed that gave the phone companies the right to turn over all the records to the govt on demand. Bah!

    Patrick, I slightly checked out the Liver Tearians, and they are in a scrambled egg mess of so many factions, I’d have to call them the Denver
    omelette of political parties. This is what I dislike about parties, if you don’t think exactly like the party line, then you are OUT on your BUM.
    It’s brainwashing through and through most of the time. I dislike that very much, but thanks, anyway.

    August 29, 2008
  12. Griff, I have heard that there will be. Peace out.

    August 29, 2008
  13. Patrick Enders said:

    Anyone have a prediction on whether there’ll be a “Recreate ‘68!!” debacle next week in St. Paul?

    C’mon Griff; of course there will not. Do you remember ’68? 2008 is nothing like 1968.

    August 29, 2008
  14. Patrick Enders said:

    Bright,
    I look forward to your commentary on the McCain convention.

    August 29, 2008
  15. Anne Bretts said:

    Bright, you’re a great lady, but no one will ever meet your standards. The whole point Obama is making is that this campaign is about people like you and Patrick and me all getting up out of the bleachers and working with the people we don’t like to find solutions. The process is messy and sometimes ugly and it seems to take forever, but there is no one candidate who is going to do it for us.
    If you want a lesson in change, rent “1776” which outlines the highly political process of compromise that kept the Declaration of Independence from going up in smoke. (It’s a really odd musical, but give it a chance…) Or for a much more depressing, yet uplifting, movie, rent “Amazing Grace” and watch the emotional, exhausting, long battle to end slave trading in England.
    We can’t just watch TV with the remote in our hands, clicking through the channels until we find the perfect political package. Life isn’t the Home Shopping Network or match.com.
    So come on, Bright, there are two pretty clear choices this year. Neither is perfect, but you can’t say there’s no difference.

    August 29, 2008
  16. BruceWMorlan said:

    It was interesting to me that the protesters in Denver were kept a respectrul 500 yards away (5 football fields according to one NPR reporter, if I remember right). I’m also told that at the RNC they will be allowed within 100 feet of the center (don’t know if that is distance to a back wall or if the delegates will have to run an old-fashioned gauntlet.

    I am already burned out on pep-rallies, so I may sit next week out.

    And yes, Obama’s speech was well done (I did not have the luxury of a video feed so I had to judge based on the audio only, and I was working at the same time, so may not have enjoyed the full experience).

    August 29, 2008
  17. BruceWMorlan said:

    Patrick, you wrote

    It’s not so much about a cult of personality, but rather a recognition that great oration is a necessary skill for great leadership.

    I guess my trepidation is that history is full of “True Believer” movements led by great orators. I wish group consciousness was raised by reason rather than being aroused by oratory. In the former path lies enlightenment, in the latter lies demagoguery (my thanks to P. Zorn, this time I spell checked).

    August 29, 2008
  18. Patrick Enders said:

    Bruce,

    I guess my trepidation is that history is full of “True Believer” movements led by great orators. I wish group consciousness was raised by reason rather than being aroused by oratory. In the former path lies enlightenment, in the latter lies demagoguery

    I agree wholeheartedly: I love reasoned discussion, and wish it was the bedrock of our democracy. Unfortunately, in national politics, reasoned discussion consistently gets killed by cleverly crafted oratory.

    I’m just glad that for once, the guy with the brilliant oratory is also the one who comes closest to where reason has led me.

    August 29, 2008
  19. David Henson said:

    That was a wily pick by McCain … I think it’s the nail in the coffin for Barack/Biden.

    August 29, 2008
  20. All references to Eric Hoffer aside,

    ArtOrg will be participating at the UnConvention on Monday and Tuesday from 11am to 10pm at Peavey Plaza in Minneapolis.

    Here’s the link to our UnConvention post. We almost taglined this event with “Prints of Rage” but thought better of it in the end. It is a nonpartisan event billed as “performances and participatory culture”!

    August 29, 2008
  21. Patrick Enders said:

    McCain VP pick: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

    Well, there goes McCain’s ‘inexperience’ card. In 2005, when Obama was already serving in the US Senate, this woman was still mayor of a town of 9,000.

    “After his attacks on Obama’s readiness for the job, it’ll be amusing to hear a 71-year-old with a history of health problems justify this decision.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/Obama_camp_belittles_Palin_pick.html

    August 29, 2008
  22. Bruce, when you are right, you are right on!
    Anne, thanks for the compliment, but I’m just an ordinary person who wants great men and women in great positions to do what they say they will, and if they cannot, then don’t keep making empty promises. That’s not too much to ask, is it? Furthermore, I don’t think I ever said McCain and Obama were the same.
    I am pleased with the selection of Sarah Palin, at first glance. We need a woman in there, and she has the history to prove who she is. She has run a state for a couple of years, and come up pretty fast. I like her a lot and hope she does well, regardless.
    For those of you who have not had contact with a Downe’s Syndrome child or adult, I have to say the experiences I have had were full of love and charm and happiness. Bless the Palin family for bringing that child forth.

    August 29, 2008
  23. Patrick Enders said:

    Interesting facts on Ms. Palin:

    – She seems to be a creationist:
    http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/10/27/intelligent_design_and_the_ala/

    – She’s under investigation for charges of firing Alaska’s Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, after allegedly “Palin, her family or members of her administration pressured Monegan to fire an Alaska state trooper involved in a rough divorce from Palin’s sister.”
    http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/478090.html

    For those splitting hairs, she won’t say she believes in Creationism, or rejects Evolution. But she did say,

    ‘Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.’

    A favorite post of mine from the comments on that page:
    “Where’s the Phlogiston Theory of Combustion in my chemistry class?”

    August 29, 2008
  24. To be brief, the one comment I have time to give my opinon about it the
    one where the person said, McCain showed poor judgement in picking Palin, becuz she might be the next Prez. Well, everyone knows that the President does not rule alone. The same advisors McCain picks, and he already said he will take counsel with Pawlenty and Romney, one of the best business minds around, will be available as will many others from both parties.

    Oh, and Anne, McCain had over 15,000 at the VP announcement and they looked pretty happy about being there. Still not saying he’s the best man out there for the job, but I feel a strength there, I don’t see in Obama, yet.

    August 29, 2008
  25. Patrick Enders said:

    A little more on the accusations that Ms. Palin pressed for the firing of her sister’s ex-husband:

    There’s a tape of (Palin’s director of boards and commissions) Frank Bailey’s call to the Department of Public Safety, in which he demanded the ex-brother-in-law’s firing:

    “The Palins can’t figure out why nothing’s going on,” Bailey said in the recorded phone call. “So Todd and Sarah are scratching their heads saying ‘Why is this guy representing the department, he’s a horrible recruiting tool.’ You know?”

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/ak_gov_says_staffer_pressed_for_troopers_firing.php

    Sounds like she has more in common with Cheney than I would’ve thought.

    August 29, 2008
  26. Britt Ackerman said:

    Does McCain think he’ll draw the now-undecided Hillary fans to his camp just because he chose a running mate who is a woman? Like, Hillary and Palin are totally interchangeable because they both have vaginas? Give me a break.

    America’s voters are not that stupid. Hillary and Palin have nothing, NOTHING in common other than their gender.

    The only rational explanation is that Palin’s conservatism will impress the Christian conservatives, who would otherwise be turned off by McCain’s more mainstream approach to issues important to the religious right.

    This choice changes the tone of McCain’s platform emphasizing experience and knowledge of foreign affairs. He’s got to drop that now and turn in a new direction.

    I think that Michael Feldman is right on with his assessment of this choice.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082901777.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

    (BTW, the Obama speech was very good, but his “A More Perfect Union” speech will always be my favorite because, in the words of Jon Stewart, “Barack Obama talked to us about race as if we were adults.”)

    August 29, 2008
  27. Felicity Enders said:

    First, Bright (#11) …boring?????????

    Second, anyone know how many houses Palin owns? I’m guessing she’s a last minute scramble pick after the previous Romney pick fell through with last week’s endless how-many-houses discussion. That would also explain why she doesn’t seem to have been thoroughly vetted (ie not know what the VP actually does, as of a month ago: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12969.html).

    August 29, 2008
  28. Patrick Enders said:

    Britt,

    Does McCain think he’ll draw the now-undecided Hillary fans to his camp just because he chose a running mate who is a woman? Like, Hillary and Palin are totally interchangeable because they both have vaginas?

    If one believes the small number of die-hard pro-Hillary yahoos that kept getting recycled on CNN this week: Yes, having a vagina is more important than electing a president who supports equal pay for equal work, or supporting abortion rights for women who are the victims of rape or incest.

    As someone posting on one of the national blog threads wrote (paraphrased), “Hillary will be certain to be out in force on the campaign trail this fall, rallying her supporters, and making sure that this inexperienced conservative beauty queen doesn’t break that glass ceiling before she does.” Similarly, this is the best thing to make sure that Bill Clinton also continues to be an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama’s campaign. All thought of the Clintons secretly hoping/working for an Obama loss has got to be dead after this choice.

    Which reminds me of another great moment from the Democratic Convention: Hillary giving the best speech of her life. She’s really grown into a forceful speaker over the last 6 months.

    August 29, 2008
  29. Rob Hardy said:

    In the WaPo piece Britt links to, National Review contributor Lisa Schiffren says: “Talk about a role model for our daughters: Annie Oakley in the halls of power!”

    A woman who goes around shooting things is a great role model for young girls?

    August 29, 2008
  30. rod zumwalt said:

    she reminds me of a slightly less yucky michelle bachmann. or maybe more yucky, but we just don’t know all the details yet.

    bright, reducing teen pregnancies might sound like the wishy washy “middle road” approach to the abortion issue to you, but the bottom line is that fewer unwanted pregnancies *has* to equal fewer abortions. And there’s no disputing that our rate of teen pregnancy is among the highest in the western world. (http://www.umm.edu/pediatrics/pregnancy.htm)

    With our teens about as sexually active as those in Europe but half as likely to use birth control and with outdated fraidy-cat health programs, it’s no wonder.:

    August 29, 2008
  31. Anne Bretts said:

    So Hillary supporters are supposed to be dumb enough to see Palin as a substitute for Clinton? How insulting.
    Look, I love it that she had her baby instead of an abortion, and I’m all for reducing the number of abortions. But overturning Roe v. Wade isn’t the answer.
    Jailing women is not an effective method of birth control.
    McCain really doesn’t get it.

    August 29, 2008
  32. David Henson said:

    She’s female Biden’s Male
    She’s outside Beltway Biden’s a Washington Insider
    She upset her state party Obama’s the party darling
    She’s prolife (and walks the walk) Obama and Biden are prochoice
    Her son serves in the military This is rare in either party

    August 29, 2008
  33. David Henson said:

    II hit enter to soon but the list could go on. Palin was a brilliant choice. I am the ultimate independent – I have voted democrat, I have voted Republican and I have voted 3rd party (more often than not) – I will vote for McCain

    Oh and the mentoring relationship makes Biden look like a babysitter on the democratic ticket. The setup is backwards.

    August 29, 2008
  34. Holly Cairns said:

    I agree with David Henson about her being a good choice– especially if we forget the VP doesn’t really do anything.

    If elected on the ticket, she’ll preside over the Senate, but she’ll only be able to vote if there is a tie (pretty limited powers, overall, but that is power isn’t it).

    The point is that someone is allowing her to set the frame for how we will see things. We’re not remembering her limited powers as VP. Of course, McCain is a bit aged…

    In other words– IMHO– what difference does it make if she’s for or against drilling, abortions, etc.? None, really, but it sounds good.

    And as for her being a woman and appealing to Hillary voters– probably only if those people are single issue voters?

    August 29, 2008
  35. Holly Cairns said:

    BTW– the convention was good. Now for the after– the time where the news will stop showing stories, etc. And on to the RNC.

    Heh heh, speaking of Hubert Humphrey– my father was on the school board in Burnsville, and someone targeted him with constant barrage– saying things like “You’re just like Hubert Humphrey, you SOB.” I was horrified– who was this Hubert Humphrey? Until I figured out that it wasn’t a bad thing… and that my father was proud. Good times. That’s politics for you. One person’s swear word can be the name of another person’s hero.

    August 29, 2008
  36. A few meandering thoughts-first of all, age. McCain is 72. If you look around , people who have taken good care of themselves, especially after 40, and more so from the beginning of their lives are very mentally agile and will continue to be so as long as they work it. He could easily go two terms to 80 and still be young enough for the job. Remember Clinton had a quadruple bypass at like what 54? It’s not age as much as it is care and dna. He has proved that he can take the rigors of almost two years of campaigning across the country and looks pretty good. I can see the toll on Obama. But I wouldn’t let that disqualify him. I hope he is healthy, but his mom did die of cancer in her 50s. Peace and blessings there.

    Another thing, McCain has seen houses, he said four in different parts of the country, where they do business often and three for the kids and investments. It doesn’t pay to rent out places…they are expensive. The place we rented in Tulsa, a two bedroom apt before we bought our home
    was climbing up to $900 a month, and in Chicago, that’s way cheap.

    My sister has three houses and she and her husband fit middle class American to a tea, they just don’t waste a lot of money on frivolous things.

    Anyway, Obama is not one of the people. He is a rare commodity, an exceptional man, and I don’t say that out of racism. I grew up with all kinds of kids as my friends and still have them in Chicago…my neighborhood was voted the most successful city integrated neighborhood in the country a couple of times, so don’t go there. We wouldn’t want one of us to live in the White House, we can’t even decide who fed the dog last, iykwim. So, if Obama isn’t a regular guy, then McCain doesn’t have to be either. This era of self loathing to get over on other people makes me feel really bad for everyone who cannot admire true accomplishment, etc of another human being without first being duped into thinking they are one of us.
    Both of them have been able to live the American Dream, though not the one we all dream because we all have different dreams once the bills are taken care of.

    That’s it for me. Long day.

    August 29, 2008
  37. Patrick Enders said:

    Holly,

    I agree with David Henson about her being a good choice– especially if we forget the VP doesn’t really do anything…. Of course, McCain is a bit aged…

    I think the phrase your looking for, issued in today’s Democratic talking points, is “A Heartbeat Away From the Presidency.” 🙂

    August 29, 2008
  38. Bright,

    You have spent the past few months being a pretty consistent anti-Obama voice in these forums, largely based on your assessment that he was inexperienced and had come out of nowhere. Now, you’re saying Palin is a good choice even though she has less experience, and also came out of nowhere – and I’d call city councilor and mayor in a town of 7,700 more “nowhere” than Chicago, if we were looking purely at contact with people as a statistic.

    I actually don’t think Palin’s a bad choice for those reasons, but possessing massive amounts of experience has never been my top criterion for a candidate.

    I do think the choice is going to bite McCain’s campaign pretty hard though. She’s not fully vetted, or this mess about firing someone who wasn’t helping her sister’s ugly divorce wouldn’t have been allowed through. I also think it’s a purely cynical choice which essentially means McCain is saying to American women: all you care about is getting a woman into power, so here ya go…

    …Vote With Your Vaginas, Ladies!

    As if women can’t dislike other women, as if men vote for men simply because they are men, right? McCain’s saying that’s what women must do!

    More weak plotting from an out-of-touch man who doesn’t even know where the middle class starts or ends – despite the fact that, other than the low-entry-threshold “People Who Are Alive” demographic, it makes up the largest single group of American citizens.

    August 29, 2008
  39. rod zumwalt said:

    good lord. people who have 3 houses do not “fit middle class america to a ‘tea'”
    if you want to be for mccain, be for mccain, if you want to be for palin, be for her. but let’s not pretend they aren’t rich. There is a difference between becoming successful, as the Obamas have, after starting out poor or middle class, and marrying or inheriting millions of dollars. Personally, I’m not equating one with moral goodness and the other with evil, but let’s not pretend there’s no difference between being really incredibly rich and being middle class. Not only is there a difference, it isn’t a difference which is made by simply “not spending money on frivolous things.” Such statements are an insult to the true middle class, which is trying to find enough money for frivolous stuff like health insurance, college educations, and food, not for a second and third house.

    August 29, 2008
  40. Patrick Enders said:

    An update on the investigation of Ms.Palin:

    Steve Branchflower, the former federal prosecutor who is conducting the investigation, has a three-month contract for his work, which started August 1, and will end October 31, according to Alaska State Senate Judiciary Committee chair, Hollis French (D), who is overseeing the probe. French told TPMmuckraker that he expects Branchflower to release his report in the days before the November 4th presidential election.

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/palin_probe_could_mean_election.php

    She’s already had to revise her statements on the subject since it first broke.

    August 29, 2008
  41. I liked these comments from a Talking Points reader:

    “A Babe on the Ticket”

    By Graduate Student – August 29, 2008, 2:43PM

    From the mouth of rush limbaugh. I think the McCain campaign is in for a rude awakening. Women, like my mom, did not vote for Hllary because she was a babe or wore fancy earrings or pantsuit. She represented a movement of women who have faced trials and overcome them. She represented someone who worked harder than the boys by being one of them. She was not a babe, nor was she a trophy wife. She is/was a voice for all the women who had been passed over for a job or a raise, the women struggling to get by, the women whose husbands are not always faithful-the everyday woman, who thought my life may be in dissary but I can still make it. My mom referred to her as the bitch men hate, and women love.

    Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton. For all of her meager accomplishments, she has one accomplishment that will make middle age hillary voters,like my mom, go crazy. She was first runner up to Miss Alaska. Not that there is anything wrong with this, but Sarah Palin represents a bitch men love, and women hate. She is the lady that skirts by through her looks, while Hillary studies, she parties, while Hillary pulls herself by her bootstraps, this lady rides in on a MAN’s coattail. I honestly don’t know what the McCain camp was thinking but this is beyond condescending. You are entrusting the entire nation into a woman whose only concern in her state is overgrowth of reindeers. You Senator McCain are willing to lose this country in order to win an election.

    Sorry for the provacative language, but that’s how my mom rolls

    Good points. A bit vituperative and reductive, but some solid points that uncover a good chunk of the psychological narrative dredged up by this VP pick.

    August 29, 2008
  42. C’mon Brendon, we all know you are just jealous cuz she’s better looking than you.

    It does appear that in one fell swoop McCain has balanced the tickets on inexperience, cronyism and “no more old guard need apply”. So, let’s consider some issues. Like, who gets to pay for all these promises everyone will start making.

    I heard today that the top 5% of the taxpayers already pay 60% of the taxes, a figure which is consistent with my own analysis. So, when do we reach the tipping point and see the effect of such income redistribution tactics?

    Admittedly, Income inequality is a serious problem for a free society. But confiscatory taxes are also a serious problem. Even the Beatles (who surely must be seen as counterculture icons, at least in their public face) sang about the taxman (“one for you, nineteen for me”). There are two often conflicting goals: (1) encouraging the freedom that rewards people who solve problems (by creating better goods, ala Adam Smith) and (2) the desire to not disenfranchise the poor. I fear that today’s politics are more about the rule of the mob (get your guillotines boys, they’re robbing our society) than they are about the ideal of civil discourse with an ability to disagree without being disagreeable. “Fetch me my knitting kit, I feel a trial coming on.”

    Peace.

    August 29, 2008
  43. Ouch, Bruce, you know just how to hurt a guy-dressed-as-a-woman, don’t you?

    Well, I’ve got a nicer butt.

    August 29, 2008
  44. Holly Cairns said:

    OMG Brendon, what? Vote with your vaginas? Please.

    And Hillary isn’t one of the boys. She is a assertive and fantastic woman.

    Let’s see– how many times during this campaign did people talk about how John McCain is a man? Did they say things like “That’s a man there!” No, they didn’t.

    We’ll truly be someplace the day we can just discuss “people” and “viewpoints” rather than “gender” or “race”.

    And those who write things like:

    …Vote With Your Vaginas, Ladies!

    just get in the way of progress.

    Why did you write that?

    August 29, 2008
  45. Not getting your point, Holly, and either you’re not getting mine or distorting it…

    My point is that McCain chose Palin, very cynically, pretty much only because she’s a woman. That “Vote with your vaginas, ladies!” is McCain’s pandering thought process in this choice. It’s not what I’m saying, it’s my interpretation of McCain’s simplistic and patronizing rationale for this choice.

    Does that make sense?

    Maybe I need to use more air quotes…

    August 29, 2008
  46. David Henson said:

    Brendon #43 makes no sense at all since Hillary’s own party did not pick her. If anything John McCain is saying “you fools you had the whole deal locked down with Hillary as VP and now you have handed it to me.” Plus let’s be honest Hillary wouldn’t have been anywhere accepting her husband happened to have been president ( “pulled herself up by her bootstraps” -please ) – Palin did it on her own merits. The woman eats mooose burgers, married an Eskimo and kicked the Alaska Republican establishment to the curb – what more could you ask for in a VP or from McCain ? I’ll bet her husband thinks twice before rubbing his nose with anyone behind her back !

    August 29, 2008
  47. David H.,

    I disagree about your assessment of Hillary, and your comparison of Palin to Clinton. She beat a corrupt Republican governor for the party’s nomination, wouldn’t qualify that as kicking the whole establishment to the curb. And, somehow, eating mooseburgers and marrying an Eskimo in Alaska hardly strikes me as revolutionary.

    She’s an ultra-conservative, anti-science, anti-environment beauty queen, and while it would be nice to have the beauty queen aspect, the rest would be a repeat of the current pres / vice-pres.

    There were much better women in the Republican party that McCain could have picked.

    August 29, 2008
  48. David Henson said:

    Palin beat a corrupt governor – Hillary grabbed pork belly payola for her Governor husband. The party darlings are always the ones who accept the goodies and play ball – a la Obama’s 4 million dollar home.

    August 29, 2008
  49. Holly Cairns said:

    I got your point, Brendon. It was just so crude and flippant that I thought we should talk about it. It wasn’t McCain’s words so I guess the air quotes won’t work.

    I think voters vote for people they can relate to– Palin’ll might bring a certain amount of women who listen to her struggle and then vote for her. Not because of the woman thing, I hope, but just because of the relate thing.

    One thing for sure, we shouldn’t listen to Palin’s political point of view on the issues like abortion, drilling for oil, and creationism. She should be building up McCain and his view on the issues, but instead she looks like a renegade that’ll clean up Washington. McCain stood by her and looked, well, meek, as they introduced her. How much power does the VP have? Who cares about her stance on the issues and her ability to kick the Alaskan Republican establishment to the curb ? What does that imply– she’ll do it in Washington? Give her a pair of cleats and she’ll wander the Whitehouse hall, kicking?

    But yet, I keep reading about her balancing the ticket. She’s overbearing on the ticket, really, and it’s weird. What is the Republican party thinking…

    Bright’s point is that McCain could live until he is O-L-D-E-R, but maybe they picked someone who will really be sitting in the Oval office because he’s not going to make it?

    August 30, 2008
  50. Bruce Wiskus said:

    How does Obama Biden ticket get past the comments of Biden? Where Biden says that Obama is not ready to be President and the comments that he would be privileged to be on the SAME ticket as McCain.

    http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8

    August 30, 2008
  51. Holly Cairns said:

    The Democratic Party doesn’t need to get past Biden’s comments. Obama is carrying himself on his own.

    How is the Republican party going to get past Palin? He doesn’t seem to be carrying himself on his own.

    August 30, 2008
  52. Holly,

    You wrote:

    I got your point, Brendon. It was just so crude and flippant that I thought we should talk about it.

    You definitely got part of my point. However, the remark was crude and flippant because that was another part of my point – that McCain campaign strategy on choosing Palin was as crude and flippant as that statement.

    There were other good Republican women he passes over; he went for the ultra-conservative, beauty queen. I think it was a cynical choice predicated on a gross (crude and flippant) over-simplification of half our population.

    I like what you say about the ticket being oddly unbalanced in Palin’s favor now… hadn’t thought about it that way. Her selection could hurt McCain by making him look comparatively weak. Interesting thought.

    August 30, 2008
  53. Holly Cairns said:

    Well, I got your point that McCain might have picked a woman because she’s a woman. But it’s demeaning to say “Vote with your vagina.” You could have simply said people shouldn’t vote for her simply because she’s a woman.

    To that I say “Some will vote for her because she’s a woman” and that’s okay. But if they go vote for her because she’s a woman, that’s not voting with your vagina. That’s the demeaning part.

    What we might look at instead is that other thing– did the Republicans decide that McCain was not electable on his own? Why such a conservative? Why did the daddy party pick a woman who is pro-life?

    Yes, thanks for saying you liked my point (that he looked comparatively weak). And it is odd that its so unbalanced.

    August 30, 2008
  54. Patrick Enders said:

    Holly,
    It was Britt Ackerman who first brought up vaginas, back in post 27. Brendon may have been playing on that.

    Holly, you also wrote:

    One thing for sure, we shouldn’t listen to Palin’s political point of view on the issues like abortion, drilling for oil, and creationism.

    Why not? The job of the Vice President isn’t just to attend state funerals, the job of the Vice President is to be ready to assume the role of President in a moment of deep crisis. And apparently, this woman is the kind of person McCain wants to cover his, and the nation’s back.

    Milquetoast political opinions are just fine in a VP. Crazy nonsensical stuff is not.

    August 30, 2008
  55. Holly Cairns said:

    Well, I guess I missed Britt’s comments about vaginas. Not exactly the same point as Brendon, but if she were demeaning– it’s even worse to be demeaning of each other as women, Britt. Maybe Britt wasn’t being demeaning and simply pointing out gender differences.

    Patrick, you don’t get it. We’re not supposed to vote for the VP. I’m not voting for Biden because he’s the electable one. In fact, I think Biden has already proven he’s not electable on his own. Here comes Palin with oddly right wing ideas, and she’s inexperienced. There are plenty of logical conclusions– what’s best to talk about as DFLers?

    August 30, 2008
  56. FOr the last time, I am not a Republican! To be brutally honest, I don’t think any of these people are oval office worthy. Thanks to JFK and WJC who made a mockery out of the Presidency with their low morality and egocentric peacocking around, no decent possiblity of a man or woman wants the office.

    That and the American Presidency does not hold any real power any more and has not for the past twenty years. It’s a joke. hahahahahahaha!

    But, least of all Obama. I just finally got word and you can believe me or not, Obama has not done well in even a small Chicago neighborhood. And this is from the people there in the trenches who’s names I may not devulge. In fact, the crime rate went up double digits since Obama got on that scene. And most of the steel mills in that area shut down in the 70s.
    He wasn’t helping more than a handful of people.

    Plus, anyone who starts preaching from the bible and changes accents three or four times during his acceptance speech…

    Don’t talk to me about Sarah’s in-laws until Obama brings his brother here. Obama even said during his acceptance speech, help the famile and no one can make it by pulling up their bootstraps if the don’t have bootstraps, which is exactly what I wrote to him last week about his brother being unable to grow any sort of success on $1 per month.

    And besides that, I don’t know any Americans who wouldn’t take a little short cut help from officials to help out a bad situation. Very few wouldn’t.
    Not saying it’s right, just saying it’s so.

    Obama was handpicked by the Kennedy clan because his resume looks good on paper and he fits the profile, but as far as experience…he will be getting his directions from the Kennedys et al. Maybe you like that sort of thing. Fine. It’s a free country so far, kind of, sort of.

    All the great people become CEOs or Popes. So, there, take that Northfield! (I’m just being wild and outrageous for entertainment value.
    Make of it what you will, but don’t put your words into my posts.)

    As for women, Hillary had such a bad attitude coming through her 99% of the time, that I could never see her bringing about harmony amongst any nations. She alienated half the women in this country with her cookie remark and the other half when she said, oH, BIll, it’s OKAy, you do whatever you want under the desk and make a fool out of me, this country and embarass your child to the ultimate max, it’s okay.

    At least Sarah has replaced Hillary’s smarminess with spunk and charm.
    Plus Sarah birthed five children on top of it all.

    August 30, 2008
  57. Holly Cairns said:

    Oh, Bright, what’s going on with you, there. Let me look back– it seems people are telling you what party you might belong to. Hmm. That’s not good.

    Yes, Sarah birthed five. But Hillary has good points, too. I wonder how much of what we know about Hillary is really the news point of view. Personally, In the latter parts of the campaign, I thought she sounded like she was yelling, as if no one could hear her, or see her for what she was. I was a Hillary person until I became an Obama person, and so I hope she gets better advice for her next time around.

    Hmm, and that forgive Bill thing. Yes. Except, did she yell at him and then they worked it out… or did she just say “That’s okay, honey.”

    August 30, 2008
  58. David Henson said:

    Britt actually said Palin and Hillary were interchangeable because they both have vagina”s” (which would make them unique candidates) but I assume she meant because they each have “a” vagina. However, lacking even a sensitive side, I still like McCain’s choice. I think Independents are less concerned about what candidates think and more about what they have done. Both McCain and Palin, although politicians, have at times shown an ability to think selflessly and to break ranks with their party – these are qualities this vagina-less Independent values.

    August 30, 2008
  59. Patrick Enders said:

    Bright,
    Hi again.
    You wrote:

    I just finally got word and you can believe me or not, Obama has not done well in even a small Chicago neighborhood. And this is from the people there in the trenches who’s names I may not devulge.

    I feel like a broken record saying it, but I will consider the allegations of your unsupported rumor when someone produces some evidence to support it.

    the American Presidency does not hold any real power any more and has not for the past twenty years.

    I think George Bush and Dick Cheney have thoroughly disproven this statement. Its not just anyone who can start a war, or lock up people at their whim.

    I don’t know any Americans who wouldn’t take a little short cut help from officials to help out a bad situation. Very few wouldn’t.
    Not saying it’s right, just saying it’s so.

    I would never do such a thing as she is alleged to have done. Also, you should meet my very large number of honest, decent, and upstanding friends and family members, who would never do such a thing. And some of them are even from Chicago.

    If the allegations against Gov. Palin are true, then she has grossly abused her power in office. There is no excuse for that – except that she didn’t do it. (Which might be true. We’re still in the evidence-gathering phase on this.)

    Plus Sarah birthed five children on top of it all.

    My grandmother birthed seven. Is she therefore more qualified to be (vice) president?

    August 30, 2008
  60. Patrick Enders said:

    Holly, you wrote:

    Patrick, you don’t get it. We’re not supposed to vote for the VP. I’m not voting for Biden because he’s the electable one. In fact, I think Biden has already proven he’s not electable on his own. Here comes Palin with oddly right wing ideas, and she’s inexperienced. There are plenty of logical conclusions– what’s best to talk about as DFLers?

    Thanks Holly. I do get that. My initial interest in Palin (played out in real time here in this thread), was “who the heck is this woman, and why would he have chosen her?”

    I think the best way to approach this is to look at it as a case study in McCain’s judgement: of all the possibilities, why did he choose this woman as his running mate? The only conclusion I can make is he went with a gut feeling and a roll of the dice – knowing that he was going to lose if he couldn’t dramatically change the political narrative right now. So he made a decision for purely political/marketing purposes: trying to find someone who could change the subject right nw, who might attract independent women, and who was conservative enough for his base. Why he thought this particular woman was a better choice for VP than any of the other available options, male or female – including more experienced, tested women such as Kay Bailey Hutchinson – seems to be an important thing to pick apart.

    August 30, 2008
  61. nick waterman said:

    please. the idea that bill clinton disgraced the white house is incredibly offensive yes, i would prefer that he had not lied, and he should be ashamed of having done so. give me a president who played around ANYTIME over one who enriched his rich friends, sent innocents off to war to murder other innocents, ignored the plight of Katrina victims, attacked science and ruined schools.

    and how truly trite to bring up the cookie remark: i suppose it’s better that automaton cindy mccain plagiarized her cookie recipe? And by your math, bright, hillary alienated 100% of the women in the u.s. Huh?

    August 30, 2008
  62. Bill Clinton disgraced his name,his family and the Oval office on the world scene. I will never change on that. I believe in forgiveness and do forgive him, but the world will never forget and that is a mark upon our image.

    Anyway, Obama now lives in a 4 million dollar home, look it up. He didnt’ get that from the grateful disenfranchised people of the south side of Chicago, I betcha.

    And while I say half this and half that, it’s just a figure of speech. If I was gonna go the exact route, I’d give hard numbers. I have a AA in Electronics Technology and Applied Science, so I think I can handle that.

    My sister and her husband ARE middle class. Except for a two year sprint as a health club area manager, he has been a high school teacher and she is a part time travel agent, very low key. They made some investments, like Bush urged the American people to do since day one or two of his Presidency. If anyone listened to him and invested in oil and lumber and steel, you would have prolly doubled or tripled your money by now, depending on which companies, etc.

    Anyway, my sister raised two boys, sent them to college on partial scholarships and they both now hold great jobs. It’s not that tough, just takes determination and a willingness to make the effort and sacrifice of hanging out too much with friends and such, over time.

    Patrick, I don’t know exactly what Palin was supposed to have done, so I will concede the point for now. Also, believe what you want about the neighborhood Obama fought for, it doesn’t make any difference, because people have been fighting for and with and at that neighborhood and others like it for decades, Obama was just one of a long line of do gooders.

    I think it’s great that a man of color is aspiring to the White House, but I don’t think it’s great that people are hoping for him to save them. He will not. He is asking them to save themselves now, and I don’t hear anyone listening to that message at all.

    August 30, 2008
  63. Patrick said:

    I think George Bush and Dick Cheney have thoroughly disproven this statement. Its not just anyone who can start a war, or lock up people at their whim.

    Patrick, I am afraid you are wrong about this cuz just about anybody can start a war and lock people up. Think about it.

    The kind of power I am talking about is the kind where if you come into the room, people stop and listen and then take your advice. I don’t know if that ever really happens on the world stage, but it does in my mind…and admittedly I have a very active imagination. With this kind of power, there is no war, only willing compliance out of respect and honor.

    August 30, 2008
  64. Patrick Enders said:

    Bright, you wrote:

    Anyway, Obama now lives in a 4 million dollar home, look it up. He didnt’ get that from the grateful disenfranchised people of the south side of Chicago, I betcha.

    He has, however, sold a lot of books. The advance for The Audacity of Hope alone was $1.9 million. Last year, Barack and Michelle’s combined income was $4.2 million, mostly from sales of his books.

    But I do agree that Mr. Obama’s financial interactions with Tony Rezko(sp?) were foolish or poorly thought out – at the very least. How do Obama’s mistakes hold up against the alternatives – McCain’s involvement with Charles Keating, for example? We should each look at the facts, and judge for ourselves.

    August 30, 2008
  65. nick waterman said:

    That’s great that your sister made investments, good for her and I’m glad it worked out. But many middle class people DON”T HAVE ANY MONEY TO INVEST, because they are busy spending it on their health care. Not because they weren’t bright enough to listen to Bush’s fabulous advice on oil and steel.

    Bush is rich because he’s from one of the wealthiest families in the country, not from his business acumen. indeed, if he had to live as a result of his business acumen, he’d be in a rental apartment rather than the white house. and this vague obama-bashing, using some kind of vague chicago (he didn’t really help the people there” ) expertise, is unhelpful and vapid.

    August 30, 2008
  66. Paul Fried said:

    Griff: Regarding 2008 at the RNC being a repeat of 1968 at the DNC, Please clarify:

    Are you wondering about the 1960’s-1970’s FBI “COINTELPRO” efforts to infiltrate groups on the left, to monitor, incite to violence and discredit them? (COINTELPRO is not a wild conspiracy theory, but historical fact)

    Or are you assuming that, if there is violence in St. Paul during the RNC and related to the peace movement, it would be instigated only by the peace protest crowds themselves, and not agents provocateurs?

    Or are you undecided on the question?

    August 30, 2008
  67. nick waterman, while i have never had the pleasure of your acquaintance,
    i would be happy to be helpful if i knew what it is you thought would be helpful as long as it doesn’t involve me sitting down and shutting up like a good little girl and nodding my head and holding up signs in perfect agreement with everything i hear and see.

    August 30, 2008
  68. nick waterman said:

    Hi Bright: I’m not asking you to “be a good girl and agree with everyone else,” I’m just saying that comments like “Obama has not done well in even a small Chicago neighborhood. And this is from the people there in the trenches who’s names I may not devulge,” is just ridiculous, for about 3 different reasons:
    1) what does “done well” mean?

    2) where are the “trenches”

    3) why the cia-like secrecy of people whose names which “cannot be divulged,” as if some fearsome retribution awaited those with the temerity to say something as tepid as “obama has not done well.” What, are Obama’s goons going to bump them off?

    4) most importantly, it (your comment) relies on feigning some kind of insider status to shut other people up, as if they did not have access to the truth, but you do, but you can’t say from where.

    August 30, 2008
  69. Holly,

    You can chose to read my rhetoric as demeaning, so be it. I’m not known for soft-pedaling my written words. I chose words based on how they will emphasize a rhetorical argument or advance a story. Sometimes those words can be brutish, but it’s to solidify the point. If I held back certain words or phrases because I thought someone might be offended, I wouldn’t be able to write anything. There’s a difference between you being offended and me being offensive. It’s your judgment only. Nothing I can do about that.

    To others here: As for Sarah Palin having five children: I’m failing to see the relevance to helping run the country. It’s an emotional factor in supporting her, yes, but it’s a very weak test for an office like Vice President of the US. Is there a childbirth-frequency / leadership-potential scale that I’ve never seen? A lot of seriously damaged women give birth to even more children. Republicans, historically, have demonized them.

    David H., you make a good point in comment #60: there’s the strength of being seen as independent. That will be a plus for the ticket, but I still think the negatives (as they exist now and whatever may be uncovered in the next few months) outweigh that positive.

    Bright, I haven’t the slightest idea how you conflate the Obama half-brother story and the allegations of Palin’s illegal firing of a state official based on a family grudge. Obama did what to his half-brother half a world away? If true – and Palin is already backpedaling from earlier assertions of non-involvement in the matter – then she seriously abused her power in service of a personal desire. Pretty much the definition of “corruption”. So much for the squeaky clean reformer. If true, she did this as an elected official using her authority and power as an elected official to fire someone who wouldn’t fire her former brother-in-law. So much for her respect for law and order, a supposed bedrock of conservative values.

    August 30, 2008
  70. Anne Bretts said:

    Obama is under no obligation to ‘do something’ about any of his half-siblings. His father has several children with several women in different places. The children would be the responsibilty of his late father, not him.
    On the other hand, Cindy McCain’s father had another family first and nearly abandoned them, but continued to have some contact with the child and provided some financial support. For McCain, who inherited a fortune, to cut off the meager aid her father clearly intended her sister to have is selfish. She doesn’t need to have a relationship with the half-sister, but she should have honored her father by sharing some of the many millions…or even one of the many houses…Hmmm.

    August 30, 2008
  71. nick, done well, means that he helped clear up the crime, or in some way made a difference in the life style that permeates the very concrete therein.

    As I have said before on this forum, in several ways, shapes and forms, I grew up from birth in the neighborhood right next to the neighborhood where Obama was supposedly defending civil rights and organizing people. It is an area with one of the highest crime rates in the country and has been for generations.

    I worked in City Hall, my sister worked in City Hall, and as an environmentalist with a high profile, I worked with the politicians, and as a person who used to be concerned with the plight of the black man, I do have some insider information about people such as Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition, Mohamed Ali, all of whom are also from my old neighborhood, or very nearby, and all have or had homes there for many years.

    I live in a different type of neighborhood in the U of Chicago area, where Michelle Obama worked to create an outreach program. There are a lot of people who do social and legal work there, and it’s not all that.

    The people I know are making some headway right now in their work and don’t wish to be pointed out. I am honoring their request. SO shoot me.

    And btw, people who are ill and cannot affort health insurance may have been middle class at one time, but they are no longer, and therefore not
    the people I refer to. I refer to people who have expendable income. If people would take that $4.00 per day that they buy pop and stuff with, by the end of one year, they would have almost $1500. They could buy some stock with that.

    My sister is middle class, and they have dealt with illnesses, but not the long, long term expensive sort. My sister is almost retired and it took them a while to own three places…she is by all standards middle class.

    August 30, 2008
  72. Brendon, well, when I said what I said about Palin, I said ‘at first glance’, and then I said I didn’t know the whole story, and I still don’t, the investigation has barely even begun to see if an investigation is warranted, as far as I can tell from here. I can also say that messy divorce can mean a lot of things, like maybe someone was messing with someone and needed to get gone from public service and someone wasn’t wanting someone gone cuz of the blue brotherhood thing and maybe that didn’t sit too well with someone…we just don’t know yet.

    But, Barrack’s claiming, take care of your brothers and sisters and family is all and no one can lift themselves up by their bootstraps if they don’t even have a bootstrap, and then in his own life, he has left his half brother in Kenya living in a shack on a dollar a day, not wanting to impose on his brother. For goodness sake. Can’t he bring him here and help him get
    a pell grant or something??? At least walk the talk on that level, preacher man.

    As for the five children, in my head I was thinking about how everyone says how great Fred Astaire was, when all the time Ginger Rogers was doing the same things Fred was only on high heels and backwards. As a performer, I am sure you can get that reference. As a man, you don’t know how much a woman gives toward giving birth, or maybe you do? 🙂

    August 30, 2008
  73. nick waterman said:

    Bright said: “And btw, people who are ill and cannot affort health insurance may have been middle class at one time, but they are no longer, and therefore not
    the people I refer to. I refer to people who have expendable income. ”

    so all middle class people can afford health insurance? and middle class by definition includes “expendable” income? This will be news to much of the middle class. You know, the ones with only one house, or none.

    and I’m just going to quit now, because the interminable nonsense about the half-brother has sent me over the edge. pell grants are for citizens. And why the indignant moral outrage over and over about a half brother whose circumstances you know NOTHING about (except what you have read), but a complete lack of moral outrage over the income discrepancies and poverty (not to even mention deaths, lack of medical care, etc) created right here in your country by george bush, where despite the ever more generous description of what constitutes “poverty”, more people fall into it every day?

    August 30, 2008
  74. nick waterman said:

    i do realize i broke the rule and was sarcastic in the last post, but I must say, that if sarcasm is more offensive than this:

    “I worked with the politicians, and as a person who used to be concerned with the plight of the black man, I do have some insider information about people such as Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition, Mohamed Ali, all of whom are also from my old neighborhood, or very nearby, and all have or had homes there for many years.

    I live in a different type of neighborhood in the U of Chicago area, where Michelle Obama worked to create an outreach program. There are a lot of people who do social and legal work there, and it’s not all that.”

    then something is wrong.

    August 30, 2008
  75. Yep, Obama does say these things about family, and I will concede the point that there may be a little personal hypocrisy in the situation with his half-brother. However, it’s not a function of his office as a Senator or his position as a presidential candidate. It’s a family matter, and I don’t know enough about the dynamics of his family to know why it persists, and I don’t think it’s indicative of his ability to lead since it is not a governance decision he’s making.

    How much does he even know his half-brother? (They’re twenty years and one big ocean apart, are they not?) Is it more honorable for Obama to let his half-brother figure his own way in life or to just give him hand outs? From your arguments, I think you’d much rather see his half-brother do for himself, rather than have Barack do for him.

    Palin’s actions are actually under investigation, by the Alaska legislature and by the Alaska Attorney General’s office. It is not the case that “the investigation has barely even begun to see if an investigation is warranted” as you stated. While it may be a family matter, they are actions alleged to have been carried out under her direction, using her power and authority as Alaska’s Governor – in other words, abuse of power and corruption of public office.

    Your former brother-in-law being an ass to your sister – apart from his duties as a State Trooper – does not equate with an actionable cause for dismissal of his supervisor.

    Again, regarding childbirth, somehow I’ve picked up that pain is involved. Does that mean anyone who suffers physical pain is made more ready to lead? The more pain, the better the leader? What about emotional pain? Does that count on the proficiency of leadership scale? What about a man who has five children? Is he more fit for executive office than a childless man, or a man with only one child?

    As I said, it’s an emotional hook, to be sure, but that’s all it is. The whole “mom” angle will “play well in Peoria” perhaps, but let’s not confuse that with demonstrated ability.

    It’s a grave disservice to women who have no children to consider that they are less fit for leadership based only on that criterion. This is not to say that being a mother doesn’t teach a woman many things about life, but as a marker for leadership potential at this level, it is meaningless and absurd at best, dubious and misleading at worst.

    August 30, 2008
  76. First of all, great leaders lead by example, not do as I say and not as I do.
    Everyone knows that’ doesn’t work.

    Obama has not yet answered the questions about his brother…the news refers to his book. If there was no way to get his brother some help, then so be it. I apologize, but I kind of think there is something to do for him. That’s my opinion, and I am entitled to it, nick and BE, without being belittled.

    As for the five children scam I am trying to pull, come on. If you don’t think it’s harder to accomplish a full career and give birth to five kids, than it is to accomplish a career without giving birth…all other things being equal, which they never would be anyway, you have another think coming. I’m just giving my opinion, it doesn’t mean a hill of beans around here or anywhere else. Give it a rest, you two.

    August 30, 2008
  77. nick waterman said:

    just to be clear, Bright, I entirely agree that you are entitled to your opinion. And that you should not be belittled for it. But belittling (for that is precisely what you are doing, trying to claim that Obama’s achievements are less than they are) Clinton or Obama or anyone else ought to be out of bounds for you, too. And it is one thing to state your opinion, and something entirely else to claim that you are in possession of facts somehow denied to the rest of us, but still unassailable.

    August 30, 2008
  78. I hardly think I was belittling you, Bright. I pointed out the difference in both the nature and meaning of the Barack half-brother story and the Palin former brother-in-law issue.

    Obviously, I know it’s your opinion and I know you’re entitled to it. I never said you weren’t. I am, likewise, expressing my opinion and challenging the basis for yours. That’s debate.

    As for the mother-of-five angle, I never even hinted that having five children and a career was the same as just having the career minus the children. My argument has been, and continues to be: there is nothing inherent in giving birth five times that qualifies someone for higher executive office. It’s an emotional hook for some, but it shouldn’t be considered as a reflection of her merit to help lead a country.

    As for your assertions about the difficulties she must face as a mother of five and a Governor, certainly that would be tough. She probably has a very supportive husband. A husband who is a father of five and a career man, I would guess.

    As for telling me to “give it a rest,” I would ask only: Did you not expect to be challenged?

    August 30, 2008
  79. No, Brendon, but I felt a bit put upon when nick w. was stamping my opinions with rather negative words, like trite, and you not seeing that fred – ginger thing made me think you went out for a walk, which is me speak for refusing to understand something you would normally understand.

    I never said anything about child bearing as making anyone more qualified for anything, and I am not sure you said I said that, but just to be clear, I agree with you.

    I hope to be challenged, but not with negative labels on my words, but with facts, or at least opinions from laudable sources, as far as they may be known, or well-thought out questions. I am a teacher by heart and former profession and hope to see all do well, even at the expense of my being publicly shown to be in error.

    August 30, 2008
  80. nick waterman said:

    once more, and only to be clear, the one and only thing I labeled “trite” was to actually bring up the Hillary cookie debacle. I certainly stand by my characterization of that as trite.

    August 30, 2008
  81. Bright, I’m not saying you’re “in error”. I didn’t agree with some of your assessments. I gave mine. We are stating opinions based on our interpretations of what we’ve read and filtered through our unique experiences and minds. Nothing more. I understood your gender differences argument, but never thought it relevant to the point I was making about Palin’s qualification for higher executive office by dint of multiple offspring.

    Time might reveal your opinions as more prescient, or it might favor mine, but, even then, they will remain opinions.

    August 30, 2008
  82. Holly Cairns said:

    What, this must be pick on Bright day. 🙁 Bright does have a point about the brother’s keeper. We all know it’s best to start with your own brother. But sometimes they are the hardest to help? I think Barack met this brother for a half an hour of his life… right? Or which brother is this…

    Patrick said:

    Why he thought this particular woman was a better choice for VP than any of the other available options, male or female – including more experienced, tested women such as Kay Bailey Hutchinson – seems to be an important thing to pick apart.

    Okay, I agree with that. Good point. Plus I wrote you didn’t get it. My bad. Sorry about that.

    Brendon said:

    You can chose to read my rhetoric as demeaning, so be it. I’m not known for soft-pedaling my written words. I chose words based on how they will emphasize a rhetorical argument or advance a story. Sometimes those words can be brutish, but it’s to solidify the point. If I held back certain words or phrases because I thought someone might be offended, I wouldn’t be able to write anything. There’s a difference between you being offended and me being offensive. It’s your judgment only. Nothing I can do about that.

    You wouldn’t be able to write anything? Ridiculous. Nothing I can do about that. C’mon, Brendon, that’s just not nice. What war are you waging, anyway? Is there no limit to what you should be able to say?

    Here: If women vote for women, they aren’t voting with their vaginas. Do you agree? You seem to say it is McCain who was saying that… but you chose the words.

    Hi Nick. You might be careful in here since the air is hot. You’ll see there is another side to things.

    See you downtown, everyone.

    August 30, 2008
  83. Okay, Holly, how about this: You’re offended. Too bad.

    I don’t know how much clearer I need to be about my opinions regarding McCain’s motivations for this VP pick.

    I explicitly and LOUDLY agree with you that women do not vote for gender reasons alone.

    I guess you just object to me using the word “vagina”; so I proudly report that I will never use the word “vagina” in this post about vagina voting again. For to use the word “vagina” to underscore pandering political motivations does no honor to vaginae worldwide.

    Please keep misinterpreting my point and applying your “war” (??) motivations to my words. It’s humorous.

    La la la la la… vagina…

    Oops! Sorry, that one just slipped out.

    I’m pretty sure I’ve broken Griff’s 5-vagina-limit-per-comment guideline.

    August 30, 2008
  84. nick waterman said:

    thanks for the warning Holly; I can see that there is indeed hot air.

    August 31, 2008
  85. Holly Cairns said:

    Brendon– vagina vagina vagina. Okay to say. That’s a ’90’s issue.

    “Think with your vagina” so you end up voting for a woman. Not okay to say. Present issue. Not McCain’s words, but yours. Wrong way to go about the issue, message is lost. People get angry and then vote for the vagina, simply because they can, and they decide you are crude. Action taken since you were crude.

    I think: There’s a difference. With your plays, are you trying to get people to be open and more understanding? One thing you can do is speak with respect. LOUDLY. Or you can be crude, and make people nervous, and maybe they’ll go away and change the world. But, if you yell at your audience and make them so offended, you lost.

    I bet, you’ll come back at me with “I don’t care if I offend you.” You get it that you were crude. I’m wondering what war you are fighting and it must be the “I can say anything I want” war and the “I don’t care about the effect” war. Right? OR, you’ve decided I don’t represent the average, and most people wouldn’t be offended by what you said to describe McCain’s point of view. I think you are wrong. If I’m pretty open minded about things and I am offended, well, then…

    August 31, 2008
  86. Holly Cairns said:

    Nick– I agree with you re: your comments/ observations here, above. Are you from Northfield, Minnesota? If you are not, tell us about your people.

    August 31, 2008
  87. nick waterman said:

    i’m from minneapolis by way of boston, and enjoying minnesota

    August 31, 2008
  88. We’re experiencing the UGLY in Minnesota with the raids, detentions and arrests in St. Paul and Minneapolis. The harassment of anyone seen with a camera near the convention site was inexcusable, and this heavily-armed multi-jurisdictional unconstitutional harassment and terrorizing of citizens is such extreme proof of the erosion of our rights. Our elected officials need to hear from us now to stop this outrageous violation of our rights. Yes, it’s what I expected with the Patriot Act and all that has come since, and I fear it’s too late to turn around. But we’ve got to try. A friend’s daughter is in jail, her Minneapolis house was boarded up. Dave Bicking is a long-time political activist, he ran for inneapolis City Council last election, and his daughter who continues the family tradition of activism is in jail… Maybe the raiders figure Minnesota Nice will let them get away with this. Watching this from 1,200 miles away is so frustrating. The implications of these raids goes far beyond the Metro and the RNC Convention. Griff – if you’re covering the convention, well, this is an important part to cover! http://www.theuptake.org has been on it.

    August 31, 2008
  89. Anne Bretts said:

    Holly, I think that either you didn’t read all the way through the relative comments or you just aren’t getting it. Brendon was playing off the comments of Britt. It wasn’t offensive to me at all, in fact, I thought it was very clever. In any case, maybe we can get back to the discussion.
    I think Palin is very bright, and the party would have done well to groom her for greatness by giving her some meaningful experience before putting her in this position. I don’t agree with her positions on issues stated so far, and the argument made by Cindy McCain that she understands foreign policy because her stat is clost to Alaska is truly frightening. She is not running as McCain’s administrative assistant, she’s running for vice president, meaning she needs to be as qualified as he to run the country. She just isn’t qualified. And while her views may energize the right, but I hope they also energize Obama backers. This is such a clear choice for the future, I’m amazed that anyone can be undecided at this point.
    As for her five children being a sign of her ability, I grew up Catholic and everyone I knew was part of a family of 5 or 8 or even 12. Some of the parents showed organizational and leadership skills, others just showed a blind obedience to the church that left them and their kids devastated and overwhelmed. Parenthood doesn’t make you great.
    Bright, your comments have me just baffled. I respect that many of your friends don’t like Obama, but to use that to say he’s not popular in Chicago is a big stretch. Mayor Daly and Sen. Durbin are hardly political idiots swayed by a celebrity.
    I feel terrible for St. Paul that the convention may be shortened and definitely will be a money-loser for all involved. And while I don’t support Pawlenty and I don’t think he was ready for VP, I feel bad for him and all the others who worked hard for McCain and got snubbed so rudely.

    August 31, 2008
  90. Curt Benson said:

    Carol, why does one need a gun, throwing knives, a bow and arrow, flammable liquids, paint, slingshots, rocks and buckets of urine at a peaceful protest?

    I’m guessing in advance that your response will contain the phrase “agent provacateurs”.

    August 31, 2008
  91. john george said:

    Nick- In your post 74 you said this, “…but a complete lack of moral outrage over the income discrepancies and poverty (not to even mention deaths, lack of medical care, etc) created right here in your country by george bush,…” How are our economic inequities George Bush’s creation? Lyndon Johnson started the “war on poverty”, and to my knowledge, it was not won during any previous administration. It isn these types of statements that prompt mne to differentioate between a liberal and a Bush hater. The liberals have a plan on how to address this problem.

    As far as income inequities, this problem has been around for a long time. The liberal plan is to address it with big government, thus imposing financial equality from the outside through forced redistribution of accumulated wealt. The conservative approach is to redistribute it through big business, through profits on goods and services paid out through wages to people who actually provide the goods and services. I personally do not think either philosophy will actually work because in individual greed. It is in dealing with this individual greed that I put my hope. I look at the economic problems we are facing as a disease of the individual spirit rather than any particular economic philosophy, but this is just my world view showing through.

    August 31, 2008
  92. Holly,

    There’s a point in exchanges like this where it is meaningless to keep beating heads against a wall. I reached that point about one comment ago.

    However, sadly – disconsolately, even – I must weigh in, since you continue to attack: I know what to write, how to write it, and why I do it in the way I do it to express my opinions.

    While it seems sweet that you care (in such an angry way), you needn’t concern yourself with my prose style. In writing what I wrote, I knew some might be shocked by word choice and arrangement, but I had faith that most or nearly all thinking women would get the meaning of both the content and the context. Why? Because women are smart, and I’m willing to bet they don’t need you to tell them to be offended or protect them.

    Was your next rhetorical step to compare me to Hitler? That’s usually where these “I’m offended” arguments lead. Trying to control someone’s argument by claiming politically correct offense is soooo 1989.

    I’m done, ramble on if you wish.

    Carol,

    I’m very interested in reactions to the police actions in the Twin Cities; especially as it regards the idea of “preventative detention” and the seemingly global equating of protest with terrorism. These are serious civil liberties issues, and I’m not just talking about the RNC. The DNC and other big events have had these same problems.

    I have so many questions, and I hope some attorneys or others can weigh in here:

    Why do judges sign off on these search warrants?
    What is the threshold of “probable cause”?
    What crimes have these people committed?

    August 31, 2008
  93. Curt,

    I agree. There are most definitely going to be some actual criminals mingled in with protesters. There usually are. My concern is more with the overreach we see nationally that equates legitimate protest with the bogeyman of terrorism.

    P.S. I saw the “three 5-gallon buckets of urine” report in the news too, and I first wondered: What’s that for? Then I wondered: Whose urine? Then I wondered: How long would it take me to fill a 5-gallon bucket with my urine? Then I wondered: Are their toilets broken? Then I wondered: Uh-oh, if their toilets are broken, where are the other 5-gallon buckets? Then I decided to stop wondering about that.

    August 31, 2008
  94. Holly Cairns said:

    I guess Carol’s not going to let us get off track.

    In the ’80’s, one of my friends was arrested for sitting outside Honeywell. The police weren’t so nice, then, either. But his house wasn’t boarded up. I wonder if you can elaborate on that? That really sounds like a violation of rights.

    The DNC protesters were far away, I’ve heard. The RNC protesters will be allowed closer = tougher security measures?

    It might be best to protest in other ways.

    I wonder what Gustav will do to Louisiana.

    August 31, 2008
  95. Curt Benson said:

    Brendon, I think it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at an anarchists meeting. Unless they’ve transcended human nature, which is doubtful, sooner or later an ironic sort of hierarchy would have to develop to handle the inevitable disagreements that occur when more than one person has an opinion.

    I’m glad we’ve got this whole democracy thing worked out here locally, where citizens, administrators, mayors and councilors act like civilized, mature people–cheerfully accepting that fact that they won’t always get to have their ways.

    August 31, 2008
  96. Curt Benson said:

    Oh, and where did the urine come from? Can you still get four cases of Buckhorn or Fox Deluxe for $10? It’s been awhile.

    August 31, 2008
  97. David Henson said:

    Curt – From #90 – I’m thinking these items may just be for an innocent pictogram of Peaceful (the bucket of urine PEA, the bow for C and the flammable liquids for EFUL). Maybe not.

    If my house were raided they would find most of these items and others they could use as trophies to justify the raid (but not the buckets of urine ~ I promise). I am going to go start throwing out my paint.

    August 31, 2008
  98. Holly Cairns said:

    Brendon’s last comments not available to me before I posted about the protesting.

    I’m not angry.

    You think you and Hitler have a lot in common, or what? No, that wasn’t going to be my next move in the argument. I’m the one arguing against your word choice, so it would be me that would be more to the right in this situation.

    There aren’t any other women that have chimed in here, whether they are on vacation or whether they don’t care… whatever. Maybe I am the only one who was offended by your “vote with your vagina” if you vote for a woman.

    We’re going to have to agree to disagree, Brendon. I can concede that you use words to cause a rise, and that is sometimes good, and you cannot concede that sometimes you use a choice of words that distracts from the real intended issue.

    Plus, that moment is gone in history, now.

    August 31, 2008
  99. Jane Moline said:

    I think the RNC will reject Palin and offer another VP choice. I think the whole thing is a set up.

    August 31, 2008
  100. Patrick Enders said:

    This presents another way of looking at John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin:

    “Getting to Know You”:

    August 31, 2008
  101. David H. said:

    If my house were raided they would find most of these items and others they could use as trophies to justify the raid (but not the buckets of urine ~ I promise). I am going to go start throwing out my paint.

    I thought the same thing when I saw the list of items confiscated in one raid. Apparently, I’m also hellbent on civic disruption (sorry… “terrorism”) because I have PVC pipe and chicken wire and empty glass bottles and rags and fuel in my garage. Little did I know how evil I unintentionally have become.

    Your pictogram description was very clever, good work!

    Curt, while I’m generally liberal and I like me some good protestin’ from time to time to keep things from getting, I don’t know, stale… I do often wonder about anarchists, too. Do they honestly think a society of 300 million people spread over a country this size could run itself according to their principles? That every function of the country would need to be decided by consensus?

    In my experience, the only people who truly believe anarchy could work in any complex social system are idealistic college kids (for a couple years) and delusional people with little to lose.

    All this being said, I still think these raids are not being targeted only at anarchists bent on “doing some crimes”, but also seem geared toward squelching legitimate protest and peaceful civil disobedience. That’s not good for anyone.

    Holly, Agreed. Certainly, I make a lot of mistakes and distract from the real issue sometimes with my words. It grates on people from time to time. I understand that. It’s very subjective and messy and emotional. That’s writing. Thank you for helping me get better at it.

    Patrick, that youtube video… Their body language seemed a little odd – she sort of leans away from him, and he sort of pushes into her personal space. Like she’s trying to avoid a hug from her smelly old uncle, or something. He’s playing with his wedding ring… very funny.

    August 31, 2008
  102. Curt – you ask why they might need various items at a peaceful protest, but they weren’t at a protest, they were at home. They claim a bow and arrows were found, and I can bow hunt up my bluff from my deck of my house within the city limits of Red Wing. They were sitting at home. At the “Convergence Center” they were hanging out having dinner and watching a video. The bus that was pulled over was driving down the road and the family, their three dogs and chickens were ejected and bus towed away “to see if it was safe to be on the road.” What a crock, the DOT does roadside inspections every day, and in the youtube of the pullover, there were 10 patrol cars, 10, early on, and probably more later. The problem with thinking you’re covered with the 4th amendment is that it’s only good to get evidence thrown out at your trial, and it sure isn’t going to keep the cops from knocking on all your friends, neighbors, colleagues and coworkers and bosses doing “investigating,” it’s not going to prevent them from kicking in your doors in as they did, pointing guns at everyone, it’s not going to keep you out of jail over the weekend, it’s not going to prevent them from boarding up your home while you sit in jail, it’s not going to keep them from taking your computer and going through it and holding it for how long… until trial?, it’s not going to keep them from taking your digital camera until trial. There was a warrant for 551 Iglehart but no 549, so they broke into 551 and then kicked their way into 549 through the attic, and held everyone there without a warrant, handcuffed an attorney who was there and she was able to function as a go-between between cops and detainees but had to be handcuffed the entire time. They weren’t doing anything. I have three cohorts who were all arrested in different parts of the country for holding a sign, HOLDING A SIGN, FOR DOG’S SAKE, one saying “Cheny is a war criminal” another saying “Danger, raw sewage” and another saying “No New Coal” with not a disruptive word or action. Oh, and Alan was arrested for wearing a gag at legislative hall, quietly sitting, not disruptive in anyway. This is so serious and each of us has to stand up and SCREAM that this must stop. Loudly, repeatedly, until we turn this big full-steam-ahead ship of fools around and get our rights back. The scary thing about constitutional law is that it’s a matter of “use it or lose it” and we’ve not been using it and they’ve been taking it away. Each increment that we let slide makes the next increment that much easier. Years ago I represented two guys of the “Crandon 29” who were arrested, there were three fact patterns and they were all being tried together in a carnival kangaroo court in Wisconsin. My two were charged with blocking the highway, yet the video showed it was the cop cars blocking the street, none of the people arrested were in the street/highway, they were all on the sidewalks, sitting on the curb, singing and/or dancing, and not threatening anyone or anything in any way. Unfortunately, they lived a long ways away and couldn’t get back for hearings without a lot of trouble, so we plead out those in that group on misdemeanors that cost a lot less than airfare/gas back to Wisconsin. But it’s the same thing, people doing perfectly legal things, arrested and charged, and having to sit in jail and then defend themselves against patently bogus charges, or in this case, held without charges over the holiday. That’s abuse and misuse of the legal system — once more with feeling, we must VERY LOUDLY DEMAND THE VIOLATIONS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS STOP. Those whose homes were invaded, held at gunpoint, detained and/or arrested will be suing everyone involved for everything they’re worth — maybe that’s what it will take to drive home the cost of violating constitutional rights. I am so furious, and at the same time glad I’m in Delaware for a couple of weeks because if I were there, I’d be in their face and probably getting “three hots and a cot” myself. This is so wrong. Take your pick – there’s “Stand up, keep fighting” and there’s “Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights,” and whether Wellstone or Marley, now’s the time.
    Lawyers Guild has submitted a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent actions against journalists, taking computers and video equipment, etc.

    August 31, 2008
  103. David Henson said:

    Brendon – my home raid might be reported Swat found: red, white and blue cloth; lighter fluid; a book describing Mao, Molotov Cocktails & Mortars; a heavy Chinese metal tube stand and a bunch of disguises.

    Bath towels, a Bic, M volume of encyclopedia, Christmas Tree Holder and Halloween storage.

    August 31, 2008
  104. Holly Cairns said:

    Patrick, that video is horrible! How’d you find that one in the million out there.

    August 31, 2008
  105. Holly Cairns said:

    What’s the bucket of urine thing. Did you describe that, Carol? I’m out of it on that one. What’s that used for?

    August 31, 2008
  106. Patrick Enders said:

    Holly,
    What do you find horrible about that video?

    As for where I found it, it was created by the owner of one of the blogs I’ve been following off and on through the primaries, The Jed Report.
    http://www.jedreport.com/

    August 31, 2008
  107. Patrick Enders said:

    Holly wrote,

    What’s the bucket of urine thing. Did you describe that, Carol? I’m out of it on that one. What’s that used for?

    I think it’s called a chamber pot. Saves the trouble of a chilly trip to the outhouse in January.

    August 31, 2008
  108. Holly – Bucket of urine came from the warrant, what they were “looking for” and why??? Who knows. Reports say they came out of one house with three buckets, two of grey water from the drain under the sink that they used to flush toilets so as not to use so much water, and another from an unrelated illegal apartment above the garage where a guy had been living for a couple years without plumbing and there was a couple of inches in that (sort of like my neighbor in Phillips who was rehabbing?). Buckets? Nope, an exaggeration. I don’t know if they found anything more solid — and that would have been reported by Sheriff Fletcher with a caprophagous grin perhaps? With McCain leaving town (perhaps Pawlenty and sour grape inspired police misconduct makes it advantageous for McCain to cut convention and exit stage right?) it’ll overtly end, but what does it mean going forward? if we accept quashing of our rights, well, there we are, and it will get worse. Guess I’d better hide my machete and bolt cutters and nails.

    August 31, 2008
  109. Holly Cairns said:

    Hmmm, chamber pot warrant.

    Hey, why were they in her house, anyway?

    I can see the need for security, but I wonder about the house thing. Sounds really weird to me, and how to have a normal life after such insinuations?

    August 31, 2008
  110. Holly Cairns said:

    Well, about the video– I’ll have to think about why I think it is horrible. Does it seem to insinuate he’s into her?

    August 31, 2008
  111. HI, Holly!

    While I agree with Carol in that we need to be ever watchful so that we do not loose personal freedoms, I don’t agree about the part where you get so angry as Carol says she is, cuz in most circles, the first one to get angry looses…not my rule, but that’s the rule, and as it should be, because anger looses it’s focus.

    In these cases it is best to reserve judgement. When I was a young woman, I would involve myself in events around me to see and to learn what I could.
    We never know what is going on unless we are there, and even then, we see through colored glasses of our own experience and understanding and lack of it. We all have blind spots.

    In the case of the raided home, it may be;

    1. as Carol claims, or it may be that

    2. they themselves called the police, with ‘information’ that would trigger an over reaction to what was really there, for effect, to prove how right they are, even though they had to fabricate something to do it, or

    3. someone else entirely may have called the police for any one of a hundred reasons, that we will prolly never know.

    I have seen these kinds of things with my own eyes and ears in years past
    and I am sure they continue today. Best to reserve judgment until the truth is known.

    August 31, 2008
  112. Paul Fried said:

    Here’s the Strib story:
    http://www.startribune.com/politics/27695244.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciatkEP7DhUsr

    It’s interesting to read the comments here about “bucket of urine”: too many assumptions.

    What we don’t know yet is this: Of all the people “detained” and “searched,” how many had bolt cutters, containers of urine, etc., and how many were simply peaceful protesters exercising their right to free speech?

    The knee-jerk reactions about “buckets of urine” show that we’ve been trained to think in the wrong way, and we’re missing the point.

    Did the police over-react? In an age of illegal, preemptive wars, was this too much, illegal and preemptive violation of free speech?

    Seems that way so far. But the Republicans would certainly like to play up the urine, and the bolt-cutters, and spin ALL protesters as law-breakers, TAKING ATTENTION AWAY from far more serious law-breaking by government officials.

    Their message: We have to give up many of our freedoms in order to save our nation from leftist extreemists. And we have to give up concerns about Geneva Conventions and torture treaties to defend ourselves against Islamic Terrorists.

    I think there’s a thread that runs from the left to the Islamic terrorists: The men have beards more often than delegates to the RNC.

    On behalf of bearded men, I object.

    August 31, 2008
  113. Bright – FYI, my anger focuses me, and directs my action, it fueled a pretty difficult and strenuous struggle through a BA behind the wheel of a truck and through law school — plus it’s healthy… to bring up the bucket analogy again, better to be pissed off than pissed on!
    Holly and Patrick – I agree, Holly, that McCain “Getting to know you” piece you linked to IS creepy, there’s some intense body language seeping out. Yet another narcissistic politician, perhaps? Eeeeeeeuuuuw…

    August 31, 2008
  114. Patrick Enders said:

    Does it seem to insinuate he’s into her?

    Just watch McCain while she is speaking.

    August 31, 2008
  115. john george said:

    Carol- Just a question for you regarding the supression of certain demonstrators aimed at the RNC- are you saying that all groups poised to demonstrate their particular agenda are of equal validity? Just wondering. I guess I differentiate between a group of pro-choice/gay advocates with placards and banners and a group amasings knives, guns, etc. It would seem to me that those collecting weapons have a different agenda than those painting signs. Does your interpretation of the constitution allow for conplete civil upheaval as a valid form of protest? I know I am prejudging these groups, but IMHO, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then there is probable cause to say it is a duck. Terrorist come in all sizes and nationalities, and that is what I believe people are who amass weapons for the purpose of disrupting society.

    August 31, 2008
  116. Well, John… OK, let’s see… we certainly have devastating civil upheaval right now, though it’s primarily economic. Those raided, detained and/or arrested didn’t have weapons in the guns and bombs sense, no dynamite, no anhydrous, no anthrax… instead the sorts of things for disruption and not destruction (borrowed from someone who’d noted this distinction either on this post or a St. Paul yak-yak list). Advocacy can and sometimes needs to be very loud and boisterous and disruptive to shake things loose. This is a country founded, and with a constitution developed, after a revolution, a constitution based in democracy, which now has gone by the wayside in favor of malignant capitalism, where dollars have more power than votes, and we’re inching over an economic precipise with social impacts that will be devastating. I’m much more concerned about and threatened by continued economic control and manipulation than I am by even a very large army of activists armed with computers, cell phone cameras, maps, and a honey pot or two who want to chant and dance in the streets. Yes, if it looks like a duck, and I think it looks like a duck, people planning to get in the streets in an essentially harmless way, like the people I represented of the “Crandon 29” who were dancing and singing on the sidewalk and charged with blocking a highway. Where to draw the line, which I think is where you’re going here, is one of those “I know it when I see it” issues, but I’m sure each of us puts that line in a different place. That line has been moved significantly over the last 7 years, and that’s something artificial, something I don’t agree with — the fear-based “terrorist in every neighborhood” hype is as phony as the “we’re going to freeze in the dark” arguments of utilities to build more coal plants. We have much more to fear from the economic machinations of corporations (and those who rule them) that have done such a good job of destroying our earth and society! Maybe you’re wondering if I’m viewing some agendas as more entitled to freedom of speech and association, etc? And as to that, I’m all for equality across the board, particularly in a society where some have way too much ability and power to express their views and tilt society to their purposes.

    August 31, 2008
  117. john george said:

    Carol- I’m not going to convince you of my opinion any more than you are going to convince me of yours. Lawyers do not have to be neutral, but I think law inforcement does. What is better, to limit some people’s “rights” to preserve law and order, or to have to clean up the carnage after a violent protest erupts (re. Chicago, ’68)? There is no “devastating social upheaval” right now, and I would prefer to keep it that way. I think the Colorado authorities displayed good judgement in their limitations (500 yards distance), and I think the Minnesota authorities are trying to do the same. Sorry if you don’t like that, but it is just my opinion, anyway, and has no real bearing on what, if anything, is going to happen in St. Paul. It appears the RNC is probably going to be upstaged by a hurricane, anyway. It may go down in history as the great non-event.

    As far as things being loud and boisterous to get someone’s attention, would the killings of abortion clinic doctors by rabid anti-abotionists and bombings of government buildings by white supremist groups fall under that definition? I would certainly hope not! It certainly got attention, but not the kind hoped for, fortunately. I think these types of things happen when emotion reigns rather than reason. This whole concept of line drawing seems to have gotten a little fuzzy over the last few decades. I just don’t believe in forcing my views off on anyone, but I would like the right to peacefully express them. In the case in St. Paul, there is documented threats by some of these groups. For law enforcement to set back and ignore them would seem irrisponsible, IMHO.

    September 1, 2008
  118. Paul Fried said:

    Here’s a Salon.com article about the preemptive raids in the Twin Cities in anticipation of the RNC. It talks about how “Bruce Nestor, President of the Minnesota Chapter of the National Lawyer’s Guild” is representing some of those arrested. No mention of buckets of urine, but lots of details about the intimidation tactics of the police. Some links to video of some of the police raids as well.

    Here’s the story at the Strib again about the raids.

    A few weeks ago, a variety of groups, including two self-titled anarchists, spoke at the Northfield Public Library about their plans to protest the RNC, and three of their tips were, first, that protesters should bring the kids–that it should be viewed by the public and by the police as “family friendly”; second, that folks should bring cameras and video cameras, which might reduce the risk of police abusing their power if they know they’re being watched; and third, that if there were, in fact, violent incidents by a minority, the peaceful protesters themselves intended to circle those engaged in violence and ask them to stop. I was a bit perplexed by some of the comments from the anarchists, but for the most part, they all (anarchist and others) seemed very committed to peaceful protest.

    (BTW, anarchists, by definition, are not big on authority, and at the meeting, claimed that there are as many kinds of anarchists as there are anarchists. Some self-described anarchists have sometimes been the target of intimidation and false charges by authorities. Example: It’s widely believed that Sacco and Vanzetti didn’t get a fair trial in Mass. before they were executed, and Gov. Dukakis acknowledged this formally with an apology many years after the fact, without making any claims about guilt or innocence. Sacco and Vanzetti were against WWI, fled to Mexico to avoid the draft, and so their trial was colored by the mass “drug” of “support the war” patriotism, and harsh feelings and intimidation for the free speech of anyone who disagreed.)

    John G: There were only 9 people arrested, but the number of people who plan to protest (from MN and other parts of the country) sounds like it’s in the thousands.

    It seems far too early to make judgments about any of this, except to note that the police seem to have gone too far. Of course, the police in any situation like this would want to focus on the “intelligence” they received, on which they based their decisions to raid, search, detain, etc., so we will hear about guns, knives, bow and arrow, etc.

    Anyone who wants to be truly conservative about getting the truth, getting the story right, would not want to jump to conclusions, or pass along PR attempts by the police to save their own image if not based on truth.

    For example, John, you write,

    I guess I differentiate between a group of pro-choice/gay advocates with placards and banners and a group amasings knives, guns, etc. It would seem to me that those collecting weapons have a different agenda than those painting signs.

    Is this abstract philosophical pondering, or do you assume too much about the police raids?

    One of the central ideas of the constitution was to guarantee freedoms, and to prevent the government having too much power. Because of their experience of abuse of power by the British, the framers believed it would be better to guarantee more freedom for the individual than to risk abuse of too much power by the state. During the 1960’s and ’70’s, COINTELPRO was an example of such an abuse of power. After 9-11, there was a noticeable decline in tolerance of free speech: You’re free to have an opinion as long as you support the troops and agree with the president. Excessive raids by police before the RNC tends to have a similar effect of intimidation.

    This should be problematic to anyone who is a fan of the US Constitution.

    But I know there are a lot of anti-American Bush-Cheney fans out there who think it’s just a piece of paper, and that we should compromise it and give in to post-9-11 fear.

    Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” But we have a short memory of our heritage regarding such stuff. That’s why we have Guantanamo, and extraordinary rendition, and why we had a scandal with Abu Ghraib, and the Patriot Act, and retroactive FISA immunity for telecoms, and COINTELPRO, and the Red Scare, and police raids in St. Paul. We have become, as they say, the United States of Amnesia.

    September 1, 2008
  119. John – you’re using the example of killing when addressing “loud and boisterous protest” and that’s a flawed inflammatory analogy that’s not even close to what’s happening here, either literally in the metro or logically in this discussion. Or put another way, “objection, assumes facts not in evidence!” You also state “to limit some people’s “rights” to preserve law and order, or to have to clean up the carnage after a violent protest erupts (re. Chicago, ‘68)?” but it’s not a binary — whenever someone posits something in this binary mode, it’s a false premise where reality is somewhere in between. It really isn’t a matter of my liking it or not, it’s that, as we’ll see as this unfolds, St. Paul police made pre-emptive strikes that violated basic Constitutional tenents and charges, if any, will be tossed out and the costly lawsuits begin. Speech in this country is being limited more and more, as is freedom of association, and we’re seeing increasing unreasonable searches and detentions, and yes, this is all contrary to the Constitution that I’ve taken an oath to uphold. It happens in blatant ways as we’re seeing in the St. Paul and Mpls. raids, and it’s happening more subtly but with regularity in the administrative energy proceedings handled by Office of Administrative Hearings (http://nocapx2020.info/?p=324) and at the Public Utilities Commission, I believe acting on directive from their boss, the Governor. In these cases, it’s a pattern of limitation (contrary to statute and rules) of fundamental participatory rights landowners affected by proposed projects, citizerns groups, and local units of government directly affected, requiring challenging of the limitations which is a time-consuming diversion from the issues at hand. The people, organizations and local governments don’t have a budget to put on much of a case and by having to devote resources and time to fighting for their participatory rights, their presentation of their case suffers or they drop out in frustration, effectively limiting opposition to the project. There’s a great federal case here but I don’t have the resources to take it on. Illegitimate limitations are happening every day and with each one unchallenged, with each limitation that’s effective, our rights erode. once more with feeling, in constitutional rights, it’s “use it or lose it,” and we’re losing big time.

    September 1, 2008
  120. Carol, why don’t you join an existing group that does have the resources you require, or start a 501(c)3 and raise the funds?

    If there is no existing group, that should tell you something.

    September 1, 2008
  121. Bright – This goes way off topic here, but since you posit it… and I’m deleting a LOT.

    First, it’s not that there are no organizations, there are a million organizations, but there are no funded organizations working against these utility infrastructure proposals. 501(c)(3)’s can’t get grants for legal advocacy in opposition to transmission lines (or legal advocacy about pert near anything else), and if they’re landowners in a particular fight, seeking funding would be regarded by IRS as impermissible self-interest. I started one to oppose the SW MN 345kV line but the IRS denied status based on lobbying activity — Intervention in a Certificate of Need proceeding is lobbying under Minnesota law. Over time, my clients have been landowners and communities directly affected by projects who have to pony up out of their own pocket, and what they ALL have said to me is “Why won’t any of the groups help us.” And the disturbing answer has been because the large funded organizations were in some way were part of a deal that lead to the mess that those folks were in. In Minnesota there is no Intervenor Compensation, and there is no “Public Advocate” and the Attorney General’s Office Residential Utilities Division is nowhere to be seen (only the agency Asst. AGs working for the agencies making the decision).

    Bright – when you say “if there is no existing group, that should tell you something,” what conclusion are you drawing?

    The conclusions I draw from my extensive experience over the last 13 years is that participation in utility regulatory issues as afforded by statute and rule is dependent on money, which for landowners near the project is hard to come by, that those directly affected pony up out of their own pockets to make the broader big-picture policy arguments, and that those trying to participate who have a direct interest in the outcome are subject to concerted attempts to limit their participation. Rights deriving from the constitution, statute and rule are routinely being denied by state agencies, and parties are having to fight tooth and nail, expending scarce time and resources, to stay in the process, and spend their time assuring ability to participate when they should instead be working on the substantive case (allocation of resources IS binary – when you’re working on one thing, you can’t be working on something else). People who want to participate and exercise their rights shouldn’t be thwarted at every turn and have to fight so hard to be part of the process.

    September 1, 2008
  122. Carol, I was talking about something else, but I agree that the government does stomp on individual rights at times, usually and supposedly for the greater good. It’s a tough balancing act. The pendulum swings both ways over time. Hopefully, someone will find a way to do better in the future, so that the whole and the parts are treated well.

    I am sure that there are people who will help you if they can gain something from it, like having their name in the who’s who of lawyers book, or positive glowing fame of some sort that will bring them more clients. Just a thought.

    Good luck, at any rate,

    September 1, 2008
  123. Bright – “I was talking about something else” is why I asked what you meant when you said “If there is no existing group, that should tell you something.” What do you mean? What should that tell me and anyone else?

    September 1, 2008
  124. The phrase, if there is no existing group, that should tell you something,
    means just that, no more, no less.

    Anne, I didn’t say my friends didn’t like Obama, I said he didn’t do much for the people as he has claimed to be an ‘organizer’. Plus Richie Daley is about as smart as a donut. NO offense to donuts. Sorry, Richie. Not saying he hasn’t done a few good things for Chicago, but it’s still in the top ten dirtiest cities in the country, and has a very high crime rate after all his years in office. He used to be known as “little richie” and just as an aside, it means nothing, he asked my older sister to marry him, twice back in the day. She said no.

    Anyway, it’s all mute point now. I am still where I was, but even more so since I found out that McCain was a womanizer back in the 80s, and he was divorced from his handicapped wife and was with Cindy before that. But more importantly, he doesn’t seem to have too many friends in DC and that will make him an ineffective president.

    Obama will be another war eagle, but just a different war,( where we have now been told we cannot even use air power) in Afghanistan.
    Furthermore, the RNC will not be cancelled or shortened, they have the venue until Sept. 17th, good planning there at least, as long as Gus doesn’t do too much damage. McCain will appear by satellite if nothing else.

    September 1, 2008
  125. Anne Bretts said:

    Wow, Bright. Daly is a lot of things, but dumb isn’t one of them. And I don’t know what Chicago you visit, but the one I know is amazing compared to 20 years ago. I don’t like his tactics, but it’s amazing.
    Like I said earlier, no one will ever be good enough to meet your standards, which I still don’t understand.

    September 1, 2008
  126. Patrick Enders said:

    So, Palin’s grasp of American history on display, from a candidate questionnaire for the Alaska 2006 gubernatorial race:

    11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

    SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/31/174153/834/246/581480

    (For those who might not know, the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, and the phrase “under God” was inserted in 1954 to draw a contrast with the ungodly communists of the Soviet Union. Our country was founded a bit earlier: roughly between 1776 and 1787, with the last of our founding fathers – James Madison – dying in 1836.)

    September 1, 2008
  127. David Henson said:

    Patrick – Palin negotiated the best energy deal for the citizens of Alaska in their history and has a 80-90% approval rating – what would you expect the woman’s answer to be some pedantic discourse document dates.

    September 1, 2008
  128. Patrick Enders said:

    I expect our leaders to have a grasp of American history.

    September 1, 2008
  129. Patrick Enders said:

    Understanding the history of the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase “under God” is relevent both to the relationship between the government and individual rights in the realm of religion, as well as reflecting an understanding of how we fought the great foreign policy struggle of the Cold War.

    September 1, 2008
  130. Anne Bretts said:

    The top two papers in Alaska report that her approval rating has plummeted since she became governor, and that she was in favor of the bridge to nowhere before it became politically advantageous to oppose it. She wants to drill in ANWR and that it will end the Iraq War, which she believes is about oil. Both papers have editorialized that she’s a horrible choice for VP.
    She was almost recalled as mayor of a town half the size of Northfield because one of her first acts in office was to fire the library head and police chief because they didn’t endorse her in the election.
    Cindy McCain and Republican officials say she has foreign policy experience because Alaska borders Russia.
    Oh, and she just announced that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant and due between the election and the inauguration. She is going to give her full support and care to her daughter as she plans for the wedding and birth.
    So, she is dealing with a special needs infant, an ethics probe, a wedding and a new grandchild — and she’s asking the press to respect her daughter’s privacy!
    She cares so little about her teen-ager’s privacy that should would put her in the national spotlight when she’s only 44 and has years to take on national office.
    And so while she has no experience, she does show presidential judgment…Huh?

    September 1, 2008
  131. True dat, Patrick… though I’m willing to bet good money that W. doesn’t know the history of the Pledge either… not that this puts Palin in good company. In fact, I’d also be willing to bet that most Americans think that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by Jefferson himself, or, at least, that “under God” was always part of it.

    So, how many of you are waiting for the first religious-right Republican to stand up and say that Palin’s unwed, teenage daughter being pregnant is a private, family matter.

    For the record, I think it is a private, family matter, but that doesn’t stop Palin from wanting to legislate what other women can do with their wombs. Should not other women’s decisions about their own pregnancies be private, family matters?

    Isn’t Barack Obama’s half-brother also a private, family matter? How about the statements of his preacher? How about Bill Clinton’s infidelity?

    I also wonder if Palin’s daughter wants to marry the father, or if she will do so out of political expediency. What a bad situation to be in.

    Maybe the Governor should have been stricter with her daughter about contraception. Was that talked about in their house? I’m guessing they’re an abstinence-only sort of family.

    Once you open the barn door, so to speak…

    September 1, 2008
  132. David Henson said:

    Brendon – My understanding is that Palin is a huge champion of birth control, she just does not fit easily into a political box. I would not under estimate the savvy, the resolve and the naive honesty required to force a better deal with the energy companies in AK. When Teddy Roosevelt was made VP it was not because the party liked him so much as they just wanted him out of New York City – I would guess that some political forces just wanted Palin out of AK because she doesn’t play ball.

    September 1, 2008
  133. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    My understanding is that she is opposed to education about birth control.
    From the same 2006 questionnaire:

    Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

    SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Palin_opposed_sexed.html?showall

    September 1, 2008
  134. David H.,

    Again, you make a solid point. I hadn’t considered that. I think, as I agreed with you before, that Palin does win some points on the “independent buzz” scale. Her rather far-right positions seem to fit her pretty squarely into that box, however. As more is learned about her, we’ll see how easily she can be boxed in, and, more importantly, how she responds to those efforts to paint her a certain way.

    Patrick, I would say that the 2006 questionnaire seems a little slanted in the angle of its question regarding sex education vs. abstinence. I’m for sex education in schools, for example, but I’ve never thought distribution of contraceptives in schools and school-based clinics as the way to go. Plus they use the word “explicit” to describe sex ed; seems like it was looking for only one “correct” answer out of her. I’d take that with many grains of salt.

    September 1, 2008
  135. Patrick Enders said:

    Feminists for Life does not take a stand on contraception:
    From FFL’s FAQ:

    “Preconception issues including abstinence and contraception are outside of our mission.”

    http://www.feministsforlife.org/FAQ/index.htm#contraception

    So I’ll stick with her words about her position, until better evidence comes along.

    September 1, 2008
  136. Patrick Enders said:

    Brendon,
    Hold on there. David’s point is not supported by Feminists For Life’s own FAQ, as I noted above.

    Her political positions pretty much fall well to the right of the political mainstream. Some people may agree with those positions, and support her for that. That’s fine, but I think it is important to accurately understand what she stands for, first and foremost.

    September 1, 2008
  137. Patrick,

    I wish they’d all wise up and start using Likert scales!

    Then debate could be more informed by nuance and shades of gray, rather than the “for or against” mentality that chokes so much political progress and compromise in this country.

    September 1, 2008
  138. Paul Fried said:

    Here’s a new Strib article on the expectations of perhaps 50,000 protesters — most of them, mind you, not bringing guns, bows, arrows, slingshots, or containers of bodily fluids.

    And here’s an update at Salon.com on the involvement of federal officials in the crackdowns and heavy-handed intimidation tactics by police.

    The overall effect of the raids on the populace? Think twice about being involved in any peace protests, or you’ll get searched, raided, and if you’re in a bus on the way to a protest, your bus may be seized, and you may be left stranded on the roadside. Who would want to be a peace protester in such a society, with such disincentives? Better to watch “American Idol” and stay at home, or as Bush said after 9-11, go out and shop.

    We may not have free speech, but if you’ve got the money–or the credit–you’re free to shop.

    September 1, 2008
  139. Patrick,

    Re: 136: I was agreeing with David’s larger point about the Republican system in Alaska wanting her to be out of their hair, not about the specific issue of birth control.

    Obviously, her positions fall pretty far to right in everything I’ve read in the past few days.

    September 1, 2008
  140. Patrick Enders said:

    Brendon,
    I love “nuance and shades of gray.” I think the problem is that neither works in sound bites.

    p.s. What are Likert scales?

    September 1, 2008
  141. Paul Fried said:

    David and Patrick: As I understand it, Palin implimented an economic deal so Alaska would get more tax dollars from the oil industry there.

    It had nothing to do with long-term, low-carbon, renewable energy. It had nothing to do with energy independence from foreign oil. It had nothing to do with being pro-environment (Palin’s in favor of drilling, and sued the Feds for putting the Polar Bear on the endangered list because it would hurt oil).

    This was not so much energy policy as it was economic policy. It’s like Indian Casinos, or like state lotteries. If it results in an economic boost for some folks, and in Alaska’s case, if it turns the state’s economy around and pulls it back from the abyss, it’s hard not to like in the short term.

    Does this mean that, if she were VP, we’d get a windfall profits tax on oil companies? I doubt it.

    September 1, 2008
  142. On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being “not at all” and 10 being “completely”, how much does Patrick realize that he already secretly knew what a Likert scale was?

    Good ol’ Likert… and you’re right, of course, saying I’m “sort of, kind of for and against” something does not play well on the radio. The irony being that politicians who say such things get labeled as “wishy-washy”, when in reality it much more honestly reflects people’s beliefs and the human condition.

    September 1, 2008
  143. Patrick Enders said:

    At 3:06PM today: “1.”

    As of 5:05PM today: “10.”

    September 1, 2008
  144. Jane Moline said:

    Likert or not, Palin is a flake.

    September 1, 2008
  145. Paul Fried said:

    It seems Amy Goodman of the “Democracy Now” show was arrested along with her news crew. About 100 demonstrators, peaceful it seems, arrested, but many more report having a good day marching, demonstrating, peaceful protest, walking with children and old-sters, signs, etc. Many surprised at riot-gear: The St. Paul and Mpls police might not be reacting as strongly, or participating in as many of the arrests, as some of the police who were called in from elsewhere?

    Another YouTube video of some of the impending arrests:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCST-5IXzDA

    I’m noticing that the HTML links I tried to include in #141 either never got there or were removed; did I break a rule?

    September 2, 2008
  146. William Siemers said:

    David H.

    That video just about sums it up. The pick is purely political. It is just about getting a few more voters out in the battleground states. It is not about taking votes away from Obama. Many working class whites embrace the ‘hate ’em all…don’t trust any of ’em’, point of view. These are voters who would have stayed home with a more conventional vp. Mc Cain made a simple choice: Experience be damned….give them someone they can relate to.

    Somehow I don’t think Biden will have the same effect on the Dem side. Which means Obama’s camp will have to work even harder and get every possible voter out on election day.

    September 2, 2008
  147. David H.: (re: link in comment 148) Thanks for helping me start my work week off with a few belly laughs!

    September 2, 2008
  148. David Henson said:

    William – it’s all political. Obama picked Biden because he is a white male Catholic which has been a weak demographic for Obama. All McCain, Obama and Biden have done in their careers is sit around listening to people talk. Palin has balanced a budget and negotiated a tremendous deal for Alaskans with the most powerful companies in the world (in a way almost single handedly). If she were male she would be viewed as a wunderkind but because she is female people are having a hard time accepting what she has accomplished. Wait until next weekends news hour interviews and I bet you’ll wish she would have the top spot.

    September 2, 2008
  149. Anne Bretts said:

    David, this isn’t about her being attacked for being a woman, it’s about her and McCain using her being “a woman candidate” without vetting her and then saying that any criticism is sexist.
    The real problem is that it shows the total lack of judgment and the unstable temper of McCain. He wanted Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge and the anti-women’s rights folks had a giant fit. He tossed Romney and Pawlenty to the curb and chose Palin because he was forced and was angry. He didn’t choose her because she was the best qualified candidate, he caved to the right.
    So how is he his own man? He dumped GIuliani as a speaker to have Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman. How are either of these guys about change? How is Lieberman acceptable to the party?
    So in one fell swoop, McCain has taken the focus off himself, taken the focus off his message, taken the focus off Obama and turned possible supporters into enemies. Romney has said he’s done with McCain, and the only reason Pawlenty will keep working is to prove he will be a good candidate in 2012. Party leaders already are talking about what a loyal guy he is and that the party owes him for the way he was treated.
    Instead of a reasoned strategy, McCain has chosen a PERSON who has accepted $24 million in earmarks and supported the bridge to nowhere and supported disgraced Sen. Ted Stevens — and calls herself a reformer. This person has outstanding ethics investigations going on. And this person who claims parenthood as proof of her ability to lead has a daughter who is living with her aunt. She has so little concern for her child and future son-in-law that she exposed both of them to the national spotlight.
    It’s not about the child getting pregnant but about how this amazing parent is treating her job as a parent, a job she says shows she’s ready to be president.
    Anyone who backed Clinton and thinks Palin is a suitable substitute was never a Democrat in the first place.

    September 2, 2008
  150. Anne Bretts said:

    Giuliani is back on schedule, for tomorrow night.

    September 2, 2008
  151. john george said:

    Carol- Your objection, “…“objection, assumes facts not in evidence!” in post #121 looks a little different to me today. What with a few thrown objects through a bank and department store windows, and one into a bus window, causing injury to the driver, I concede, none of this was being done before the protest. There was no evidence to support a “pre-emptive” strike by the police, you said? Perhaps there was no tangible evidence, aside from threats, which may or may not have been carried out, but it appears to me that the threats were carried out. Is this a case of “probable cause?” And, isn’t the making of terroristic threats a felony? Just wondering.

    On the original thought in the thread, comparing the DNC and the RNC, in Colorado, protesters were held back 1500 ft, about 3 blocks. This same standard was attempted in St. Paul, but it was forced down by the protesters, something about not being able to be effective at a distance, if I remember right. Hmmmm. Whose rights were actually infringed upon in this case?

    Also, the outbreak of violence served what purpose? Did it coerce any response from the RNC delegates? Whose property was actually damaged? Someone from another state? No. It was local properties. If this is considered allowable as “loud and boisterous” protest, then I know I do not agree with loud and boisterous protest. Fortunately, this was a small percentage of the small turnout of total protesters who obeyed the laws, respected other people’s property, and communicated their opposition in a way that was effective. When disagreement is done respectfully, then there is a path for communication. I don’t think anyone wants to set down and talk to someone who demonstrates disrespect of them.

    Paul F.- I was not “abstractly philosophysing” about anything. I was just expressing my opinion of reported evidence. A person can respond however they want to the reports of what was found. This just seemed like a reasonable response to me. Throwing objects through windows of businesses and buses is not an expression of freedom of speech. It is malicious damage of private property and a threat to the personal well-being of those users. I think the actions of the police to “suppress” these types of actions align with my interpretation of their responsibility to enforce law and order. I think there are peaceful ways to demonstrate civil disobedience without jeapordizing the health and wellfair of private citizens and their property. Locking arms to block traffic is one of those ways, but there comes a time to move, once you have gotten your point across. If you chose to disobey an officer of the law, then you place yourself under the judgement of that law. That is quite evident in the outcome of the demonstrations.

    September 2, 2008
  152. Patrick Enders said:

    Protests can be a serious two-edged sword. Richard Nixon loved protesters, and used them as stage props in his ascedancy to power.

    Caught this on public radio last week:
    To The Best Of Our Knowledge: Rethinking the Sixties
    http://wpr.org/book/080824a.html

    I highly recommend the Rick Perlstein interview. “Rick Perlstein is a historian who thinks the real story of the sixties is the rise of the modern conservative movement. His books include “Before the Storm” and “Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America.”

    I think I need to read this book.

    September 2, 2008
  153. Patrick Enders said:

    John George wrote,

    Throwing objects through windows of businesses and buses is not an expression of freedom of speech. It is malicious damage of private property and a threat to the personal well-being of those users. I think the actions of the police to “suppress” these types of actions align with my interpretation of their responsibility to enforce law and order. I think there are peaceful ways to demonstrate civil disobedience without jeapordizing the health and wellfair of private citizens and their property. Locking arms to block traffic is one of those ways, but there comes a time to move, once you have gotten your point across. If you chose to disobey an officer of the law, then you place yourself under the judgement of that law.

    Yep. What John said. If you do something illegal, you can expect to be arrested. There was no need for violent protest, and those few instigators make it easy to characterize the rest of us – a large number of reasonable, responsible people opposed to the war policies and civil rights abuses of the Bush administration – in a very negative light.

    September 2, 2008
  154. John – Of course it’s different today, there are facts in evidence, facts which could be enough to arrest someone. Before that, there wasn’t sufficient evidence. Take a look at the video of the Amy Goodman arrest if you haven’t already for a up-close and personal arrest without basis. That was a big mistake and it will have wide repercussions. That’s a graphic example of what shouldn’t be happening, though her name got her out of jail quickly, and others in the same situation will be sitting longer.

    September 2, 2008
  155. I was saddened to see the way the police were goaded by the men who used was appeared to be their weapon shield camouflaged as a sign. It is hideous.
    I know the police make honest mistakes and from time to time and they get carried away, but most of the people have no idea under what stresses they live every day, so that we can all take a lovely stroll down the streets of our towns without delays from criminal activity. Why take it out on these, the most honorable of souls?

    Most won’t even know what I am talking about. Walk a mile in my shoes, or in the shined boots of a military pr paramilitary man.

    September 2, 2008
  156. john george said:

    Carol- Where is this video? I would love to see it. One thing about reporters (I’m asuming she was one?) trying to cover this type of event is that they get themselves into harm’s way. I think it is a little like the media trying to cover the front lines of a war. There are risks. You also said, “…Before that, there wasn’t sufficient evidence…”. Do you mean for something to be proven in a court of law? I wouldn’t know how to judge that. When the police had reports of plans for violence, I appreciate their prudence in trying to quell that. Perhaps you think they do not have a right to do this, and I would have to say that that is your opinion of the interpretation of the constitution. I just don’t see where violence or plans to commit it is justified by the constitution. I think Pat has a great opinion in that these few individuals give everyone a bad name. I agree, and I don’t think it matters what is being protested.

    September 2, 2008
  157. Patrick Enders said:

    I wrote, “There was no need for violent protest, and those few instigators make it easy to characterize the rest of us – a large number of reasonable, responsible people opposed to the war policies and civil rights abuses of the Bush administration – in a very negative light.”

    And, I might add, this plays right into Republican strategy.

    September 2, 2008
  158. John – Here’s the video on my site: http://legalectric.org/weblog/2379/
    It’s all over the internet — search Amy Goodman arrest on Youtube, I can’t remember where I got it, probably indymedia. or coldsnap (National Lawyer’s Guild RNC group). Go to http://uptake-minnesota.groups.theuptake.org/ for a lot of on-the-scene reports.
    Once more with feeling — What I have trouble with is pre-emptive arrests, arrests of journalists, and arrests based on what “might” happen, way too speculative, and use of threats of arrest, or “investigations” based in retaliation or to quash participation and speech. A big no-no. When I get back, for sure I’ll be in the fray, it’s very frustrating to be out here in plantation Delaware and not able to help spring these folks who shouldn’t be in jail. And don’t even get me going about Biden!

    September 2, 2008
  159. Patrick Enders said:

    John, you wrote:

    One thing about reporters (I’m asuming she was one?) trying to cover this type of event is that they get themselves into harm’s way.

    Amy Goodman and Democracy Now are somewhere in the realm of advocacy journalism.

    You can find their work here:
    http://www.democracynow.org/

    September 2, 2008
  160. William Siemers said:

    Bright…

    “Goaded”? From what I saw they walked across the street with a sign stretched in front of them…they walked across the street and were shot at with tear gas canisters. The police, in full battle gear, were about 15 feet away from the protesters and they opened fire. What were they worried about? Why did they have to shoot gas canisters at unarmed protesters in shorts and tee shirts?

    And why did these ‘most honorable of souls’ continue to fire at the protesters well after they had driven them back past their initial position? Did they need to ‘win’ this little engagement…assert their power? Of course they are under so much stress dealing with unarmed ‘hideous’ kids in flip flops, we should understand that they might get ‘carried away’ and shoot about 20 gas canisters at them. Just another little ‘honest mistake’.

    Bright…understand this…In this country the establishment has used the police against progressive forces for many years. Whether civil rights, labor, suffrage or anti-war struggles…police have been there breaking heads, and worse, on behalf of the status quo. That’s a fact. We do not need to justify brutality…we need to stop it.

    September 2, 2008
  161. Jerold Friedman said:

    I worked with the National Lawyers Guild yesterday on the streets outside the RNC. NLG President Marjorie Cohn wrote the following article which is more informative than my observations:

    “Since Friday, local police and sheriffs, working with the FBI, conducted preemptive searches, seizures and arrests. Glenn Greenwald described the targeting of protestors by ‘teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets.’ Journalists were detained at gunpoint and lawyers representing detainees were handcuffed at the scene.

    “‘I was personally present and saw officers with riot gear and assault rifles, pump action shotguns,’ said Bruce Nestor, the President of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, who is representing several of the protestors. ‘The neighbor of one of the houses had a gun pointed in her face when she walked out on her back porch to see what was going on. There were children in all of these houses, and children were held at gunpoint.'”

    Full article:

    http://marjoriecohn.com/2008/09/preemptive-strikes-against-protest-at.html

    September 2, 2008
  162. Paul Fried said:

    Thanks, Jerold and William, for your comments. John G., I think you assume way too much.

    There was a story a few weeks back about a young person being arrested, and then being approached by the FBI and asked to attend vegan pot lucks with left-leaning types, and to infiltrate, because he “fit in” as the “type.” This was the kind of practice that occurred during the ’60’s and ’70’s with FBI’s COINTELPRO operations.

    Now if we know that there have been attempts to infiltrate (there have been other such reports of infiltration of peace groups since shortly after 9-11), then how do we know who were the youths in black, wearing bandanas, tipping over garbage containers and setting fires? How do we know if they were anarchists, or members of some grassroots violent group, or if they were recruited by the Republican Party, or the government, to discredit the protesters? Rush Limbaugh was speaking longingly of violent protest, and he makes enough money to hire some thugs to do some violence and give himself something to rant about.

    And there are larger interests with much more money and motivation than Limbaugh–I’m only using him half-jokingly as an example. This is nothing in the Karl Rove, machiavellian playbook. This is nothing in the playbook of the party that, when McCain ran against Bush, placed photographs of McCain under the wipers of cars at white churches, photos with his dark-skinned adopted daughters (from India), with the implication: McCain is a “nigger-lover.” And worse. PBS did a fascinating documentary on past Rovian election tactics. You should try to obtain and view it sometime. In fact, it’s very well-documented, with interesting interviews, and you don’t feel at all as if you’re viewing a conspiracy theory film meant to smear the kind and charitable citizen that Karl Rove must surely be. Instead, you tend to say, Gosh, I wish I knew more of this before 2000.

    So maybe they were violent n’er-do-wells. Or maybe they were hired to do what they did for effect. Both have happened in history, and we have no way of knowing, so why assume? People have been killed, and police have planted guns on them, to make it appear as if the police acted in self-defense, when later it has been proven that the gun was a plant. This kind of stuff happens.

    Again, the vast majority of protesters have been peaceful, and the police have overdone it. They searched and detained members of a group from NYC who were staying in Mpls., a group that sometimes films and documents police brutality. What did the police make sure to confiscate the day before the RNC? Their cameras.

    John, your approach is to give the police the benefit of the doubt at every turn, but there’s a great deal of evidence that something else is going on.

    September 3, 2008
  163. William, you and I saw two different scenes. No one was arrested from the description I heard, and there was no shooting of any sort involved. This sort of jumping to conclusions, and then brow beating of anyone with another view is really pathetic.

    September 3, 2008
  164. Jerold Friedman said:

    This is the National Lawyers Guild – Minnesota update:

    In what appears to be the first recorded charge under the 2002 Minnesota version of the Federal Patriot Act, Ramsey County Prosecutors have formally charged 8 alleged leaders of the RNC Welcoming Committee with Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism. Monica Bicking, Eryn Trimmer, Luce Guillen Givins, Erik Oseland, Nathanael Secor, Robert Czernik, Garrett Fitzgerald, and Max Spector, face up to 7 1/2 years in prison under the terrorism enhancement charge which allows for a 50% increase in the maximum penalty.

    Affidavits filed in support of the search warrants executed in raids over the weekend, and used to support probable cause for the arrest warrants, are based on paid, confidential informants who infiltrated the RNCWC on behalf of law enforcement. They allege that members of the group sought to kidnap delegates to the RNC, assault police officers with firebombs and explosives, and sabotage airports in St. Paul. These allegations appears to be uncorroborated by any evidence other than the claims of the informants.

    These charges wrongly turn stated public plans to blockade traffic and disrupt the RNC into acts of terrorism. The charges represent an abuse of the criminal justice system and seek to intimidate any person organizing large scale public demonstrations potentially involving civil disobedience. It is likely that the expressed “anarchist” political views of the defendants will be a major issue in any future legal proceedings. The last time such charges were brought in Minnesota was in 1918, against labor union organizers charged with “criminal syndicalism.”

    Bruce D. Nestor, President
    Minnesota Chapter National Lawyers Guild
    3547 Cedar Avenue South
    Minneapolis, MN 55407
    612-659-9019 – Phone
    612-436-3664 – Fax

    September 3, 2008
  165. Jerold – thank you for getting this out. Too scary for words, seeing charges like this, and to see the “Patriot Act” used in ways we’d apprehensively anticipated.

    September 3, 2008
  166. Patrick Enders said:

    Possibly the best moment of the Republican convention:

    After a segment with NBC’s Chuck Todd ended today, Republican consultant Mike Murphy and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan were caught on a live mic ridiculing the choice of Sarah Palin.

    “It’s over,” said Noonan, and then responded to a question of whether Palin is the most qualified Republican woman McCain could have chosen.

    “The most qualified? No. I think they went for this — excuse me — political bullsh** about narratives,” she said. “Every time Republicans do that … because that’s not where they live and it’s not what they’re good at and they blow it.”

    Murphy chimed in:

    “The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.”

    Noonan’s blunt call contrasted with her conflicted column today saying Palin “could become a transformative political presence.”

    See/hear it for yourselves: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Noonan_Murphy_trash_Palin_on_hot_mic_Its_over.html#commentsl

    September 3, 2008
  167. Patrick Enders said:

    Possibly the best moment of the Republican convention:

    After a segment with NBC’s Chuck Todd ended today, Republican consultant Mike Murphy and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan were caught on a live mic ridiculing the choice of Sarah Palin.

    “It’s over,” said Noonan, and then responded to a question of whether Palin is the most qualified Republican woman McCain could have chosen.

    “The most qualified? No. I think they went for this — excuse me — political bullsh** about narratives,” she said. “Every time Republicans do that … because that’s not where they live and it’s not what they’re good at and they blow it.”

    Murphy chimed in:

    “The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.”

    Noonan’s blunt call contrasted with her conflicted column today saying Palin “could become a transformative political presence.”

    See/hear it for yourselves: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Noonan_Murphy_trash_Palin_on_hot_mic_Its_over.html#commentsl

    September 3, 2008
  168. Patrick Enders said:

    Apologies for the double post. Don’t know how that happened.

    Jerold wrote that they were charged with “Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism”? That’s very disturbing. Violent activities should be charged as violent activities, or even conspiracy charged as conspiracy to commit violent acts. The punishment should fit the crime, and not have a “terrorism” escalator thrown on top of it.

    September 3, 2008
  169. David Henson said:

    Patrick – Palin was a talent pick over career establishment choices so there will be some jealousy. From what I have seen the people who have actually interviewed Palin “in person” fawn over her. Obama feels so threatened he is comparing his campaign finances against her mayoral budget failing to mention Alaska’s budget and the significant revenue Palin added.

    September 3, 2008
  170. Patrick Enders said:

    Well David, I have to give you credit for being consistently optimistic.

    September 3, 2008
  171. Patrick Enders said:

    I’ll give my review of Palin’s speech now, in advance of her actually giving it: That was a good, well-crafted speech, and it was skillfully delivered.

    Here’s a good (and liberal) blogger on the subject:

    Republicans have lowered expectations for Palin, and a lot of Democrats have bought into it. That’s a mistake — Palin, I suspect, will be very good tonight.

    Sarah Palin reminds me a great deal of George W. Bush — underwhelming qualifications, overwhelming confidence. It’s a combination that makes exceeding expectations pretty easy.

    Look back to the event in Ohio last week, and notice how poised she was speaking to a national audience for the first time. Substantively, she lied blatantly about her opposition to the infamous “bridge to nowhere.” But stylistically, she was composed and charming. The same it true if you go back and look at the 2006 debates in Alaska. The substance is weak, but the rhetorical style is strong.

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014543.php

    September 3, 2008
  172. Holly Cairns said:

    I wish we could let this pregnancy issue rest– whether it be Palin’s pregnancy or her daughter’s. I’m getting bored with that. On to what Palin can do, besides having babies or deceiving us about pregancies, etc.

    The most damning thing I’ve heard is the secessionist issue. Goodbye, Alaska? Now that’s pretty odd. I doubt we’d let “Seward’s folly” go so easily. Was she a secessionist, or was it just her husband who registered with that party? Weird stuff.

    And the second most damning thing is her inability to match McCain’s views or be his huge supporter. Who would be running the show?

    September 3, 2008
  173. john george said:

    Paul F.- You said I give the police the benefit of the doubt. I feel, from your comments, that you do not. I think that is probably our differences in how we approach authority. I pick up an attitude in many of the comments in this thread that authority is something to mistrust and, in some cases, treat with dirision. It seems there was an attitude that emerged back in the ’60’s that went along this line. I come from a different world view. I approach authority as coming from God, not man. Even Jesus told Pilate that he could do nothing to Him unless His Father had allowed it. Also, in Jude, it is said that Michael, the archangel, would not bring a railing retribution even against Satan. If you look at Abraham in Genesis, you find him appealing to God to spare the righteous in Sodom. I believe there is a place of appeal to authority when it is not a moral issue. And, even in moral issues, I do not believe that rebellion is the correct method. Take a look at Solzhenitsen in his resistance to the Communist dictators. This raises some issues even with the way this country broke away from England, but I’m not going down that path here.

    I still take my stand that violence and anarchy do not bring resolution to a situation, even if you wear a press badge. The whole idea that a person can create mayhem and property damage and be exempted from any responsibility for their actions just because they are “demonstrating” is an affront to the Constitution and law and order, IMHO. I believe it infringes upon the rights of the property owners affected to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

    September 3, 2008
  174. Patrick Enders said:

    Holly,

    Was she a secessionist, or was it just her husband who registered with that party?

    It appears she has never registered with the party, but she has
    – attended the AIP’s 1994 Convention
    – attended the AIP’s 2000 Convention
    – given a videotaped address to the AIP Convention in 2008

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/3/9424/97589

    September 3, 2008
  175. nick waterman said:

    I’m with Holly on the pregnancy issue being a non-issue. And we will never sort out the experience issue: if you’re with them, she’s full of executive experience and the media are a bunch of mean-spirited lefties. If you’re agin ’em, she’s a newbie.
    But here are the two issues I wish would get a little more play:

    1) her nutball pastor and her nutball speech at that church (http://www.(huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

    I mean, my goodness, night after night after night after week of jeremiah wright and why won’t obama disown him, and this hasn’t gotten any play outside of the actual leftist media (as opposed to the corporate owned media that righties call leftist); and
    2) her meanness and pettiness toward cancer survivor Lyda Green as heard on her appearance on the Bob and Mark show in Alaska radio (available on youtube). The silence, where she could have spoken up instead of tittering at the name-calling and mean-spiritedness, is deafening. Talk about double standards — if Hillary or Michelle had said this, it too would be on an endless loop punctuated only by the self-righteous ranting and tsk-tsking of Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, et al.

    September 3, 2008
  176. Holly Cairns said:

    Hi Nick. How’s Minneapolis? Can you get around?

    Ooh, more to think about. I’m watching and googling.

    September 3, 2008
  177. William Siemers said:

    Bright…

    http://the-uptake.groups.theuptake.org/en/videogalleryView/id/695/

    This looked alot like what you described. If it is not the same incident, so be it. Same movie…different scene.

    You’ve been beating on my brow with your opinions for several weeks now…thought I’d return the favor.

    September 3, 2008
  178. Bruce Wiskus said:

    As of right now I am in the undecided category. I have issues with both candidates that I can not resolve yet. In full disclosure mode I tend to be a fiscal conservative first and I fall in the middle on social issues. I usually vote right of center but can and will cross party lines for someone I support.

    Of course not surprisingly on this blog the vast majority of contributors are left of center. With that being the case let me ask a few questions.

    There has been a lot of talk about how Gov. Palin is not experienced enough to be the VP. I find this to be a fairly disingenuous criticisms in light of Sen Obama’s level of experience. How is it a good thing for Obama to have limited political experience as the Presidential candidate yet it is not ok for Gov. Palin to be a newcomer to national politics and run as the VP?

    Palin has been accused of flip flopping, yet Sen Biden said he did not think that Obama was ready to be President, it is amazing what being asked to be the VP does for ones prospective. The good Sen Biden also said he would be proud to serve on the same ticket as McCain. How is that not a flip flop?

    http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=N1umkUlf

    When it comes down to my vote in November I will vote for the person that will show me they are serious about balancing the budget and getting a strong energy policy to remove us from foreign oil. So far neither candidate has won me over on those issues.

    September 3, 2008
  179. Paul Fried said:

    John: You’re off-target. It’s not about authority coming from God, because if this were another context, you might be on the other side of the fence. If it were the Clinton years and Clinton had his press conference in which he said, “I did not have sex with that woman,” you might voice your concerns and suspicions about the many rumors regarding his alleged affairs. You might wonder if the rumors are just lies, or if there’s some truth to them. Trusting authority vs. giving authority the benefit of the doubt because it’s from God is not the issue here. Clinton abused his power and lied under oath. Bush abused his power and had his own lies. Rove developed lies to new heights of political art. It’s about learning the lessons of history, not about benefit of the doubt. I advocated fairness: Maybe there were violent anarchists who acted on their own. Maybe they were planted for effect. I’m leaving the question open. You’re assuming power and authority should be trusted–because all authority comes from God?

    No. Hitler was an authority, but you have to twist the “from God” argument beyond usefulness and recognition to get it to work: Perhaps you say God allowed Hitler to have authority so that we could learn about abuse of authority, but the authority was still from God. Sure, but then it blows the argument that authority should be trusted because it’s from God. If God’s point is to learn how human authority can be abused, then we miss the whole point if we are as cunning as lambs. Baaaaa. The scripture passage counsels, “Be innocent as lambs, but cunning as serpents.” You’re failing the test, John. You have it backwards.

    People of faith can say that all real human power and authority comes from God, who perhaps they argue to be the model for all good authority. Fine. But without an awareness of how human authority is abused (and for that reason should not be trusted as we do God’s authority), it’s too easy to mess up. We can’t risk being cunning as sheep, John. And for those who take scripture very literally and seriously, one is being disobedient to the authority of God if one chooses to be that foolish about trust (cunning as a lamb) instead of being “cunning as serpents” as scripture commands. Or at least, that’s the way I’d read and apply that scripture passage to this situation. Correct me if you think I’ve misread it.

    September 3, 2008
  180. John – you state, “I still take my stand that violence and anarchy do not bring resolution to a situation, even if you wear a press badge.” Who among the press was bringing violence and anarchy? Or did you mean “police badge?” I’m confused…

    September 3, 2008
  181. Paul Fried said:

    John, as an afterthought, I want to mention that I’m not unaware of St. Paul’s counsel in Romans regarding obeying human authority (a helpful thing if you don’t want a young church to be snuffed out, from one point of view). But I came across this in a review of a Richard Cassidy book on Paul:

    “Cassidy interprets Paul as a convinced apologist for Roman rule in Romans 13, but as a reflective critic, similar to Luke’s Jesus, in Philippians. Cassidy finds plausible factors in Paul’s imprisonment that impelled him to re-evaluate the Roman authorities. In particular, Paul, after facing the agonies of his own prolonged, unjust imprisonment, gained a clearer realization of Roman injustice in the crucifixion of Jesus and in his own imprisonment and possible execution and was confronted with a new awareness of the extent of Nero’s moral depravity and assertions of sovereignty.”

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200212/ai_n9153781

    Perhaps even Paul had a learning curve regarding his relationship to human authority and abuse of power.

    Pardon the major thread drift, but my point: Don’t trust the police around the RNC simply because they’re police, and remember Jesus’ advice to soldiers: Don’t bully. Don’t abuse your power.

    September 3, 2008
  182. john george said:

    Paul F.- I think you are not understanding my point, here. My whole argument has been against the use of violence to resist authority and demonstrate opposition to a cause. An anarchist, just by the pure definition of the word, is one who rejects any authority as being higher than the individual. These people who threaten to and carry out violent acts of disobedience are not resisting the police. They are resisting the law that is over the police. There is a reason that police officers are refered to as “law enforcement” agents. They have no authority aside from what is granted them by the various penal codes. This is the point I am trying to make.

    That being said, we are dealing with a fallen world, so for individual police officers to react wrongly is probably as much to be expected as the anarchists doing their violent deeds. These individuals fall under the same judgement of the law, as I’m sure Carol O. will dutifully see carried out. I don’t think I advocated blind trust of the police so much as a respectful approach to them. Please forgive me if I did not express myself clearly. Some of the comments here, IMHO, hint more at a contempt for the officers and their superiors. My argument still stands that opposition to a cause does not, in and of itself, justify violent acts to express that opposition.

    My world view has me look beyond the various events of the day to try to find the purposes of God in them. That is something, I readily confess, I do not always recognize immediately. Just because I don’t recognize or understand them does not mean there there are no purposes of God in what is going on in the world. My need of understanding presses me into greater communion with Him to find out what they are. That same access is granted to all who believe that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. I don’t mean to be preachy, here, but I am not ashamed to say where I am coming from if it helps anyone to understand me, no matter whether they agree with me or not.

    September 4, 2008
  183. William Siemers said:

    John G.

    In my opinion, incidents of police brutality deserve contempt, and those who attempt to justify that brutality should not expect a kind and respectful response. ‘Derision’ in response to the abuse of authority, does not equal derision for authority.

    September 4, 2008
  184. Griff – I note there’s about a delay in my posts, this last one, about 12 hours. What’s up with that?

    September 4, 2008
  185. Patrick Enders said:

    More evidence supporting the case against Palin for abuse-of-power: her own emails to the head of the Public Safety, repeatedly criticizing the lack of punishment for him.

    Washington Post “Palin E-Mails Show Intense Interest in Trooper’s Penalty”:

    Her emails included the following:

    “This trooper is still out on the street, in fact he’s been promoted,”

    “It was a joke, the whole year long ‘investigation’ of him,” the e-mail said. “This is the same trooper who’s out there today telling people the new administration is going to destroy the trooper organization, and that he’d ‘never work for that b****’, Palin’.)”

    “He’s still bragging about it in my hometown and after another cop confessed to witnessing the kill, the trooper was ‘investigated’ for over a year and merely given a slap on the wrist,” the e-mail said. “Though he’s out there arresting people today for the same crime!”
    “He threatened to kill his estranged wife’s parent, refused to be transferred to rural Alaska and continued to disparage Natives in words and tone, he continues to harass and intimidate his ex. — even after being slapped with a restraining order that was lifted when his supervisors intervened,” the e-mail said. “He threatens to always be able to come out on top because he’s ‘got the badge’, etc. etc. etc.)”

    “my ex-brother-in-law, the trooper, who threatened to kill my dad yet was not even reprimanded by his bosses and still to this day carries a gun, of course.”
    “We can’t have double standards. Remember when the death threat was reported, and follow-on threats from Mike that he was going to ‘bring Sarah and her family down’ — instead of any reprimand WE were told by trooper union personnel that we’d be sued if we talked about those threats. Amazing. . . .
    “So consistency is needed here,” the e-mail said. “No one’s above the law. If the law needs to be changed to not allow access to guns for people threatening to kill someone, it must apply to everyone.”

    And remember, this is coupled with her aide calling the Public Safety director and delivering the following message:

    “The Palins can’t figure out why nothing’s going on,” Bailey said in the recorded phone call. “So Todd and Sarah are scratching their heads saying ‘Why is this guy representing the department, he’s a horrible recruiting tool.’ You know?”

    September 4, 2008
  186. Patrick Enders said:

    I had to remove my citations from that last post, because the LGN window refused to accept a post containing them. I’ll try again below:

    September 4, 2008
  187. Patrick Enders said:

    One is referenced in my post #26.

    The new one is at: (broken up into pieces to help it post)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/
    wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/
    AR2008090303210.html
    ?hpid=artslot

    September 4, 2008
  188. Paul Fried said:

    John G: I understand and respect your quest for spiritual meaning in all this, and your respect for the law. But I question three things: 1) your unquestioning support for police power (and abuse of power), 2) your unquestioning assumption about anarchists acting alone, as compared to troublemakers as government (see COINTELPRO) or Republican-financed (see Karl Rove) agents provocateurs, and 3) your failure to be critical of the violence of the Bush administration based on lies and and illegal war, while being critical of the violence of revolutionary, Boston Tea Party types who are destructive of property and hide their identity.

    Bruce W: You ask excellent questions in #183. But in the end, for me, it’s a forest-for-the-trees kind of thing. I asked similar questions about the rhetoric of the Kerry smears, when Kerry was criticized as a flip-flopper, while Bush was just as bad or worse (about nation-building, about global warming and carbon caps, and a long list of other things). In the end, it’s not just about little contradictions that can sometimes be blown out of proportion by the party with the most money for TV ads.

    I think there are larger concerns about Palin’s and McCain’s loyalties and vision (this is the forest), and these concerns will lead some to vote for Obama. But in the end, as Karl Rove has shown us over and over again, sometimes it’s not about larger concerns: politics is about who wins an election, not about who is right, and sometimes attack ads, even based on lies and distractions from larger concerns, play a role in winning elections. Ethics and morality are about right and wrong. Politics is about what wins. In a nation that values ethics and morality, attack ads don’t have as much effect. But we are often a superficial nation, too hypnotized by images and too addicted to TV, so for now, this makes the politics easy.

    Democrats also have to learn that politics is about winning and framing the issues and terms of the debate. If Democrats were better able to express their best ethical concerns while framing the terms–instead of simply playing defense in response to right-wing smear and attack–they’d have a better chance.

    September 4, 2008
  189. Paul Fried said:

    Carol: regarding the delay in seeing posts appear, I’ve noticed that too. Maybe we’re too much the radical lefties in the view of some, so instead of approving comments to be added to the heap in the order they come in, some are delayed and buried in the heap, to be approved later when newer comments are ready to bury them. Anyone who speaks of Geneva conventions and the Constitution nowadays is a radical who is unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops probably deserves such a fate. Instead of book-buring, it’s kind of like book burying…. It’s their right, if that’s the case, I suppose. It’s their blog. And appearances are appearances, after all. Politics is about winning, and all that?

    September 4, 2008
  190. Curt Benson said:

    Paul, leave it to you to reveal the nefarious Karl Rove/Griff Wigley conspiracy.

    What color is the sky in your world?

    September 4, 2008
  191. kiffi summa said:

    Curt : The sky is blue … except when it is not … in ALL our worlds.

    But it is time , Griff, for you to explain how you “monitor” some people’s comments, and why you feel it is necessary to do so.

    Let me be the first to say, I am “monitored”, so this comment will be delayed, unless Griff is working on LG at this moment.

    September 4, 2008
  192. kiffi summa said:

    OOps, that was Kiffi … not Victor . That’s what I get for looking at LG on Victor’s site rather than mine.
    kiffi

    September 4, 2008
  193. Griff Wigley said:

    Carol, I’m not sure why your comments are being held for moderation. I’ve double-checked and I can’t figure it out. I’ll ask Sean to take a look.

    September 4, 2008
  194. Griff Wigley said:

    Kiffi/Victor, I’m confused on which of your comments to fix for the authorship. Please email with me the info.

    As for moderation rationale, I’ll launch the discussion with a new blog post.

    September 4, 2008
  195. Paul Fried said:

    Curt: Ah, the sky is grey today, but I’m still smiling and joking in self-parody on this one. As they say, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. In an age of so many Rovian (formerly known as machiavellian) conspiracies, those who are not “conspiracy-theorists” are simply not paying attention. Applicable song lyric quotes apply here:
    – Denial is more than just a river in Egypt (Dire Straits)
    – A man only hears what he wants to hear and he disregards the rest (Paul Simon –hey, talking about the way we defend our world-views!)

    September 4, 2008
  196. Paul Fried said:

    Excerpts:
    George Lakoff on the symbolism of the Sarah Palin choice
    I’ve added lots of elipses (…) to shorten this, especially when Lakoff gets too abstract for too long, but it’s an interesting analysis (positive in many ways) that Dems should read especially.

    This is Lakoff doing his usual thing, but even if you’ve read “Don’t Think of an Elephant,” this is helpful to read as a new aplication of his theories.

    URL at end. All the way down if you want to click to the original.

    Quote starts below:
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters’ minds….. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview.

    The Obama campaign has learned this. The Republicans have long known it, and the choice of Sarah Palin as their Vice-Presidential candidate reflects their expert understanding of the political mind and political marketing. Democrats who simply belittle the Palin choice are courting disaster. It must be taken with the utmost seriousness.

    The Democratic responses so far reflect external realities: she is inexperienced, knowing little or nothing about foreign policy or national issues; she is really an anti-feminist, wanting the government to enter women’s lives to block abortion, but not wanting the government to guarantee equal pay for equal work, or provide adequate child health coverage, or child care, or early childhood education; she shills for the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue.

    All true, so far as we can tell.

    But such truths may nonetheless be largely irrelevant to this campaign. That is the lesson Democrats must learn….
    ….
    the Palin nomination changes the game. The initial response has been to try to keep the focus on external realities, the “issues,” and differences on the issues. But the Palin nomination is not basically about external realities and what Democrats call “issues,” but about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind-the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes. The Republicans can’t win on realities. Her job is to speak the language of conservatism, activate the conservative view of the world, and use the advantages that conservatives have in dominating political discourse.

    Our national political dialogue is fundamentally metaphorical, with family values at the center of our discourse…..
    The strength of the Obama campaign has been the seamless marriage of reality and symbolic thought.

    The Republican strength has been mostly symbolic. The McCain campaign is well aware of how Reagan and W won-running on character: values, communication, (apparent) authenticity, trust, and identity – not issues and policies. That is how campaigns work, and symbolism is central.

    Conservative family values are strict and apply via metaphorical thought to the nation: good vs. evil, authority, the use of force, toughness and discipline, individual (versus social) responsibility, and tough love. Hence, social programs are immoral because they violate discipline and individual responsibility. Guns and the military show force and discipline. Man is above nature; hence no serious environmentalism. The market is the ultimate financial authority, requiring market discipline. In foreign policy, strength is use of the force. In fundamentalist religion, the Bible is the ultimate authority; hence no gay marriage. Such values are at the heart of radical conservatism. This is how John McCain was raised and how he plans to govern. And it is what he shares with Sarah Palin.

    Palin is the mom in the strict father family, upholding conservative values. Palin is tough: she shoots, skins, and eats caribou. She is disciplined: raising five kids with a major career. She lives her values: she has a Downs-syndrome baby that she refused to abort. She has the image of the ideal conservative mom: pretty, perky, feminine, Bible-toting, and fitting into the ideal conservative family. And she fits the stereotype of America as small-town America. It is Reagan’s morning-in-America image. Where Obama thought of capturing the West, she is running for Sweetheart of the West.
    ….
    At the same time, Palin is masterful at the Republican game of taking the Democrats’ language and reframing it-putting conservative frames to progressive words: Reform, prosperity, peace. She is also masterful at using the progressive narratives: she’s from the working class, working her way up from hockey mom and the PTA to Mayor, Governor, and VP candidate. Her husband is a union member. She can say to the conservative populists that she is one of them….

    Yes, the McCain-Palin ticket is weak on the major realities. But it is strong on the symbolic dimension of politics that Republicans are so good at marketing….
    The initial Democratic response to Palin – the response based on realities alone – indicates that many Democrats have not learned the lessons of the Reagan and Bush years.

    They have not learned the nature of conservative populism….. A great many working-class folks are…split between conservative and progressive modes of thought….
    ….
    Conservative theorists won them over in two ways: Inventing and promulgating the idea of “liberal elite” and focusing campaigns on social and family issues. They have been doing this for many years and have changed a lot of brains through repetition. Palin will appeal strongly to conservative populists, attacking Obama and Biden as pointy-headed, tax-and-spend, latte liberals. The tactic is to divert attention from difficult realities to powerful symbolism.

    What Democrats have shied away from is a frontal attack on radical conservatism itself as an un-American and harmful ideology. I think Obama is right when he says that America is based on people caring about each other and working together for a better future-empathy, responsibility (both personal and social), and aspiration….
    The alternative, as Obama said in his nomination speech, is being on your own, with no one caring for anybody else, with force as a first resort in foreign affairs, with threatened civil liberties and a right-wing government making your most important decisions for you. That is not what American democracy has ever been about.

    Democrats, being Democrats, will mostly talk about the realities nonstop without paying attention to the dimensions of values and symbolism. Democrats, in addition, need to call an extremist an extremist: to shine a light on the shared anti-democratic ideology of McCain and Palin, the same ideology shared by Bush and Cheney. They share values antithetical to our democracy. That needs to be said loud and clear, if not by the Obama campaign itself, then by the rest of us who share democratic American values….

    (George Lakoff)
    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/02

    September 4, 2008
  197. We’ll see how “blue” the sky is over the Ramsey County Prosecutor’s office… I’d forgotten that that’s where former House Speaker Phil Carruthers is, he’s the “director of the prosecution division” at the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office. The “blue” voices of outrage seem to be awfully quiet…

    September 4, 2008
  198. Curt Benson said:

    Paul, I think it is possible to be pro Obama and anti poop chucking and anti window breaking at the same time.

    It is also possible to be pro Obama and not attribute everything negative in the world to a Rovian conspiracy.

    September 4, 2008
  199. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    Speaking of Karl Rove, try this on for size:

    Daily Show 9-3-08 – Throwing Their Own Words Back. (YouTube):

    September 4, 2008
  200. Patrick Enders said:

    Stephanie,
    You beat me to it on that link – it gave me a good laugh over lunch. It’s amazing how easily hypocrisy can slide off the well-rehearsed tongue.

    September 4, 2008
  201. john george said:

    Paul F.- Your question #1- purporting that i advocate “unquestioning support for police power (and abuse)” I think is not even close to accurate. I said this,”…police officers to react wrongly is probably as much to be expected as the anarchists doing their violent deeds. These individuals fall under the same judgement of the law,..”, the individuals here being the offending police officers. #2, It seems to me that you are saying that there is more likelyhood that there is a great Republican conspiracy behind this violence rather that a bunch of lawless thugs. I just don’t buy that argument. If you want to believe this, go ahead, but I don’t. I get a lot of e-mails with this type of conspiracy jargon aimed toward the Democrats, but when I check out the accuracy of them, they are baseless prevarications. Why should I believe your liberal sources to be any more accurate? #3- You speak of the “violence of the Bush administration”. I don’t remember Carl Rove or Dick Cheney going around throwing bricks through windows of abortion clinics or liberal coffee houses. You and I are coming from two different viewpoints. That is OK. I don’t have to prove you wrong, because I don’t consider these moral issues. But, I refuse to be shamed because I happen to believe in conservative political ideas.

    Carol- You asked, “…Who among the press was bringing violence and anarchy? ” In a mob situation like that, I don’t believe it is always possible to discern who is doing what. That is why I said in an earlier post that reporting on violent protests is like reporting on the front lines of a war- the reporter is putting themselves in harms way. I would use this analogy- If it is open season on mallard ducks, and you are a pintail flying in the flock, and the season is closed on your kind, it is quite possible that you will get shot at. I don’t mean to offend you with the analogy, but it is the best thing I could come up with. I think it would be wisdom to stay out of the way, but if you put yourself in the middle of a conflict, I don’t think you should be surprised if you get swept up with the perpetrators. I don’t think in that situation that a press badge is going to very good cover, especially for a person representing a media that is not openly recognizable, like NBC or CBS.

    September 4, 2008
  202. Now, back to the original topic. I liked Sarah’s speech, and I liked the way she gave it. It’s was too tough for my tastes, personally, but it was very effective and smart. I also like Mike Huckabee’s speech a lot, especially the story about the desks. He is a good man.

    I am a pro NRA person, too. I feel as long as we can arm ourselves, there is a lesser chance of being overtaken buy radical forces, from within or without. I don’t advocate killing, unless you are fighting to defend the weak or your own family or country, or yourself.

    SO, go Sarah Palin, as far as you can go up, break that Glass Ceiling with all the cracks in it, and oversee that natural gas pipeline from there to here, and love ALL the babies, and that good looking Alaskan guy of yours, and show us how well you can do it all!

    September 4, 2008
  203. Holly Cairns said:

    Hey, thanks for those links way back in post 179, Patrick.

    I’m reading Laikos, but I disagree with a few things. I loved The Political Brain (Weston) but I skipped over the first sections and got right to the Democrat Republican talk. Good stuff.

    🙂

    And Hi Paul, what’s happening over at your beautiful house? Nice siding!

    September 4, 2008
  204. David Henson said:

    Bright – she knocked it out of the park !

    I like the contrast that when Palin got some power she sold the luxury jet and drove her self to work vs Obama running out and buying a 4 million dollar house and pumping his ego in Germany.

    September 4, 2008
  205. Paul Fried said:

    Curt/203: Agreed on all points. Just the other day (blue sky, a few clouds), I was listening to someone talk about student plagiarism. Rove was nowhere in sight. But then again, he was kind of there in spirit….

    John: If one accepts that ignoring the Constitution and treaties and Geneva Conventions and such is OK, and that preemptive, illegal wars are now acceptable, and if hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are killed by th4e actions of a military under the command of George Bush, then no, Bush-Cheney-Rove-Rumsfeld, to my knowledge, have never been known to throw rocks through windows. But when you place the two kinds of violence side-by-side, how many people were hurt by the rocks during & near the RNC in St. Paul, as compared to how many Iraqi civilians and our own soldiers died? Yes, we can disagree on violence. You take an extreme position that sounds like moral relativism with a big presidential blind spot. We won’t agree.

    I’m not saying the Rovian conspiracy is more likely. I’m saying that history sometimes repeats, and there are many unexplained details in the story. The police might have clustered at the point where the peace march met the counter-protesters (Republicans) behind a fence, but they left that area open, almost as if they were hoping there would be an unmanaged confrontation and violence. The police and riot squads used pepper spray and gas against what turns out to have been a group that included a somewhat large number of journalists. We have no story, no report, that details the terrible civil unrest and criminality that was perhaps being recorded by these journalists by violent protesters nearby when, sadly, the police had to round up and arrest the whole lot. No such details. Just a few lines and excuses from the chief of police that don’t hold with the rest of the facts. Many witnesses say it was unwarranted.

    So we need more answers:
    1. Why did the police act the way they did, when many eyewitnesses clamied that there was no need for the extreme measures they used? It almost seems as if the use of pepper spray and gas was to create and/or heighten an artificial crisis for the purposes of discrediting the protesters.
    2. Instead of hearing about the arrest of specific kids who were dressed in black and wearing bandanas, and a prime suspect who broke a window, we hear about all these journalists who were arrested, and whose cameras were confiscated. If the police have information about the violent troublemakers, why don’t we hear more about such police reports in the stories appearing in local and national news? Instead, journalists, independent journalists, an AP photographer, and citizen journalists.

    Too many assume that
    1) the troublemakers were acting on their own (we have no more proof of that than we do they were prompted or paid);
    2) that the journalists must have been doing something wrong or they probably wouldn’t have been arrested;
    3) that the police were simply doing their job in a hard situation, and if mistakes were made at all, they were honest mistakes made by people with the best of intentions from the start;
    etc.

    We have no more proof of these things than we do that we’ve witnessed a resurgence of COINTELPRO and something like the nastiest of Rovian campaign/PR tricks.

    So might it be better to be wise and admit the limits of our knowledge, and let the mystery be, instead of taking the mystery and refashioning it into some kind of idol of our own making?

    Holly: the house is relatively quiet for now, but thanks for the compliment.

    Say, Holly, to shift the subject a bit from the protesters, police (and provocateurs?) outside to the VP candidate inside,
    what did you think of George Lakoff on Sarah Palin in #201?

    September 4, 2008
  206. David Henson said:

    Paul – Do you just want Holly’s opinion of George Lakoff 🙂 ?

    September 4, 2008
  207. john george said:

    paul F.- You wrote,”…So might it be better to be wise and admit the limits of our knowledge, and let the mystery be, instead of taking the mystery and refashioning it into some kind of idol of our own making? …” My point exactly. I don’t have verifiable evidence to “prove” my point, and I haven’t heard of verifiable evidence to “prove” the opposite. I believe this will come out in the weeks and months ahead. I’m not assuming, nor have I suggested, that the journalists were doing anything wrong. My point all along is that if you are going to try to get close, firsthand information in that type of violent scenario, you are taking a calculated risk. Nor have I suggested that all police force was done with the best intentions. These guys are human, and being so, can have tempers that flare. I could recount things I have read about law enforcement officers’ opinions of being “hamstrung” (I think that was the term used) by the courts. If there are those feelings in a person, this would be a likely time they could get out of control. Trying to understand peoples’ actions does not necessarily indicate approval of those actions. This applies to the protesters as well. As far as there being no baricades where the protesters and the conventioners were in close proximity, it seems I read in the PP that this was suggested by the police, but it was vetoed by the demonstration organizers as too limiting to their freedom of expression. I have the feeling that there is no way the police could have come out on top on this whole thing.

    September 4, 2008
  208. Holly Cairns said:

    Hi Paul,

    Paul says Lakoff quotes:

    They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily.

    I agree

    And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview.

    I don’t agree.. What? I think Lakoff has good ideas but then goes on to talk too much.

    I like how he brings us back to Obama here (we’ve not been talking about Obama, we’ve just been talking about Sarah Palin as if it’s General Hospital. Instead of Luke and Laura buttons, I see McCain and Palin buttons.)

    The alternative, as Obama said in his nomination speech, is being on your own, with no one caring for anybody else, with force as a first resort in foreign affairs, with threatened civil liberties and a right-wing government making your most important decisions for you.

    In all seriousness, the “frame” idea is of value. Don’t you think? But the
    emotional side of things is a huge factor (Drew Westen’s the Political Brain).

    Lakoff– I agree with the idea that everyone should take Sarah Palin seriously. Lakoff is right about that. The mommy party and daddy party thing is insulting, however. I get the feeling it is inferior to belong to the mommy party.

    Palin did outline a lot of values. Right down the line. I agree with the values, and worry people won’t see the actions taken and just listen to “the values.” We’ve heard that take on it for so long, now. That’s more Bush. Notice the Bush advisers met with Sarah before the speech… c’mon, Americans.

    Do we want honestly, love in marriage, hard working Americans, or what? What has been happening at the top for the last eight years? I didn’t vote for that. I didn’t vote to send troops to Iraq. I voted for peaceful means to discuss problems, rather than the use of force. I value my way of life, but I only use guns when we absolutely need it.

    I was more nervous about the ethnic cleansing in Africa and CERTAINLY the AL QUIDA CREW than about those Iraqis getting out of hand. Now I am more worried about Iran, and remembering how Jimmy Carter left office AND THEN those people were released in Iran. Funky.

    I didn’t vote for the loss of whitehouse e-mails about serious issues. I value honesty and integrity.

    I didn’t vote for people to sit in Gitmo jail cells in Cuba, without trials. I value our judicial system. I didn’t vote for the world scruitiny we now are facing. I value helping and working with others, and using technology to avert terror. And I value using the word terror when it is truly appropriate. 911 was horrible, and a terroristic act. I value going to get Bin Laden and making an effort, there. I value doing what I say we’ll do. Can McCain give us that? What a risk.

    Oops, I’m on a rant. I guess the point is that I’m not really thinking about Sarah Palin as much as Lakoff would like– maybe I should help to set the frame about what we should be thinking about. That’s Lakoff, too, and good stuff.

    End– In good years, I think people vote for those that are most likely to be winners (we all love the winner and the better of two, or the cuter, or the meaner), and then for those that can most help them in bad years. Swing to the left, swing to the right. Too bad, this swing is way out there.

    Clinton had us reducing the deficit and on good terms with the world. Scary, like Coolidge scary. Hoover was just after that.

    Yes, David H, your opinion?

    September 4, 2008
  209. Holly Cairns said:

    John George (not that other John George in town, but this one up above, although I like both) said:

    Nor have I suggested that all police force was done with the best intentions. These guys are human, and being so, can have tempers that flare.

    Let’s think Kent state. I distincly remember being in high school (Burnsville High, 1984, Welckle’s American History debate class, although I am a graduate of NHS in ’86), and staring at that American History book picture of the dead kid– the kid was laid out, face down, and everyone was running, and one person pointing and yelling…. I remember thinking “What’s Kent State? What made Ohio so different?” It was one of the first times I didn’t have to think “How will I remember this for the test?” I knew there was high energy, an anger, a taste of rebellion, and the heat.

    So, who feels the kids and Gen Xers of today are letting things slide when the baby boomers would not have? Iraq: I honked at the local protesters (Division and Woodley) but I didn’t participate. RNC– I was thinking it was better to stay home and not protest– better to use words to than to get arrested. But, that’s not now the Baby boomers would have done it. And those baby boomers that protested paid. And the cops, they paid, too. It’d have been hard to kill a Kent State kid, I think.

    September 5, 2008
  210. Amazed that no one has offered anything about the Star of the RNC .
    Just for the record, I think McCain is an amazing man, and I totally take back what I said about his younger days as a poor husband, in light of the fact that he has more than made up for that, and in light of the fact that he is a strong, daring, and capable candidate and man who could and should be President of the United States Of America. He can call Obama if he needs any advice.
    But with Sarah on his ticket, I think they have it covered for likability and star power. The RNC was a hit. And as long as Obama is gonna be just as much of a war power leader as McCain, if you saw the video above, I think I’ll let McCain, the man with the actual experience of leading our military
    and understanding the whole martini of it, I’ll be on his side. At this point, I don’t think it matters what anyone did do in the past. For every point anyone brings up, there is an equal and adequate rebuff.

    Now, they are both starting from an equal field. Polls showed them to be at 42% to 42%, neck in neck. Whooooooha. This was a good year to be interested in the dialogue of the race to the top.

    September 5, 2008
  211. Patrick Enders said:

    Bright,
    I’m glad you’ve finally found a ticket you can believe in.

    September 5, 2008
  212. David Henson said:

    I’m estimating by Oct 1 we will see Palin’s relationship with the RNC begin to fray. I saw footage of a rally in WI that grew out of hand in size and everyone was yelling “Sarah” while McCain looked on from the background. Palin has a keen sense of power and a zeal for reform. She will quickly realize without her the Republican ticket is sunk and the leadership won’t able to keep her on message or even on the reservation. I’m estimating Palin will begin pushing ideas and reforms that neither party finds appealing but rank and file Americans will be backing all the way.

    September 5, 2008
  213. Paul Fried said:

    David: Of course, share. (I was targetting Holly with a special request only because a mutual friend of ours suggested I read Lakoff a few years back.)

    Holly: You wrote, “the “frame” idea is of value. Don’t you think? But the
    emotional side of things is a huge factor (Drew Westen’s the Political Brain). ”

    I haven’t read Westin, and you go on to talk about Palin talking about values. She does that. But I think one of the things I like about Lakoff is the idea of symbolism, which goes beyond what candidates talk about, and which also speaks to the confusion of some liberals regarding what they describe as the middle class voting for Republicans against their own interests, shaking their heads, and some, walking away claiming that people are stupid and have been duped. Well, Lakoff rings true to me that these liberals are acting a bit elitist and should pay more attention to the Republican’s understanding of, and/or ability to play off, of the symbolic impressions, not just the talk-talk-talk, the ideas.

    September 6, 2008
  214. Paul Fried said:

    Bright: You write, “I think I’ll let McCain, the man with the actual experience of leading our military…”

    If you Google the words “Gen Wesley Clark McCain lacks command experience” you find a number of versions of a story where retired Gen. Clark disagrees.

    But that’s ideas, not symbolism. He’s a war hero, a prisoner of war, as the whole US of A is symbolically right now. So even if he had an affair, even if he wasn’t good to his family, even if he doesn’t understand the economy, even if he flip-flopped on many issues since his change from maverick to candidate, people don’t pay as much attention to that kind of stuff as they do the symbolism. Gosh, when most of us are against the war, but we’re still in it, most of us are prisoners, JUST LIKE McCAIN.

    “Luke, join me. Join the dark side, and we’ll rule the universe together.”

    The injured arm. Father and son. Kind of like Madonna and child; family. McCain should have an ad in which he appears wearing a Darth mask, with Palin dressed like Queen Amadala. That would be symbolism.

    Lakoff says symbols speak louder than ideas and words, so the Dems better get crackin’.

    For instance, someone sent me this cute Jon Stewart Daily Show video where the conservative wing-nut talking heads get to be shown as rather two-faced in some of their fawning over Palin, and their criticism of Obama, etc. It’s clever, it’s fun, but it preaches to the choir. The committed right-wing isn’t going to hear this message. They’re already in the grove, the trance. Doesn’t help to show that the cheerleaders are two-faced when the cheering section is in the trance. But give it a look if you like:

    Daily Show 9-3-08 – Throwing Their Own Words Back. (YouTube):

    September 6, 2008
  215. Paul Fried said:

    JohnG: You write, “I have read about law enforcement officers’ opinions of being ‘hamstrung’ (I think that was the term used) by the courts.”

    Not at the RNC. Mayor Coleman was careful to be sure the RNC took out a large insurance policy for millions to protect the city against lawsuits that might be brought if there were troubles, misconduct by police, brutality, etc.

    The strings might be present most of the time, as they should, to protect against abuse of power, but they were all gone for the RNC. If there are lawsuits, it won’t cost the city a penny.

    Futhermore, they recruited many out-of-town police (and FBI, Secret Service were there, perhaps some military?) – just as it’s hard to identify, track down and arrest a masked person (youths with bandanas), it’s hard to identify who was too quick with teargas or pepper spray when they’re in riot gear and gas mask. Off the hook, if it even got that far. But I bet it won’t.

    September 6, 2008
  216. William Siemers said:

    Paul F.

    You are spot on regarding the importance of symbolism in this political campaign…and that the democrats need to ‘get crackin’.

    But let’s not forget what got Obama the nomination. Organizing. And now that organizing needs to be focused on registration and turnout. The swing states will be decided by relatively few voters. Independents are important in these states, but so are those who have never been ‘likely voters’. The apathetic, disillusioned, and marginalized citizens who usually don’t vote. There are potential votes in this group for both parties (republicans recognized this with the Palin pick), but I think there are many more potential democratic votes…particularly Obama votes.

    So somehow the symbolism employed in this effort has to appeal to both middle american independents and the disaffected. That seems like a tough proposition…let’s hope it can be pulled off.

    How sweet it will be for the republicans to be defeated by the very thing they denigrated over and over at their convention…community organization.

    September 6, 2008
  217. John George said:

    Paul F.- Regarding my quote on police attitudes toward court limitations, that is something that has been around for a long time. It is not specific to ST. Paul and the RNC. Sometimes old attitudes, like racism, for example change slowly. I am not saying they are correct. I’m just saying they do exist. Just because some police reacted with force does not exempt the violent protesters from responsibility for enciting violence. The Police were not hiding in some ambush waiting to spring out on some hapless demonstrator who happens to spit on the sidewalk. They were in open display. Any person who openly begins violent behavior in this type of setting deserves what he got, IMHO. Any person who chooses to be right in the middle of the fray is likely to get swept up in the events whether they are doing anything or not.

    I really get weary of all the rhetoric blaming the police for inciting the violence. These demonstrators were people whose only intent, according to reports of what they said prior to the convention, was to create a mob event to prove their point. The police openly said what they would do if this happened. Civil disobedience does not include destroying private property, IMHO. I still say this type of demonstration is unjustified and detrimental to the messages trying to be communicated by those people who were demonstrating within the law, and I think I am right in my opinion.

    September 6, 2008
  218. David Henson said:

    Paul how much more symbolism can you ask from the dems than Obama himself ? I think the dems will lose this election but I will offer a little help 🙂

    1) Obama should praise Palin to no end and say she is a great candidate, committed to change, and he’s glad she is not who he is running against at the top of the ticket.

    2) Palin’s idea of the “net tax burden on society” is very powerful. If the dems can deliver their grocery list of services while spending less overall taxes then they should focus on that issue.

    3) The dems need to purge themselves of the idea that some people are manipulated by “symbols” into doing things that are not good for them while others “know better.” Aside from this elitist concept being intellectually weak* – it also insults the very voters the dems hope to attract – and that clearly is not smart.

    * all humans are, of course, symbolic creatures and everyone, formally educated or not, knows this

    September 6, 2008
  219. Paul, it’s just that I see signs of Barry folding at the least amount of normal campaign pressure.

    September 6, 2008
  220. Patrick, referring to your post no. 218 above, I didn’t say ‘finally’, did I?
    Well, things can change, iykwim.

    September 6, 2008
  221. Patrick Enders said:

    Bright,
    Given your extensive previous commentary regarding all your problems with ‘Barry,’ I find it hard to imagine you changing your mind and voting for Barack Obama over John McCain. But I think it’d be a great idea to consider the Libertarians, or even the Greens.

    September 6, 2008
  222. Paul Fried said:

    Bright: Barry Goldwater had some interesting qualities that some conservatives now seem to lack, but I think he already folded. ( O ;
    See John Dean’s book, “Conservatives without Conscience.”
    (I got lost trying to follow the “Barry” comments)

    DavidH: You may prove right in your hunch that McCain will win, and although you don’t care or Lakoff on symbolism, I’m glad he’s receptive to the possibility. With polls for Bush and Iraq so disapproving, it’s obvious why Obama’s themes are “Hope” and “Change,” but I don’t like the fact that many liberals assume it’s a done deal. The right seems to be doing a good job whipping up its base with smear books about Obama, and I’m sure that worse is yet to come. Regarding her ideas on net burden, I don’t care for what I’ve heard about her term as mayor, the town’s increased debt (up tens of millions), as well as removal of progressive income tax burden in favor of regressive sales tax (even food tax). I don’t think her history on tax burden is anything that would be in the interests of most Americans, as they say, but it would not be the first time that people get elected on promises and values (like Bush, of not nation-building), and then wake up to find we didn’t get what we voted for. I still think folks who vote for her will do so more for the symbolism than for having researched the consequences of her tax policies in past offices. And more drilling, with more taxes on oil companies, in itself, will not really solve addiction to oil. It would only make some giddy and go back to buying Hummers.

    JohnG: Sorry if I implied that the legal strings/limitations were totally removed: the bite was removed only because of the insurance. One of the reasons that police and cities try to limit the use of police force is the fear of lawsuits and specifically economic consequences. Big money talks in ways that a slap on the hand and a small fine don’t. Take away the negative consequences of bid lawsuits by way of insurance, and suddenly the police can cause more bodily harm (physical harm to human beings) than the demonstrators did, and they don’t have to fear lawsuits to the city. Neither do individual police, if they don’t be identified becaue of gas masks and riot gear. We can assume they won’t testify against each other.

    On symbolism: Pro-football player Pat Tillman served in Afghanistan, enlisted and gave up money and comfort, but was killed by friendly fire; this didn’t come out for a long time, but only after persistent questioning.

    Why wasn’t McCain (Senator from Tillman’s state, the state of his football team) more involved in advocating full disclosure of information on Tillman’s death, and consequences for those involved in the cover-up? Is this issue a potentially powerful symbolic one to be used against McCain? It seems that we’ve had too much fraud and abuse, too many cover-ups, and McCain doesn’t seem too concerned. Do voters want to move away from the people who symbolize such corruption?

    September 6, 2008
  223. Jerold Friedman said:

    Earlier this year, I heard of a Washington Post article that concluded that McCain wasn’t the maverick he claims to be. McCain’s record for voting on bills where his vote would have made a 50:50 or 51:49 result (tying or winning by one), McCain always voted for the GOP’s position. When McCain’s vote wasn’t so hotly needed by the GOP, he would vote with either side. The Post’s conclusion was that when the GOP needed him, they got his vote.

    September 6, 2008
  224. David Henson said:

    Paul – I think a whole lot of Americans see McCain and Obama as cut from the same cloth. Now the system will go to work on Sarah Palin, probably starting with a new book deal, and the question is will she be able to stay outside the system – maybe donating her book proceeds to special needs children. In Alaska, she took her job seriously as representing Alaskans as the owners of resources and netted an extra billion from energy companies. She listed the jet on Ebay as a symbol that she would not get sucked into the self important BS of our current system. If she stays true to her past then she is likely to be in conflict with the Republican party soon. In this video she lays out her dislike for both parties http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV9rW25bT5o . Did you notice when she got fervent in her acceptance speech about “workers” how light the clapping became ?

    September 6, 2008
  225. Holly Cairns said:

    Paul said:

    I haven’t read Westin, and you go on to talk about Palin talking about values. She does that. But I think one of the things I like about Lakoff is the idea of symbolism, which goes beyond what candidates talk about, and which also speaks to the confusion of some liberals regarding what they describe as the middle class voting for Republicans against their own interests, shaking their heads, and some, walking away claiming that people are stupid and have been duped. Well, Lakoff rings true to me that these liberals are acting a bit elitist and should pay more attention to the Republican’s understanding of, and/or ability to play off, of the symbolic impressions, not just the talk-talk-talk, the ideas

    It’s one thing to talk about this at a meeting, and another to talk about it in public. Let’s think this is public and try to set the frame, ourselves. Hear hear! I’d like to remind us that she spoke at a secessionist party convention in Alaska right about now…

    I’ve got Westen for you and will leave on the doorstep if you’re not home. On a non-rainy day.

    I’m only halfway through the book and so maybe you could explain symbolism.

    September 6, 2008
  226. Paul Fried said:

    I think what Lakoff means by symbolism is that, if Palin is good looking, and a hunter, and if she has a downs syndrome child, and a husband who is a union member, and if she got oil companies to send some of their revenues to the state in Alaska, this symbolizes something to some folks, regardless of what the investigative journalists dig up about her faults, or the shifting of tax benefits to the rich, or regressive tax and sales tax and food tax.

    Lakoff–and this may be what David says he finds elitist and offensive–claims that folks sometimes vote for what people symbolize more than what their position statements are, or their record is. Bush symbolizes the tough guy who won’t back down from a fight in Iraq, and who, even if he made mistakes, or people around him did, he’ll keep working the plan and trying to make it good, whether that requires a surge, or paying bribes to Iraqi insurgents to keep them less violent till after the election, or special PR, or cover-ups regarding fraud, etc. Bush has a pickup truck with a gun-rack, and cuts wood and brush on his farm, likes to fish and hunt. Bush is a “strong father” figure, and some are drawn to that as a symbol. The strong dad who won’t admit he’s wrong, but you respect him becaues he’ll beat the crap out of you if you lip off.

    Kerry, on the other hand, was more of a soft father figure. Thinks too much. Too smart for most of us. Pays close attention to facts and analysis. Brainy nerd. If new analysis and study shows that you need to change your plan, he’d change his plan, so then folks can call him a wind-surfer and a waffler. And he’s rich, probably likes French food. Not french fries. Too french.

    So who cares if Bush’s policies rob you blind and redistribute your wealth via the social security slush fund to the richest 2-5%? Cut everyone’s taxes, but then raise social security withholding, and eventually the rich will make off like bandits, but at least you don’t lie to your friends and say you voted for that elitist French guy.

    September 6, 2008
  227. David Henson said:

    Paul – can you provide a link to analysis of Palin’s tax policy ? I have yet to see this information other than that as Gov she returned $1200.00 to each citizen.

    September 7, 2008
  228. Paul Fried said:

    David: Here it is:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-kilkenny/about-sarah-palin_b_124528.html
    A Northfielder (who sometimes comments here) sent me an email form of this, by an Alaskan (written either with or without help from the DNC) describing some of the tax effects of her years as mayor and governor.

    I checked on snopes.com to see if it was an email hoax/smear (as some claims about Obama are), or if the Alaskan author really takes credit for the letter and it’s claims, etc. It was published at Huffingtonpost at the link above. Of course, all such claims/analysis can be up for debate. Did they really tax food? Is such a tax really regressive (!?), etc.

    We don’t know much about her, so writers are having to trust sources of varying bias and trustworthiness regarding both the facts and the analysis. I’m sure we’ll see an information war unfold, with the mainstream media focusing, perhaps, on more of the senational things (if it bleeds, it leads), and the “elitist” and indy press focusing more on investigative journalism and hard (but still biased) analysis. None of that symbolic stuff, of course, but the stuff policy wonks like. We’ll see where all the pieces fall — or which selective pieces get more attention than others in which press.

    Just remember: McCain is a war hero. Palin is a hunter, married to a union husband, and a mom who deals with the kind of family challenges that many of the best conservative families deal with. And the RNC likes her economics, which McCain says he wishes he understood more. Symbolically, if you’re conservative, what’s not to like?

    September 8, 2008
  229. Patrick Enders said:

    She’s a real person, at the very least. I haven’t read the email in question yet, but I did hear a tiny clip of an interview with the author, saying that she hadn’t intended it to spread it as far is it went; she just wanted to get it off her chest to some of her friends and family.

    September 8, 2008
  230. I read that letter ak letter a couple of days ago, and while she may have some points, and I don’t know how much is true or right, even when SP has done something ak agrees with, she makes up a reason why if SP did it, it was wrong anyway, guessing and assuming what SP motives were. Sometimes things are not as they appear.

    Anyway, No one cares. And, I must say how times have changed. Laura Bush KILLEd her ex boyfriend when she ran thru a stop sign in rural Texas and hit his car by accident when she was young. No one hardly even mentioned that.
    What a world, what a world.

    What they do care about is that AP comes off likable and that’s what you need when you sit down at the table with some of these world leaders and their cabinet members, et al.

    September 8, 2008
  231. Paul Fried said:

    One thing that’s kind of strange is this: It seems that the Republicans have a much better grasp of how lies and smear actually work in terms of influencing some people. Obama is the topic of all kinds of wierd email claims, and the large majority of them have debunked by fact-checking sites, etc.

    Sarah Palin gets the VP slot, and all the Dems can come up with is this Irish Anne Kilkenney from Alaska who sounds like a policy wonk. Not juicy. Not sexed-up enough, as the Brits say.

    Now if it were the Republicans responding to a Sarah Palin type who was a Democrat, there’s be stories about strange acts in the bedroom with Alaskan husky dogs on those long, cold nights when the sun doesn’t quite rise…. You know what I’m saying? You know this is simply the truth.

    The Democrats are such amateurs at smear and lies. All that stuff about ideals, ethics, the high ground, etc. I don’t know. It doesn’t seem to have won many elections lately.

    How many democratic ads have you seen on TV highlighting Bush-Cheney lies and unconstitutional acts, and also the homosexual hijinx of Republicans? If the tables were turned, that’s what the Repugs would do. Connect the sins of the lame duck President to the new candidat representing his party. Even if it’s a stretch for facts. Repeat a lie enough, even a big lie, and people will believe it. The Republicans knew that, and got MANY people to think that Iraq has something to with 9-11. The Nazi’s understood the power of the “big lie” repeated often enough. The Dems just don’t get it. They try to run on virtue and facts and stuff.

    Maybe Dems should hire some “agents provocateurs” in business suits to commit illegal acts and make it seem that some Republicans on Wall Street, or Oil barrons, were absolutely evil…..

    But with Dick Cheney (and his history), and with Rudy and crowd chanting “Drill, baby, Drill” at the RNC, maybe it’s a waste of money to hire people to discredit them? Maybe the Dems should use tape of Rudy’s chant, with a little twist, in an ad?

    Ya gotta admit, Repugs have a corner on the smear market. And they make it work. And the customers who consume it keep coming back for more! Like old home night with the KKK! (My sister went to the Republican caucus by mistake this year, having been given bad directions from a neighbor who either wanted to keep her away from the Dems, or assumed she was Republican; she tends not to be political, but came back with the impression that she was at a KKK meeting – ! This came as a surprise to me, as I was trying to assume the best about the GOP….)

    (How can some of you conservatives around here stand it? Are you guys John Dean/ Barry Goldwater “Conservatives with Conscience”? Or Ron Paul fans?)

    So what’s a party (the Dems in particular) to do? Fight fire with fire (smear back?), or stay on the moral high ground and lose the election? Jesus asked if it was better to win the world but lose your soul — but he never ran for office….

    If they don’t fight fire with fire, I think the Dems need to get MUCH more creative. Try lots of things and see what works. Like neighborhood marshmallow/smore gatherings. Or maybe a petting zoo: “Pet a llama for Obama”? Or signs at bus stops and waiting areas at airports: “Bidin’ our time for Obama and Biden”….

    Nope, I’m not there yet, but I’ll keep tryin’.

    I still like the bumpersticker that said, “Cheney-Satan ’08” (or “Cheney-Voldemort ’08”)…..

    September 8, 2008
  232. David Henson said:

    Paul do you think facts like this are a smear ? “Sen. Barack Obama is the No. 3 recipient of Fannie and Freddie campaign dollars, having collected $123,000 from the companies since he first ran for the Senate in 2004, according to the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Responsive Politics.”

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/08/news/companies/fan_fred_buying/?postversion=2008090908

    Obama is just a compromised politician. In taking that much money it would appear Obama has absolutely no clue what is going on … when money is being handed out he just grabs a pillow case. In fairness McCain took $19,000 and he probably knew these were payments to avoid regulation. I mean how grotesque do these 2 parties have to behave before Americans decide to kick them all out.

    September 9, 2008
  233. Paul Fried said:

    If you line up contributions and votes on related legislation, then it makes a better case than what is often called smear, which in this example might be simply the contributions, minus any attention to voting record. I’ve seen some interesting articles that line up both money and votes, and sure, I think that’s fair–while elected officials (like Cox, when he was MN State Rep) often defend such votes as being often for omnibus bills that contain many other provisions. Sometimes what elected officials do in committee is as important, or more important, to pay attention to.

    Now as far as throwing the bums out goes, I suppose some would defend even the practice of accepting the money and voting favorably to the interests, claiming that the elected official did many worthwhile things unrelated to the money-translating-to-favorable-votes equation: They raised minimum wages, passed legislation that created jobs or helped many who needed it, etc.

    But no, fact-based claims help, and in your example, they help most when it’s shown the money-voting-record-committe-record connections. This is wonkish stuff, not symbolic stuff unless you repeat it often enough, and in abreviated enough form, that it sinks in: So-and-so candidate is corrupted by money, votes are bought.

    Yet the “facts aren’t smear” stuff cuts both ways. I heard about some “indepencence party” story related to Palin a few days back, but nowadays, if you blink, you sometimes miss a story, or the key point. I heard about the story again, and was surprised that Palin’s husband was a member of an Alaskan political party that is secessionist, or in other words wants to leave the union, as the south tried during the Civil War. Palin’s membership status in that party is uncertain, but she addressed their convention twice. The party’s founder has made statements about hating the US government and not wanting to be buried under the US flag. If one had this kind of record and were traveling to St. Paul to demonstrate outside the RNC, this would have been enough evidence to get a person’s hotel room searched, some of their belongings/cameras etc. confiscated, and have law enforcement consider pressing terrorist charges (as it seems they are planning to do with the self-described anarchists who were searched and detained).

    Is it smear to highlight the association of Palin with the secessionist party in Alaska, and her husband’s membership, which is fact?

    Is it smear to note the fact that the same party has encouraged its members to go out and infiltrate other parties in Alaska?

    Is it smear to therefore ask if Palin is a stealth secessionist VP candidate?

    Granted, McCain could get elected and have a heart attack, and Palin may have no future interest in cutting off Alaska from the union. But facts are facts — they may not be smear, but they often distract from more important issues/prioroties, or the bigger picture. In this case, secessionist movements may not be the important issue, but Palin’s fickle political allegiances might.

    September 9, 2008
  234. Patrick Enders said:

    Apparently, the “change” Sarah Palin believes in is taxpayer money that she can put in her own bank account.

    In today’s Washington Post:

    “Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home”

    Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a “per diem” allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088.html?hpid=topnews

    September 9, 2008
  235. David Henson said:

    Patrick these were allowed expenses of $16,951 – this would have filled the jet she sold with fuel about once … please these silly attacks on an honest person only hurt the Dems chances – I think the pet a Llama of Obama is a much better idea.

    September 9, 2008
  236. Patrick Enders said:

    That doesn’t look like honesty to my eye. Throw in the McCain camp’s lies that she stopped the Bridge to Nowhere (or even that she was opposed to it before it was already dead), and it looks like a whole lot of ‘more of the same.’

    Wall Street Journal: “Record Contradicts Palin’s ‘Bridge’ Claims”
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html

    September 9, 2008
  237. Patrick Enders said:

    And since when is $16,000 a ‘silly’ amount of money? If I billed my company $16,000 for travel expenses when I was at home, I’d be out of a job already, at the very least.

    September 9, 2008
  238. Patrick and David, this is all well and good to consider, but the real issue is who will lead? and based on what experience? John McCain is not a blow hard and is not given to talking about himself in a big important way, like Obama, but he is undoubtedly more about experience by several decades of hard work and being there on the scenes, not just reading about it in a book written by someone who has referenced a few dozen other books and so on, than Barry.

    All these other issues are smoke and mirrors. And I cannot live on hope alone. If I could I would be “Time” magazine’s most talented and influential person ever.
    Hope is what the preachers promise people who have nothing else but,
    and who more than likely never will have anything else if Daley’s man gets
    into the White House.
    What you are seeing is the Daley Machine at work, like back when Richard J. invented it over fifty years ago…and that’s politics as usual, with the only difference being the astute understanding of the power of the internet to build a grass roots movement, that usually lasts about as long as it takes to build it. We shall see. I’d love to be wrong on this one, but my guts are telling me different right now.

    September 9, 2008
  239. Patrick Enders said:

    Bright wrote,

    John McCain is not a blow hard and is not given to talking about himself in a big important way

    You mean John “I don’t like to talk about being a P.O.W., but did I mention yet that I was as a P.O.W.?” McCain?
    John “I’ll give you nothing but Straight Talk (TM)” McCain?
    John “I’ll always put my Country First(TM), not like that other guy who’s all for himself” McCain?

    He’s always talking about himself in a big important way. He just uses a different narrative.

    September 9, 2008
  240. David Henson said:

    Patrick – Palin’s new job, Governor, was based in Juno and the article specifies that this was acceptable practice. She was elected to run Alaska not to personally fund Alaska. All her expenses specify exactly what she was doing. You fail to mention how her airfare was $90K compared to the previous governor’s $450K. These arguments are non-starters.

    September 9, 2008
  241. Peter Millin said:

    To no surprise this site is completely to the left, no wonder that Kerry carried Rice county.

    The Liberals are completely surprised, they simply don’t know what to do with Palin. She completely defies there view of a feminist.

    She is smart, self sufficient and doesn’t need a prompter to give an answer. Maybe she doesn’t have enough political experience, but do we really need more of the same in DC?

    Despite changing presidents, congress and senates we have a $ 9Trillion deficit, Social security is on the verge of collapse, we have a crumbling infrastructure, no immigration policy, ever higher taxes and a do nothing congress. So why would I want more guys like Biden, McCain, Pelosi or Obama and the rest?

    It is time for new blood.

    September 9, 2008
  242. Paul Fried said:

    From Ray McGovern re: evidence of agents provocateurs in the form of plainclothes law officers who worked to provoke trouble at the RNC.

    McGovern is a retired CIA analyst who used to deliver daily briefings to, I think, three presidents. You can read the article in full at the URL at the bottom.

    From the last section of McGovern’s article:
    ………………
    Resourcefulness

    The young protesters had some success in exposing infiltrators in their ranks. During confrontations, members of the Welcoming Committee, in particular, took copious photos of law enforcement officers and then memorized the faces. This tactic worked like a charm in one of the St. Paul parks, when a man who looked like a protester — dark clothes, backpack, a bit disheveled-walked by.

    One of the protesters recognized the man’s face and searched through her camera until she found a photo of the man actually performing the raid on the Welcoming Committee’s headquarters on Friday night. The young protesters asked the man, and two associates, to leave the park, at which point the three hustled into a nearby unmarked sedan.

    The license plate, observed by a Pioneer Press reporter, traced back to the detective unit of the Hennepin County sheriff’s office, according to the county’s Central Mobile Equipment Division.

    Protesters later drove two other men out of the day’s planned march — one because he was wearing brand-new tennis shoes. The two left without indicating whether they were with the organs of public safety.

    So there is hope. Young people are smarter than old ones. It is a safe bet that in the coming weeks lots of unwelcome photos will be exposing various agents provocateurs, including over-the-hill flat-feet in unmarked cars, as well as young Republicans with unmarked tennis shoes. If those are the kind of “sources” upon which the police, FBI, etc. have been relying…well, that would be like having Shia reporting on Sunni, or vice versa.

    The organs of public safety are probably not quite so dumb as to be unaware that one cannot expect valid “intelligence” from such amateurish antics. More likely, the attitude is that any kind of “intelligence” will do for the purposes of local law enforcement and timid public officials cowed by the Feds.
    ……………….
    The article is called “Trickle-Down Preemption: Baghdad on the Mississippi”
    by Ray McGovern
    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/09-5

    September 9, 2008
  243. Peter Millin said:

    Anyone the breaks the law in a public protest has forfeited his rights. Of course like most criminals they will make every excuse imaginable.

    Freedom is an absence of force. Force and violence are not part of a functioning democracy.

    September 9, 2008
  244. Patrick Enders said:

    And her billing for her family’s travel? Were they all on ‘state business’?

    As you know, Alaska has a history of corrupt government – look at the indictments. Following accepted practice in a corrupt environment doesn’t make you clean. It makes you the same as everyone else.

    Let’s look at the facts:
    – She fires people for personal reasons. She did it as Mayor, and there is a fair bit of evidence supporting a case that she did it again as Governor. As Mayor, she won a lawsuit challenging those firings, not by claiming that her firings were justified, but simply because there’s nothing in Alaska law that prevents Mayors from firing people for any reason they want. Does that make it right, or just politics as usual in a free-for-all state?
    – She’s in favor of taking public money for herself and her people, but she’s now opposed to it for everybody else. As Mayor, she hired a lobbyist to bring in the Pork, and even bragged to the city council on bringing in an earmark that John McCain cited as a waste of money. As Governor, she has bragged about bringing home the bacon – most notably in favor of the money for the “Bridge to Nowhere.” Which she kept, even though the bridge didn’t get built. And apparently, she’s even willing to pay herself government dollars to cook her own lunch.
    So she’s in favor of pork, but she’s against it, huh?

    Sounds like more of the same.

    September 9, 2008
  245. Actually, Peter, the American people as a whole, don’t want congress to do anything. They, and I mean all Congresses since the beginning of our country, have done enough. Just how much, we may never know, but I will see if I can find just how many laws are on the books right now.

    Wanna bet it’s over a hundred thousand?

    Holly, if you ever decide to learn your numbers, I’ll tutor you and a few friends for free. Math, baby, math!

    September 9, 2008
  246. Peter Millin said:

    Dear Patrick,

    common dreams is hardly a reputable news source. Next to moveon it is just another Soros mouthpiece.

    Most of the smear has been already debunked, see below.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986

    Bright I have no idea what you are talking about???

    September 9, 2008
  247. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter,
    I have no idea what ‘common dreams’ is. My main sources on this have been the Washington Post and Politico. Neither is a liberal blog.

    September 9, 2008
  248. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter,
    Also, which one of my points are you disputing?

    September 9, 2008
  249. Patrick Enders said:

    Finally, Peter, the article you cite does not address any of my criticisms.

    September 9, 2008
  250. Peter, you said:

    Despite changing presidents, congress and senates we have a $ 9Trillion deficit, Social security is on the verge of collapse, we have a crumbling infrastructure, no immigration policy, ever higher taxes and a do nothing congress.

    I was responding (#253) to your claim of having a do nothing congress. Sorry, I thought that would have been obvious. Sorry.

    September 9, 2008
  251. john george said:

    Paul F.- In your post 239, you asked how we conservatives can srand around and put up with it. Take a look at this URL. I think it explains what we conservatives are putting up with.

    September 9, 2008
  252. David Henson said:

    Patrick, your right, Palin firing unwanted staff after being elected made no sense, she should have kept them around for 4 years of in fighting at which time they could have quit and sued the city for severance. Oh boy she knows how to manage – that’s a severe indictment. You’ve outlined Northfield’s need for a “strong mayor.”

    September 9, 2008
  253. Patrick Enders said:

    You’d like it if our Mayor decided to fire our Administrator for not ‘fully supporting’ his reelection campaign?

    That’s not change I can believe in.

    September 9, 2008
  254. David Henson said:

    Let’s suffice it to say that it’s change that 85-95% of Alaskans do believe in ! These are sky high approval ratings or do the Dems plan to attack the approval ratings as well ?

    September 9, 2008
  255. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    No, I just plan to attack McCain and Palin’s words and actions, when I believe – and can make a reasonably good case – that they have been wrong. Looks like that’s exactly what Obama is doing, as well.

    September 9, 2008
  256. Peter Millin said:

    It is amusing to see how the democrats supported by the media are bending over backwards to find some dirt on such a fine young American.

    Currently 30 people have descended down on to Alaska. This is a group of lawyers, opposition researchers and the media, trying desperately to digg up some dirt.
    Of course they are within their rights to do so, but does anyone remember this been done for Obama?
    Wright, Pfleger and Ayers are but side notes in his resume. These connection are much worse then “trooper gate”.
    Speaking of trooper gate, the press only tells half the story. It completely ignores the background of the guy that has been fired. The Alaska police union has eleven complains against this guy, of one is that he tazered his own eleven year old son. Others include drinking in a police car and being pulled over for traffic violations by his own colleagues.

    Do we here about that? Of course not. All we hear is about “Will she able to be a VP by having five kids”? ( what a sexist comment that is)..blah..blah…
    Why did she fly 8 hours to have her baby? and so on and so on.

    I hope this will be kept up and expose the democrats and the supporting press for what they really are. Bias hate mongers who get their kicks by creating descent and tumult.

    Americans are not supid if they can’t stand one thing it’s being unfairly treated. We can’t mention Obamas color, religion or middle name without being demonized.
    But a hardworking mother including her children are fair game?

    Wow this is not the America I came to love.

    September 9, 2008
  257. Patrick Enders said:

    It is amusing to see how the democrats supported by the media are bending over backwards to find some dirt on such a fine young American.

    It’s called reporting. As of two weeks ago, most Americans had never heard of this woman. Since she’s trying to be elected to a position where she could be leader of our country six months from now, I think it’s a very good idea to dig very deeply into her past.

    They do it to all politicians – as they should. But for her, the process has been necessarily compressed.

    And yes, I’ve read both the good and the bad in the press. I highlight the bad because I find it alarming, and because McCain and his fawning press coverage are already highlighting her virtues.

    As for the soap opera elements, you’ll find that I’ve had nothing to say on those above. It seems the one group of people who keep bringing those up is the McCain campaign itself, which has decided to abandon any intelligent talk about policies, in favor of its own brand of an issues-free cult of personality, paired with a smear against the press and Democrats.

    September 9, 2008
  258. Holly Cairns said:

    Math! I did make it through Calculus, and then I never looked back.

    There are legitimate reasons to check on Palin. What’s this secessionist idea? Goodbye, Alaska? Hello! Not a small deal.

    Who cares about the trooper. We all have interesting brother-in-law (or some other relative) stories.

    It’s not so great that her kid is pregnant and marrying the boy at 17, but families are important and I worry about that kid. Mom is busy, but I hope not too busy to help.

    Being mean to a cancer person– we all have bad days and deserve the penalty box.

    But the secessionist thing is worrysome.

    Really, she seems so different from McCain and it is bizarre that we keep talking about her. Does someone have a crystal ball, and can see she’ll be President?

    Now, as for Obama. He has strong family values, believes in using appropriate military action, he believes in fair taxation and investing in good programs, wants effective and efficient government (which does mean cutting some programs, I would bet), worries about fiscal restraint and also our responsibility to our children, and more.

    I’ll admit Obama’s been hanging out in the legislative branch instead of the executive branch, but he carries less baggage than a lot of other senators do. Like the baggage McCain carries, for instance. McCain is a member of the Keating 5, if we remember the ’80’s. I know he was cleared, but he was criticized. And that’s baggage.

    September 9, 2008
  259. Patrick Enders said:

    Paul wrote,

    so who is playing dirty now.

    Good to see the Democrats fighting fire with fire. Didn’t see any suggestion in that article that the Democrats were lying, just ratcheting up the tone of their rhetoric a little closer to matching the Republican tone.

    September 9, 2008
  260. Peter Millin said:

    Two wrongs never equal one right IMHO

    September 9, 2008
  261. David Henson said:

    Patrick – from 263 – it’s not working. I’m an independent, I voted for Wellstone the first time when he ran around with no money in the green bus and then against him when he grabbed big money off the east coast. Independents are not interested in hearing Obama or Dems rip Palin – the Dems are losing votes fast – find a new strategy. Honestly, it’s weird to see the top of a ticket attack the bottom of a ticket.

    September 9, 2008
  262. Peter Millin said:

    It’s quiet telling hat Obama spends so much time attacking Palin. I believe he realizes that she poses a real danger to him. Until now he was able to claim the outsider status.
    In comparison to her McCain, Biden and Obama represent the establishment. They are the problem not the solution.

    Remember the “Bridge to Nowhere”…maybe she was for it before she was against it..but Biden and Obama voted for it…twice.

    September 9, 2008
  263. Jane Moline said:

    Peter: Sarah Palin is not a femiinist. That is why feminists denounce her.

    McCain’s judgement is in question. Palin’s judgement is in question. (So nice of her to parade her pregnant-unprotected-sex-daughter in front of the entire nation. Good job, Mom.)

    Also, Peter, we stopped one war with civil disobedience. Being arrested does not mean that you have broken the law. (That is another little idea called “innocent until proven guilty.”) It is embarrassing that Americans cannot get organized enough to protest the illegal acts of the Bush administration. It is even more embarrassing that some Republicans advocate fascist tactics to prevent free speech.

    September 9, 2008
  264. Peter Millin said:

    Jane.
    Before we discuss feminism maybe we should define the term. In my world a feminist is a women that despite some existing sexism manages to stand on her own.
    Thinks for herself, is independent and asserts her rights as a human being.

    If having a daughter with a child out of wedlock questions her judgement, shouldn’t we eliminate Obama from consideration as well? After all his mom made bad choices as well.
    The hypocrisy of using this issue against her is baffling. I guess if you are a liberal we feel sympathy or even worse give you financial support for having a child out of wedlock.
    However if you are a conservative the rules change?

    How does her daughter having a child out of wedlock cloud her judgement?

    I am all for civil disobedience and protest it is one of our basic right as Americans.
    But what does civil disobedience have to do with destroying private property? Nothing. It’s an cowardly act and you should pay the price for it.

    Because Bush went to war and you disagree somebody is going to slash my tires, put my car on fire and break my window.

    Your freedom and rights end when it infringes on somebody elses freedom and rights. If it doesn’t we have anarchy.

    September 10, 2008
  265. Jane wrote:

    So nice of her to parade her pregnant-unprotected-sex-daughter in front of the entire nation.

    I wouldn’t use the term “parade”, I would say the daughter was included, and not hidden away, like they did in the 50s and earlier, only to be mercilessly dragged out by the opposing party later on.

    And how do you know that she was having unprotected sex? Were you there?

    Furthermore, feminism is a fad that has died out over the last 30 years.
    They really didn’t have an idea of what makes a woman’s heart beat,imho.

    September 10, 2008
  266. Felicity Enders said:

    Bright,

    1. Feminism has not died out. Feminism is alive and well, in the discussion of equal pay for equal work, in how long women have to identify such inequities in the workplace, and in the issues of childcare for women who choose to work. This last issue should actually be considered a family issue, but is typically a women’s rights issue instead.

    2. Feminism was never about what makes a woman’s heart beat.

    Feminism has certainly developed. Most of the country has now gotten past barefoot-and-pregnant, perhaps primarily because two salaries are required in today’s economy. However, women have certainly not achieved equality as yet, and the issues that pertain (primarily) to women have definitely not yet achieved equality with issues that hit front and center for men.

    September 10, 2008
  267. Felicity Enders said:

    Further on the feminism issue: I heard a talk this week by Sylvia Ann Hewlett (Author of Off-Ramps and On-Ramps). She has done research around the country with women in science, technology, and engineering careers. This research has helped her identify a fight-or-flight moment that typically occurs between ages 35 and 40, when women who have been successful up until that point in these challenging careers essentially hit a wall, and have to decide to fight or not.

    52% of such women leave their careers at this age. Less than a quarter do so in order to raise a family (contrary to popular belief). The rest tend to switch careers entirely, or even go back to school. The wall that leads to this fight or flight moment is in trying to do what is required for promotion in what continues to be a male-dominated culture. Women are provided fewer opportunities, time off for parenting is typically not considered when women come up for promotion, and the vast majority of leadership in such fields is male. The result is this enormous percentage of highly educated, highly qualified women leaving their careers behind.

    This does not happen to men on a national scale.

    September 10, 2008
  268. Hi, Felicity. I completely respect your views as stated, but it’s kinda of not what I am talking about and that is my fault for not explaining my stance.
    I am of the old computer posting school that says keep it simple and short.

    One issue I will raise, and this is only my personal opinion and based in my own experience and you would have had to be there with me living it for proof, cuz I didn’t keep the receipts, and all that, here I am laughing, again, no one but me would understand, but I think the American family is way spoiled, lives way out of their ability to pay, and even if they did stay within their income to outgo ratio, as many do, they still have a ton of wasteful habits that could certainly be curtailed and turned into savings or health insurance. I can say that because while my friends and family members had such a stretch to make it on $60K or more per year 10-15 years ago, I was living very comfortably on $8-12,000 and putting away the rest for many years. I know others who can do that, too. And I enjoyed my share of movies, dinners out, books, museums, etc. I didn’t have a cell phone, a
    SUV, pay tv, cleaning bills, or a lot of fancy clothes, shoes and handbags, cocaine, fancy wine or exotic cars, race cars, airplanes, video games, guns, or no, I take that back, I did have a Zelda game and a Mario for awhile, as a gift, but I didn’t have “all the extras”, like so many have. I am not saying they shouldn’t have that, but they shouldn’t have that AND complain to the government that they cannot afford health care, and that they need more money. As soon as they do that, everyone is gonna have to pay for their extravagances. That’s what I see too often. And don’t tell me about the poor, I am not including them here at all.

    Come on, somebody is buying this stuff now by the billions and billions of dollars every year and it’s not just the rich people.

    I am NOT saying anything against equal pay for equal work here. I think that everyone should get out what they put into a job.

    And as for feminism, I was referring to the old feminism that turned off a lot of people to the real issues. I don’t really want to get into all that now, but defer to your expertise on the issues of the day, Felicity. And thanks for all your good work. Really.

    September 10, 2008
  269. Jane Moline said:

    Felicity, I agree. Feminism is long from dead–unfortunately those anti-feminists claim to define it for the feminists–twisting it into something unatractive.

    Peter, in your case you define feminism as being a human and standing on your own two feet. That, unfortunately, is too broad. Feminism means standing up for all your sisters–even those that don’t know what feminism is and don’t know how sexism will harm them.

    Sarah Palin is against what feminism is for.

    Bright, I may not have been there but I have a 90% chance of being right that the girl (Bristol) that is pregnant became that way during unprotected sex. Birth control does work. Unfortunately, this poor girl, if her mother lives what she preaches, was denied basic sex education and probably had no clue how to protect herself from pregnancy at this young age. How will we ever know if she really ever wanted to be married right now? Now, her life is a media event thanks to her mother.

    Peter, I love how you think that I should judge Barack Obama by his mother’s decisions BEFORE HE WAS BORN but you think that Sarah Palin should not be subject to any criticism on how she has managed her family. (See, Barack Obama is the candidate, not his mother. Sarah Palin is the candidate-not her daughter.)

    Sarah Palin has NO qualifications to run for national office, and a lot of baggage including very questionable judgements as mayor of a town that had a population closer to 5000 when she was there, and that she left in debt for a money-losing sports center, and where she tried to get the librarian fired for not banning books. And, as governor used her position to summarily fire or attempt to fire anyone that did not toe her line, (and for which she is under ethics investigation.)

    Sarah Palin is a religious nut case. Her ideas of forcing religious laws on the general public and the nation are dangerous.

    McCain is a war mongering Republican who will do anything to get party support, including turning his back on the US torture that he claims to oppose (since he was tortured as a POW.)

    All that McCain and Palin can do is claim that Democrats will tax and spend–while continuing to advocate that we should spend spend spend 300 million dollars a day so their contractor buddies can continue to rake in money on the Iraq war, and drill drill drill so we can destroy the environment and continue our dependence on Islamist-fundamentalist controlled oil from their other Republican supporting buddies in Saudi Arabia, etc. (Where the terrorist of 9/11 were really from and where Osama Bin Laden gets his funding.)

    The Iraq war has led to economic disaster in the USA that is getting worse–and McCain-Palin will give us more of the same. Unemployment is up again.

    Now that the shock of Palin is wearing off, we will get all the dirt on her (if the media is doing its job for the public rather than just for their Republican-supporting owners.)

    More information is coming out–Sarah Palin is a big liability, and reveals McCain’s bad judgement.

    September 10, 2008
  270. Peter Millin said:

    Based on your comments a conservative women can’t be a feminist? Hmm interesting.
    I thought women issues affect all women?

    Please Google feminism on Wikipedia…

    This is my definition of feminism…how does Sarah Palin not fit here. I think she is right on.

    September 10, 2008
  271. Anne Bretts said:

    Peter, I think that in her own choices, Palin acts like a feminist. When she would deny the right of women to make different choices, when she would force others to learn her beliefs instead of science, when she would keep women and men from learning about birth control options, she is exercising the same kind of repression that created the feminist movement.

    September 10, 2008
  272. Gee, Jane, I can find so many things to disagree with you about…when we may actually agree on some things, but the way you put them…I’ll show you what I mean…you said;

    this poor girl, if her mother lives what she preaches, was denied basic sex education and probably had no clue how to protect herself from pregnancy at this young age. How will we ever know if she really ever wanted to be married right now? Now, her life is a media event thanks to her mother.

    Start with “this poor girl”, I wouldn’t say that about any 17 year old girl in this country who has her health, food, shelter, two parents, and some siblings in the same house because around the world, since time began, women aged 17 have been able to bear children as a natural fact. Motherhood is sacred, not something to be pitied. It is YOUR judgment that if a young woman get s pregnant, they will be considered ‘poor girls.’

    In this day and age, and you know perfectly well, Bristol was not denied access to knowledge from and of the outside world. She wasn’t living in a
    cloistered community or under lock and key or I am sure you would have brought it up.

    You said, how will we ever know if she wanted to be married?, first of all, we don’t need to know that, it is truly none of our business, and second of all, you seem to make it sound like marriage is awful…only if you marry the wrong person, or if you are the wrong person for marriage…in and of itself, it’s a good thing, imho.

    Bristol’s life may not be a media event if people like you and me drop it, and I am dropping it right now.

    September 10, 2008
  273. Peter Millin said:

    Anne,

    The myth about her wanting creationism in the school has been already debunked by factcheck.org so it’s a non starter.

    Sorry, but I don’t think it’s the schools or any other government entities job to teach my children about birth control or about sex.
    I reserve the right as a parent to teach this myself. Who and why would somebody outside of my house want to make a decision about when the time is right to teach my children about sex? Where is my right to chose?

    I am a conservative and I believe a women has the right to an abortion if she chooses to. But how about the rights of a unborn?

    The part that makes me mad is that we don’t call it what it is “killing a baby”. The notion of life not beginning at conception and that the fetus is not a life, is merely designed to make us feel better about the choice we make. Call it what it is.

    September 10, 2008
  274. Anne Bretts said:

    Peter, actually she said she wouldn’t force the issue but she’d like the schools to teach both creationism and evolution and let kids debate. But of course that means we’d have to add the creation theories found in other Western religions as well as the teachings of those who think we are reincarnated again and again and those who think space aliens brought us here and built the pyramids for us. I’m game as long as we include them all, but I don’t think that’s what she had in mind. That’s the problem, the truth isn’t evolution or creationism. It’s evolution and a lot of other stuff that I’m sure Palin would not want mentioned.
    As for sex education, parents always have the option of having their children exempted from sex ed lessons or classes, just as they can opt out of doing book reports on books their parents don’t like. I agree that your children shouldn’t be forced to take sex ed classes, but they should deny others the option of learning.
    That’s what the debate is all about in this election. I believe you’re free to believe whatever you want. Palin wants to limit what I discuss to the boundaries of your belief system. Palin wants to limit relationships to the kind that make her comfortable. That’s not what the founding fathers had in mind when they opted to keep religion out of government.

    September 10, 2008
  275. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    If Karl Rove could persuade McCain to take Palin for a running mate, all the more reason to vote for Obama. Surely makes him look good by comparison. If the country sees otherwise and votes for McCain, the country is truly lost.

    I saw Palin in the 2006 governor debate run on CNN. Her answers were very extreme. Made the other two candidates look reasonable. And yet, she won. Guess I won’t be moving there anytime soon.

    September 10, 2008
  276. Peter Millin said:

    Anne,

    You assume to much. I tend to take people by their word until proven wrong. There is nothing that Palin has done or said so far to make me think that she has a hidden agenda.
    The part I found disturbing is that women are only feminists when they believe in a certain world of thought? Seems very exclusive to me and certainly limits the feminist movement to a particular group.

    I believe that the vast majority of people are very capable of taking care of their own needs without government interference.
    Should government and religion be separate of course they should, but this strong division would disqualify 90% of our politicians including Obama. he has stated one more then one occasion what he believes in.
    Personally I’d rather have a person in office with strong moral values then one that believes in nothing. It shouldn’t matter which religion he/she decides to observe. Muslim, Chrisitan, Hindu or Budhist it doesn’t really matter as long as the person is honest, loving and respectful.

    In comparisson this issue is minute to the bigger issues at hand. My concerns are more about spending, taxes, inflation, healthcare and government power.

    Judging by those, Obama has an eerie likeness with socialism, a system I had to live under and moved away from.
    In his policies and stands he is like a bad re-run of the German SPD/Green coalition 25 years ago….and look where it has taken Germany today.

    Sorry, been there done that.

    September 10, 2008
  277. Peter, I agree with you about the pro life vs baby killing issue. True, a woman or a man has control over her or his own bodies, and that shouldn’t be a legislative issue. But when choices have been voluntarily made to do things which lead to having a baby, then you kill the baby cuz you made a mistake. Even in the case of rape, I would find a way to love that baby no matter what. There are grey cases that I cannot make statements about, true, cuz I have not walked in those shoes, but I would never ever ever kill a baby if I had any control over the situation and I would maintain that control, and if I needed help, I bet I could find someone to help me. I bet I could. And I bet anyone who had love in their heart could find help.

    What is really dastardly is giving someone the choice to think that they are so precious that they can kill their own baby, and tell you them it’s alright, it’s the law, and if you don’t get to kill your baby, you are not living in a free country. These types of thoughts are confusing our youth and destroying families all over this country.

    September 10, 2008
  278. Jane Moline said:

    Peter, I said that Sarah Palin is not a feminist–not that a conservative could not be a feminist, (although there are basic conflicts that would have to be resolved.)

    I am not impressed with Wikipedia for your understanding of Sarah Palin’s “feminism.” She believes that creationism should be taught IN SCIENCE CLASSES along with evolution, so that students could “decide for themselves.” This reveals that Palin does not understand basic scientific theory, and that she believes that her religious beliefs should be taught in publc schools to everyone. This is exactly what the Taliban believes. She believes that we should impose laws that align with her religious beliefs–that is exactly what the Taliban believes. (You gotta check out her religious beliefs –they are way beyond wacko.)

    And Peter, just because you believe that an embroyo is a baby does not make it a baby. If it is a baby, take it out and raise it yourself. It is part of a woman’s body. Call it what it is–part of her body. When it comes out–whichever way it gets out, it might be a baby. Or it might not–it might be miscarried or delivered dead.

    Anti-choice proponents simply want to substitute their judgement and religious beliefs as superior to the pregnant woman’s–and that is what makes them anti -feminists. They really don’t want women to have the right to make their own decisions. They want to impose their religious and moral views on –women.

    Sarah Palin made her own decisions for herself–good for her. She wants to impose her choices on everyone else. That is bad. This devotion to dogma is dangerous and anti-American in addition to being anti-feminist. Hopefully her 15 minutes will be up soon.

    And Bright, it is wonderful that you can count all of little Bristol Palin’s blessings. It must really be fun for a teenager who is pregnant to be national news. Makes her feel like you she is related to Britney Spears.

    I feel very sorry for Bristol Palin. To have her life run through the national news. You would have to be one sick teenager to enjoy that kind of attention. It just shows where Sarah Palin’s priorities are. VP or bust.

    September 10, 2008
  279. Peter Millin said:

    Jane

    I am guessing that you never had a child. After seeing three of my kids sonogram I can assure you , that whatever you want to call it, is alive.

    The whole discussion if it is life or not is purely academic designed by selfish people, who rather put their head in the sand then face responsibility.

    Today there is absolutely no reason to get pregnant. If you do it’s your own doing.(with the exception of rape and incest).

    I don’t think that abortion should be another means of birth control.

    I find it very disturbing that the measuring stick for being accepted in to the feminist club has to include pro-choice and the believe in evolution.

    Freedom of choice has to include the freedom to be against abortion. You accuse Sarah of intolerance I am sorry but your position isn’t very tolerant either.

    September 10, 2008
  280. David Henson said:

    Jane – Sarah Palin is Governor of the state with the most liberal abortion laws and she never proposed any legislation to amend those laws. She also never once has said she wants creationism taught in school.

    Not that I’m a proponent of creationism but most theories of “beginnings,” including evolution, are as much myth as fact. The type of evolution taught today in school is actually very old fashioned and does not begin to deal with the complexity of modern biological understanding. Evolution itself has little to no predictive value which makes it sort of a quasi-science.

    The idea of being concerned about what someone “thinks” is over hyped relative to looking at what they actually do. Don’t you find it refreshing that Palin followed her own convictions ?

    September 10, 2008
  281. Barry Cipra said:

    In posting #278, Bright Spencer writes:

    “I am of the old computer posting school that says keep it simple and short.”

    Bravo to that. But, Bright, what would your next paragraph have been like if you’d opted to make it long and drawn out?

    September 10, 2008
  282. Haha, I think that is truly funny, Barry. Well, I am of two schools, I could go on and on or I could shut it down for awhile. Right now, I am for the second.
    Later.

    September 10, 2008
  283. Alright, I’ll just say this. Each woman should decide for herself how she wants to be treated and how she will act in her world. Feminism doesn’t work for everyone and everyone doesn’t need it. If I am not going to let society dictate to me how much money I should make or how many doors I want opened, why would I listen to some person who is trying to make me feel bad about how I think or act now…this is the fall of feminism, imho. And I refer to my legal and moral actions when I speak of this topic in this reference.

    Pretty short, huh?

    September 10, 2008
  284. Barry Cipra said:

    Bright writes:

    “Pretty short, huh?”

    Not really, imho.

    September 10, 2008
  285. Anne Bretts said:

    Just watching ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,’ and the difference between Sarah Palin and Jimmy Stewart’s ordinary fellow Jefferson Smith makes a person want to move to Canada.
    Of course there are a lot of great old movies on right now showing that the evils of politics are nothing new. ‘Advise and Consent’ for example, dealt with a married senator who committed suicide after being blackmailed over a homosexual liaison. The blackmail was designed so conservatives could block a secretary of state nominee considered too liberal.
    The more things change, the more they stay the same…we’re going to hell in a handbasket…or maybe there’s hope for real change…We’ll know in a few weeks, I guess.

    September 10, 2008
  286. Jerold Friedman said:

    I didn’t think that feminism was telling women to do anything. I thought feminism was tearing down the obstacles that prevent women from doing what they want to do, whether she wants to be a wife with kids and no career or president.

    This is why Jane said in #279 that feminism includes standing up for other women. It’s not telling other women what to do, but ensuring that other women are not told what to do.

    September 10, 2008
  287. john george said:

    Jane- You said this in comparing Palin to the Taliban,”…This reveals that Palin does not understand basic scientific theory, and that she believes that her religious beliefs should be taught in publc schools to everyone. This is exactly what the Taliban believes. She believes that we should impose laws that align with her religious beliefs–that is exactly what the Taliban believes…” I don’t think you are quite correct in your assesment of the Taliban. If I understand them correctly, they would not allow the teaching of any other theory that does not align itself with their understanding of the Koran. Actually, this is the position of the intelligencia in this contry toward anyone who would question the holy grail of evolution and dare to bring the discussion of any other theory into the classroom. Methinks you have the analogy backwards.

    You also said this, concerning her religious beliefs, “…(You gotta check out her religious beliefs –they are way beyond wacko.)…” Are you saying that anyone who does not believe as you do, or at least what you consider to be an acceptable expression of religious convictions, is “wacko”? What beliefs are you refering to here? All of her convictions? Or just some of them? This seems like a pretty severe accusation without giving some specifics. It is this same type of attitude that seemed to come out last year when three ladies were found to be praying in city hall. On the surface, your statement seems to be intolerant and condescending. I would hope that my assesment is incorrect.

    Peter- Welcome to Northfield. It is always good to have another opinion expressed on the site, especially a conservative one. You might say that we have a liberal supply of liberals in this town. On abortion, take a look at my URL I listed in post #259. One thing about abortion- it is a pretty effective means of birth control. What we need is conception control.

    September 11, 2008
  288. Patrick Enders said:

    John George wrote,

    Actually, this is the position of the intelligencia in this contry toward anyone who would question the holy grail of evolution and dare to bring the discussion of any other theory into the classroom. Methinks you have the analogy backwards.

    John,
    The significant difference is that evolution is perhaps the most strongly supported ‘Theory’ in science – right up there with gravity. As I posted before, “Not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution.”
    https://locallygrownnorthfield.org/archives/3546/#comment-63317

    The reason we teach evolution is because it is the fundamental cornerstone of biology and the medical sciences. It is the rational framework upon which we understand the living world. It is the rational framework in which we analyze and fight diseases.

    Evolution is at work when diseases mutate, and when successful new mutant strains of influenza (or HIV, or any/every other disease organism) spread across the world as lethal epidemics. Our understanding of evolution is the tool by which we identify the essential features of these disease organisms, and by which we figure out how to stop their spread.

    If we give up the teaching of evolution, we might as well give up on medicine, and leave it to the clergy to figure out how we’ll deal with HIV, or the next influenza epidemic, or the next spread of the bubonic plague.

    September 11, 2008
  289. Patrick Enders said:

    The core of evolutionary theory is quite simple:

    1. There are variations in traits in a population.
    2. Populations tend to produce more offspring than their environment can support.
    3. Some of those traits provide an advantage over others without that trait.
    4. Individuals possessing those traits are more likely to survive, and more likely to produce offspring, than those without those successful traits.
    5. Traits are passed from parent to child.

    As a result, the next generation will contain more individuals with the successful trait.

    Carry this out over enough generations, and the unsuccessful traits will disappear, and the successful traits will predominate. The population of living organisms will then be fundamentally different than at the previous point in time.

    It’s pretty simple, really, and as I quoted before, “Not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution.”

    In those 150 years, we have learned how genes determine traits and pass them on. We’ve also learned how variation arises through genetic mutation and reassortment (and even genetic exchange). The beauty of it is that Darwin figured it out with no understanding of any of that whatsoever.

    So yes, the theory of evolution is science at its best and most powerful.

    September 11, 2008
  290. David Henson said:

    Patrick – Your 1 -5 is a nice description of ‘natural selection’ but not ‘evolution.’ As an aside, animal breeders knew about ‘selection’ for 100,000s of years before Darwin – no doubt the concept of breeding originated in nature – Darwin pushed the idea as an explanation of origins -but to date breeders have taken dog stocks and produced lots of breeds of dogs but none have taken dog stocks and bred a cat.

    Mutation, which is only one problem area, is not well understood at all as is clear from your glossing over the issue. If one defines successful science by it’s capacity to predict outcomes then evolution is nearly a religious concept.

    But for the purposes of acting as an elected official what one believes about origins should not matter – what should matter is what laws one proposes and passes. Obama has proposed and passed none in his career. I don’t choose a butcher, a baker, or a candle stick maker based on their ‘beliefs.’ I choose them based on their meat, bread and candles. Palin has produced great outcomes and has 85-95% approval ratings to prove this.

    September 11, 2008
  291. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Sorry, I was trying to keep it brief and simple. Natural selection is the process in 2-5. Evolution is the change that results from 2-5.

    From Wikipedia (in this case, it provides a decent definition):

    In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism’s offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

    Mutation is pretty well understood, as well. Which part would you like to discuss?

    September 11, 2008
  292. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    On your second point, the beliefs of John McCain and Sarah Palin on evolution are relevant because they are going to be making decisions and setting policy on science and education.

    September 11, 2008
  293. Prayer has been found to be a very important part of the healing process. The scientific community denied that fact. Science doesn’t know everything, but is making a heroic effort to do so. However, you then have to think if you really want the solutions that science has to offer, you have to believe that that is the right path to pursue. For many, it is not.

    Barry, so sorry you think my posts are too long. Skip over them. I won’t mind at all…and thanks for th set up.

    Jane, I see you have mimicked my style. Good for you. I don’t know if you are right about the WMDs, but my take on it is like I posted a while back about how Saddam let the cat out of the bag about how he supposedly had WMDs at all times to keep himself looking powerful. It makes complete sense to me that he would do that and that he would send out people with that message far and wide. I would do that if I was him, I think it makes perfect sense. Everyone believed it and I saw Bush admit that it was a mistake and that he was fooled just like everyone else. That isn’t the issue anymore…so let’s move forward.

    If you think Barack Hussein Obama has something, lets hear about that and not all these hearsay accusations and personal judgments against others personal business.

    Again, please just cruise past my posts if you don’t want to read them. I don’t have a problem with that, people. It’s a free USA.

    September 11, 2008
  294. Jerold, you would be right in theory, but in every day life, I can tell you that every ‘feminist’ I have met cannot tolerate any other options. You may not tell them that women rose to the top before they came along.

    First of all, feminists are trying to break into areas that men developed over the centuries, men’s games. Why would I want to go to war, or build ships, or construct highways? I wouldn’t want to be the CEO of those companies or would I want to be a wartime general in the armed forces. I wouldn’t and I don’t. Yeah, I would live the old tribal ways of my ancestors had I not been born smack dab in the middle of downtown Chicago, etc, and I would be happy teaching and caring for children and the elderly. I would cook, and it the time came for me to negotiate peace, I would do that. I might run an inventory of food, or design a new long house. I would definitely design clothes and jewelry. I’d do what women do and have done throughout the centuries, and if other women wanted to hunt and plow fields, so be it. Not a problem.

    People like the woman who started Mary Kay cosmetics, or the author of the Fountainhead, the many women who started service organizations,
    well here you go,

    http://www.tburg.k12.ny.us/MS/starkweather/5th%20Grade%20Folder/
    first_ladiesfamous_women_projec.htm

    Most of them rose to the occasion on their own merit, with help, of course, no one does anything alone, of that construct, but without new laws and new enforcements. The doors aren’t locked to people who go to the right doors and have the right keys, imho.

    I do appreciate that women and especially women with children who have
    no husband or father for their children need special help, and should get it but the glass ceiling has little to do with that. There is more to my opinion, but basically I just wanted to reply to Jerold’s post.

    September 11, 2008
  295. David Henson said:

    Patrick – Griff would have to set up a ‘monkey trials’ thread to debate evolution further but for the record the fact that Wiki says the word “mutation” does not further the debate. There are lots of cool new “”theories”” about retroviruses, parasitic and symbiotic relations where multiple species become one, ecology shaping by bacteria etc.

    I don’t know what Obama and the Reverend Write believe or have proposed for legislation on evolution but I know that neither McCain or Palin have put forward legislation to teach creationism. I guess I don’t know enough about what any of them “believe” and I will have to rely more on the facts of their policy initiatives and careers.

    September 11, 2008
  296. Peter Millin said:

    Patrick,

    If personal beliefs matter and have a connection to policy making the Obama owes us some answers.

    He should explain his relationships to Wright, Ayers and Pfleger.

    It is funny how Palin is being described as a religious wacko when Obama and his family have spent a lifetime in an extremist church, who’s dogma is so Anti American

    September 11, 2008
  297. Anne Bretts said:

    Bright, I’m not following you at all. And defining feminists by the women you know is like defining the Catholic Church by its pedophile priests. They exist, but they’re certainly not whole picture of the feminist movement.
    Men didn’t build ships and develop companies because women didn’t know how, but because women weren’t allowed. There were laws, regulations, policies that kept me from taking construction classes, even though my dad was in construction and my brothers took the classes. There were policies that kept women out of medical school and until recently, off most police and fire departments and out of combat roles in the military. In my lifetime there were laws that wouldn’t let a woman own property in her own name or have a credit card without her husband’s signature. Hell, we only got the vote 88 years ago.
    My friend’s mother and her husband were teachers in the late 1940s, but when they had a child she was forced to resign because mothers weren’t allowed to work. She protested and made history in that Illinois town when she got them to change the rules — and taught another 30 years. Clearly the problem wasn’t that motherhood had diminished her teaching skills, but that the men in charge didn’t allow mothers to teach.
    Yes, feminists got tired of hearing the word no, and some got pretty shrill and angry, just as the anger of generations poured out in some of the extremes of the civil rights movement and anti-war movement of the 1960s.
    Yes, laws had to change. And once they changed, women did just fine.
    Women didn’t ask for special treatment, just equal treatment.
    And some laws still need to change. What does it say about the state of our society even now that a woman serving in Iraq is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than be killed by the enemy?
    I totally don’t get that whole piece about why would women want to design highways or build ships. They do it for the same reason some men like to stay home and take care of babies or work in elementary schools or be nurses instead of doctors. Men and women are just people, and while there are some interests that are more dominant in one gender than the other, there are no interests that I know of that are exclusive to one gender.
    I’m cool with you teaching children and designing clothes and whatever. I like that too, but I also loved driving the big red trucks and fighting fires. My granddaughters like to hunt and do gymnastics and ballet.
    Why should our lives be defined by the limits you put on yourself?

    September 11, 2008
  298. Jerold Friedman said:

    The evidence for evolution is compelling. Even Pope John Paul II claimed evolution was undeniable, but that evolution is not incompatible with faith.

    Evolution occurs not only in biology. It occurs in language, for example. From Latin we get French, Italian, Spanish and other languages, and Latin has gone extinct.

    The process for biological evolution is up for debate, whether it’s “natural selection”, “aesthetic/sexual selection”, a mixture of these or something else. The something includes “artificial selection” of breeders.

    There is ample evidence of evolution before and during human civilization. As David H. notes in #300, breeders have not taken dogs and bred cats, but they have taken wolves and bred dogs. Dogs all descended from the eastern gray wolf probably through artificial selection, and humans further bred them into 150 or so modern dog breeds. In one human lifetime, Dimitri Belyaev took foxes, selectively bred them for friendly dispositions, and the descendants look like dogs.

    There is no shortage of examples from before human civilization. I remember being fascinated with whales (I still am). As a child, I remember hearing that whales came from land animals who returned to the ocean. Modern DNA analysis shows that whales are closely related to hippopotami, who in turn, spend a majority of their time in the water.

    What all this and other evidence proves is not the point. The point is that evolution has a rich history of scientific discovery, and as such, rightfully belongs in science classes. There is no scientific discovery in Creationism. There is no inquiry nor debate on how Creation works. No scientist has pondered the process of Creation. Why some people want pieces of theism taught in science class defies my understanding of theism.

    September 11, 2008
  299. Patrick Enders said:

    David wrote,

    There are lots of cool new “”theories”” about retroviruses, parasitic and symbiotic relations where multiple species become one, ecology shaping by bacteria etc.

    I agree – evolution is a very interesting process. We are learning more and more about the myriad ways in which it works every day. (Although observations about retroviruses, et al. are data – not an actual theory.)

    My personal favorite discovery recently has been how retroviruses can inadvertently pick up pieces of DNA from one species or individual, and deposit it into the genome of another. All of this is great evidence which – along with our ever growing understanding of how mutations work – helps to fill in the details in the outline provided by Darwin’s initial Theory. In this cas, they reveal how the diversity of traits in a population (point 1 of my brief outline above) comes into existence.

    The reason the Theory of Evolution is so strongly supported is that all of these new, surprising findings fit with the theory, and none of them have contradicted it.

    September 11, 2008
  300. Anne Bretts said:

    For me the key issue is that nobody should force anyone to believe in evolution, you just have to learn about it because it is the commonly accepted information on the subject. You can get an A in evolution and believe aliens dropped us here as punishment when our ancestors misbehaved on an intergalactic road trip.
    I don’t have a big problem with students studying ABOUT the great religions of the world and their influence, making it a part of the overall discussion of history and geography and politics. You can learn Gregorian Chant in music class without believing in the words being sung.
    You can even have a some space in the science book that says there are some religions that reject science. Let’s face it, the whole creation theory is about a page long and not all that complicated. One guy, six days and a nap…then we add the theistic evolution view that God did it all but may have fudged his timesheet, so it could have been anywhere between 7 days and maybe 4 million years. Toss in the Ojibwe Great Spirit story and the Greek gods and a few other tales and you’re covered. The focus remains on the science, but there’s an acknowledgment that some folks don’t buy it.

    September 11, 2008
  301. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerold,

    Actually, there is a hypothesis that we (humans) did not breed dogs from wolves, but that dogs initially evolved due to natural selection. (Of course, we’ve done plenty of work on dogs since they’ve come into being.) The theory is that there was a subset of wolves who were slightly less afraid of humans, and were therefore able to get close enough to human settlements to feed off our garbage piles. Given this advantageous access to a new resource, these tamer wolf descendents were able to feed and prosper, with successive generations ever more favoring combinations of traits which favored success as scavengers at the periphery of human settlements.

    The most interesting evidence supporting this hypothesis are from a Soviet scientist’s experimental breeding of foxes, in which he selected for docileness. It turns out that the genes associated with a lack of fear of humans are also closely linked to those supporting traits of floppy ears and even barking (bet you’ve never heard a fox bark before). It took only a very few generations of crossbreeding the foxes that were least afraid of humans to produce a remarkably dog-like fox. Therefore, it is possible that dogs became a distinct species from wolves all on their own.

    If you’re interested in a light bit of amusement on the subject, it’s covered in a PBS Nature documentary, ‘Dogs That Changed The World.’
    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/dogs-that-changed-the-world/introduction/1273/
    http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Dogs_That_Changed_the_World/70069461?trkid=222336&lnkctr=srchrd-sr&strkid=1355567308_0_0

    Again, this is just a hypothesis, but it’s an interesting one. Perhaps it’ll be supported by additional evidence, perhaps not.

    September 11, 2008
  302. Jerold Friedman said:

    Patrick: You missed that I mentioned the fox-to-dog selective breeding in my post…

    In one human lifetime, Dimitri Belyaev took foxes, selectively bred them for friendly dispositions, and the descendants look like dogs.

    September 11, 2008
  303. David Henson said:

    Patrick – Evolutionary theory is not like the truck of your car and every new biological discovery can be tossed in and called part of evolution. Many of these new ideas could be tossed into the creation design trunk just as easily. Darwin did not predict retroviruses – where does this code come from (gas bubbles ?) ? Another perplexing logical thought is that Nietzsche, a contemporary of Darwin, said something to the effect of, ‘the current utility of a thing says absolutely nothing about it’s origins.’

    September 11, 2008
  304. Patrick Enders said:

    David H,

    Darwin did not predict retroviruses – where does this code come from (gas bubbles ?) ?

    Darwin didn’t describe the full details of the universe: he described a fundamental principle by which the universe appears to be governed. In what way do you think that retroviruses contradict his theoretical framework?

    September 11, 2008
  305. Paul Fried said:

    Leave for a while, and folks cover infanticide, evolution, feminism, dog breeding, the Taliban, creationism — you can’t blink around here.

    While Locally Grown’s stated mission is to deal with things local, this thread (like many others that experience thread drift) is evidence that there’s a strong LOCAL desire to discuss things that transcend the local.

    I knew of one discussion site that had threaded discussions, and contributors could label their tangents, which became sub-threads; the administrators sometimes took those tangent and moved the whole sub-thread to a new discussion with its own title, including a note that it started in a different place. The ability to do that might be handy around here.

    But perhaps another local blog for discussion of non-local issues would be nice. It seems that Locally Grown favors the local issues, but occarionally includes larger issues, which then act (perhaps) like pressure valves (just because we live in a town with population under 30,000 doesn’t mean we don’t think about larger issues).

    JohnG: Back in #259 you posted a link to a video (with very high production values — some significant money went into making that) which claims Obama favors infanticide. FactCheck.org did some research on those claims, and the results are ambiguous at best: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

    There is also the question of proportion: There have been many more deaths of innocent civilians, including women and children, in Iraq in the last four years than there have been live-birth abortions. This is a wedge issue and distraction from larger issues, an attempt to make a mountain of a mole-hill.

    I’m pro-life, but for Obama in spite of his stand on abortion because it seems to me there are far more important priorities that need to be addressed that might affect the survival of the whole human race, not just the unborn. I think we could use a better and more compassionate understanding of the difference between a woman’s body and the unborn that depends on and seems also part of that body; we might improve as a people in our values if we recognized more that this is not a black-and-white moral issue. But then we might also look more carefully at the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, which Palin’s remarks at the RNC seem not to do.

    Republicans want to treat people at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as if we don’t have to respect their rights — “He want to read them their rights” Palin said of Obama. This assumes that they’re guilty and the guilty have no rights.

    But a CIA agent who was asked to in spect at Guantanamo determined that many were innocent and not terrorists — but after their time there, if they weren’t before, they are now. Many are there because a bounty was placed on the heads of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, so impoverished people turned in neighbors they happened not to like.

    Similar observations have been made of Abu Ghraib — that many imprisoned and tortured included doctors and food delivery people, a rounding up of many suspicious persons without clear evidence in many cases. This represented efforts by an understaffed military to intimidate the population and remind them who was in control. The torture also represented privatized companies charged with the task, who were paid by volume — the more prisoners you torture, the more you get paid. This doesn’t win hearts and minds.

    This is not to say that none of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo are guilty of crimes and conspiricies to harm people and property. Some are.

    This is not a conservative-liberal issue. There are elements in our body politic who have become defenders, not of the rule of law and the preservation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but of the use of power without restraint, what John Dean, a self-described Barry Goldwater fan, describes as “conservatives without conscience.” It is this, more than the so-called “Islamo-Fascism,” that we should be most concerned about. These are domestic enemies of the Constitution. Many (in elected office and the military) take an oath to defend against such enemies, but in practice, let them have free reign.

    Mock the idea of suspects being read their rights and not mistreated.

    Mock the idea that many of our nation’s founders defended: That it’s better to have a fair trial that is uncertain regarding guilt, and possibly have a guilty person go free, than it is to have hasty, unfair justice where the innocent become victims of the system. This is the evil that many were cheering when Palin said of their opponents that they “want to read them their rights.” Let’s assume we know who is guilty. Skip the formalities. Let’s round up a gang with guns and a rope and have a hangin’.

    This is a phenomenon that has morphed so far beyond what should deserve the name “conservative” that it’s a joke.

    September 11, 2008
  306. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    Thanks for trying to reign in this conversation a bit. I want to share a tidbit I was told today–that some Democrats are having a hard time voting for Obama because “somebody will shoot him.” And that 2 guys were arrested about a week before the DNC, thought to be planning to take him out when he gave his major speech. Sniper rifles were found?

    Has anybody heard this? Is it something unsubstantiated that’s coming through the blogs??

    September 11, 2008
  307. Jane Moline said:

    Peter: How manly of you to assume that since you were transported by the sonograms of your children I could not possible have born children and still believe that they were part of my body when they were in me, and that my choice to carry a pregnancy or not was mine to decide–not one that some supreme court justices or other, fatherly type men should make for me.

    And, furthermore, Peter, (#289) you are so manly to say:

    “Today there is absolutely no reason to get pregnant. If you do it’s your own doing.(with the exception of rape and incest)”

    Again, Peter, I can only assume you are a man and have never been pregnant. The only way to never get pregnant is to be a man or to never have sex.

    Keep your laws off my body.

    And the whole evolution/creationism thread is important, because even if you “chose” not to believe in evolution, evolution is NOT a religious belief. Creationism is a religious belief–and has no place in the science curriculum of a school.

    And Sarah Palin and the rest of the radical religious who believe it should be taught are extremists. To claim or misunderstand or state or believe that creationism is a “theory” LIKE evolution reveals an ignorance of scientific study–David H, do you really think that scientific theory is part “myth?” (Post 290)

    So, IMHO, anyone, including Sarah Palin, who thinks that creationism should be taught in science curriculum in schools so that children can “choose” for themselves what to believe, are religious wackos that are dangerous for forcing their religious beliefs on the general public. They are dangerous to public education, the separation of church and state, and being American.

    John George, the Taliban may have taken it one step further, but their belief is the same as Sarah Palin’s–that their religious beliefs should be taught in public schools-forced on everyone, even those that don’t share that religion. I am as intimidated by forced Christianity as I am by forced Islam.

    Our country was founded by those fleeing religious persecution–and the documents of our country were drafted to keep us free from such forced religious training. Sarah Palin is un-American and un-patriotic.

    September 11, 2008
  308. Jane Moline said:

    Stephanie, regarding your hearing of Obama as a target, I have no doubt it is true. We lost Bobby Kennedy, and you can bet that there are extremists who are looking out for a chance to get Obama–but is has been much discussed–the Secret Service, we hope, would be on top of it.

    For me, the Obama candidacy brings on the same inspiration of hope that Bobby Kennedy did–he knew that war was wrong and that we had to get out of Vietnam–and he was killed for it. And we got Richard Nixon–and the Republican war machine has not stopped.

    We need to unite against those that are destroying our nation–corrupt Republican politicians who want to drain our economy in favor of their corporate war machine buddies, who can’t think beyond enriching their oil company buddies (Drill Baby Drill) while destroying our planet–all the while making an unholy alliance with religious wackos–like Sarah Palin–who believe the Iraq war is the precursor of the End of Days, who believe they will rise into heaven and not have to deal with climate change, so pollute away.

    Vote for peace and love. Vote for Obama.

    And if you put lipstick on a pitbull, it is still a pitbull and not fit for public office.

    September 11, 2008
  309. I haven’t heard this, Stephanie, but he is like the Kennedy’s and he IS Kennedy’s and Daley’s man. The Kennedy’s are known to be targets, and for some curse or some such silly thing, I guess.

    What scares me about Obama is that I have seen him drift off into a style of conversation that is more like him spouting off some very heady verbiage then, drifting off into a sort of malaise a few times now. This isn’t gonna fly with the US Congress, Senators, or Putin, for that matter.

    September 11, 2008
  310. Barry Cipra said:

    From the LA Times:

    By Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
    August 27, 2008
    DENVER — Federal authorities Tuesday downplayed what they said were threats made by a pair of men arrested here over the weekend possessing rifles, sniper scopes and an alleged desire to kill Barack Obama.

    Shawn Robert Adolf, 33, and Tharin Robert Gartrell, 28, face federal weapons charges, as does an associate, Nathan Johnson, 32.

    U.S. Atty. Troy Eid said that during a methamphetamine binge, Adolf and Gartrell had expressed strongly racist views and spoken about killing the presumed Democratic presidential nominee.

    Eid said the talk did not meet the legal standard to file charges for threatening a presidential candidate.

    “The law recognizes a difference between a true threat — that’s one that can be carried out — and the reported racist rants of drug abusers,” Eid said at a news conference.

    September 11, 2008
  311. Anne, I am not asking you or anyone to follow me. I am just stating my opinion. Some people can’t stand that. I am not asking or demanding that anyone follow me. Again, I am just stating my opinion on feminism as I see it.
    I follow my own heart and hope people will do that themselves.

    I am not a big strong woman. I am not full of desire to change the world.
    I am a natural woman living in a very constructed society. I would change that if I could, but for now, I live as close as I can to the earth, to my heart, and to God. If that doesn’t work for you, I cannot say I am sorry. I am just me and don’t want anyone to tell me how to live outside of being respectful of the rule of law.

    September 11, 2008
  312. john george said:

    Just one observation on evolution, belief or disbelief in it, IMHO, is not really a litmus test for public office. David H. said this, “…but to date breeders have taken dog stocks and produced lots of breeds of dogs but none have taken dog stocks and bred a cat…” I think that is a valid observation. It seems the comment drift has shifted to claims that micro-evolution (which can be observed) is sufficient evidence that macro-evolution, the developement of complete new species out of existing and separate species, actually exists. I think that if a person is scientifically honest, he would have to admit that there is no observable evidence that macro-evolution exists. You science wonks out there, is this a reasonable evaluation of the available evidence?

    September 11, 2008
  313. Patrick Enders said:

    John George wrote,

    I think that if a person is scientifically honest, he would have to admit that there is no observable evidence that macro-evolution exists. You science wonks out there, is this a reasonable evaluation of the available evidence?

    Yes – a whole lot of it. Unfortunately, doing it justice will have to wait (for me, at least). I’ve got to get to bed, and I’ve got a couple busy days ahead. Then, I’m off to a conference. But I’ll see if I can’t put together a quick response somewhere in there.

    September 11, 2008
  314. Anne Bretts said:

    Bright, If you believe everyone should be able to follow their hearts as you follow yours, you are a feminist, and you should support the laws that allow all of us to have the freedom you do.

    September 11, 2008
  315. Maybe I am without intelligence, but I do not see why everyone has to keep arguing this or that, when it’s both. For instance, science uncovers truth about nature and what it is and what it does, but religion uncovers truth about what is possible and what inspires science, art and music. Where is the battle, but in your own minds. I am not right and you are not wrong, there is only partial views coming together…for progress and love amongst all humankind.

    By way of and thanks to St. Olaf college;

    http://www.singforjoy.org/streaming/2008-09-07pop-up.html

    Why can’t Obama and McCain run together. You know what! They will because they are men of conscience and will learn from one another no matter what. They both know defeat and victory in their lives and they both know how to love.

    September 11, 2008
  316. Paul Zorn said:

    In reference to John George’s question about macroevolution, asked in #320:


    I think that if a person is scientifically honest, he would have to admit that there is no observable evidence that macro-evolution exists. You science wonks out there, is this a reasonable evaluation of the available evidence?

    As Patrick Enders suggests in #321, John’s view is held by very, very few scientists. Here’s what Wikipedia’s entry on macroevolution has to say:


    Although the occurrence of macroevolution is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, a tiny minority of scientists dispute its factuality or degree of occurrence.[3][4] This minority view is often associated with the anti-evolution position of certain religious groups which attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are not considered scientific by scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science[5]. See intelligent design or creation myths for more information on these views.

    Perfect unanimity on any point of science is rare — appropriately so, because science is all about skepticism. But evolutionary theory comes as close as any theory I know to being universally accepted in the broad sense.

    September 11, 2008
  317. Sean Fox said:

    Here’s a handy site with some good examples of the concrete evidence for ‘macro’-evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    Depending on where you draw the line between macro and micro evolution (a distinction largely dreamed up by anti-evolutionists as a way to ‘move the ‘bar each time someone disapproves one of their arguments) folks often puts speciation (the evolution of a new species from an existing one) as in the macro category. Here are quite a few examples where creation of new species has been explicitly observed:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    So in reponse to “..he would have to admit that there is no observable evidence that macro-evolution exists” I’d have to say exactly the opposite is true. All observable evidence points to the veracity of evolution, macro and otherwise.

    September 11, 2008
  318. Jerold Friedman said:

    If people with different views don’t agree to terms, there isn’t much chance that they will agree.

    John George mentions “species” in post #322. There are several definitions of species, so how can (macro-)evolution be observed if there is no agreement as to what “species” means. Some say that members of a species are the exclusive group that can interbreed. As wolves and dogs can breed, horses and donkeys, etc., they would be the same species. Some say that members of a species who choose to interbreed are one species. There are breedable grasshoppers with characteristic chirps. While they can breed with other chirpers, they only choose to breed with their own. The difference between macro- and micro-evolution are meaningless if we can’t faithfully define what makes a species.

    John George also mentions “evidence”. How do we weigh evidence; what evidence is acceptable? As I stated, DNA evidence links hippopotami with whales. If that evidence is acceptable, there are be volumes of evidence for macro-evolution. If that evidence is not acceptable, I’m curious why. DNA tests are reliable enough for tracing human heritage, why not nonhuman heritage?

    September 11, 2008
  319. David Henson said:

    Let’s approach this differently – Hitler was in fact a firm believer in evolution and Mother Theresa was not a firm believer in evolution. Which one would you vote for ? Should origin beliefs be a litmus test for elections ?

    September 11, 2008
  320. Jane Moline said:

    Unfortunately religious extremists continually blast at science with cleverly crafted arguments that are cultivated and developed by an organized group of zealots who want to take over our country and our world and force their religious beliefs on anyone and everyone.

    By claiming that they are doing it peacably through prayer does not make it any more palatable. Such devotion to religious dogma is un-American and un-patriotic.

    Religious extremists believe themselves bringing salvation to everyone through their “prayer” (and manipulating elections and putting up candidates, including judicial candidates who will legislate religious justice from the bench.) They ask “how can you complain when I am just trying to save you?”

    John McCain has aligned himself with the most extreme un-American group–and they are all the more dangerous because most of the public think they are just harmless little “prayer” groups. They want to dismantle scientific teachings and study, ban books, and force their own “Shi’a” law on the American people. Just because they call it “Christian” instead of “Islam” does not make it better.

    I am quoting CIntra Wilson, and could not agree more:

    “I don’t want Sarah Palin being the representative leader and custodian of my rights, my Constitution and my country any more than I want polygamist compound leader Warren Jeffs baby-sitting for my preteen goddaughters.”

    And Quinn Latimar and Lyra Kilston, who wrote to American women:

    “Perhaps like us, as American women, you share the fear of what Ms. Palin
    and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead to for ourselves
    and for our present or future daughters.

    “To date, she is against sex education, birth control, the pro-choice platform, environmental protection, alternative energy development, freedom of speech (as mayor she wanted to ban books and attempted to fire the librarian who stood against her), gun control, the separation of church and state, and polar bears. To say nothing of her complete lack of real preparation to become the second-most-powerful person on the planet.”

    Dump Palin AND McCain. Vote Obama.

    September 11, 2008
  321. Paul Fried said:

    Debates about evolution and whether it can be a litmus test are all interesting, but then again, not within our city limits but less than an hour away in St. Paul, there were some disturbing events that some folks are still pondering. At the risk of coming off as a party pooper by posting something related to the original thread (I am the pot that calls the kettle black when it comes to thread drift, anyway), here is a new article by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, who was arrested while here:

    The Party Police – by Amy Goodman
    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080910_the_party_police/

    And an old link I posted earlier to a Ray McGovern piece (McGovern, the retired CIA analyst):

    Trickle-Down Preemption: Baghdad on the Mississippi – by Ray McGovern
    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/09-5

    On the one hand, as they’re critical of Bush, they’re easy to pigeon-hole as lefties, but on the other, they’re very conservative about the constitution and rights; they are not merely flower-children and anarchists, so to that extent, they have much in common with conservative Constitution-lovers and defenders like the John Birch society….

    And finally, here’s a link to a song and video based on Bob Dylan’s “the Times they are a Changin’,” but the words have been changed to, “It’s time for some campaignin'”….
    http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm

    I don’t recommend voting at sites like this for fear of cookies and viruses, but it’s worth a chuckle.

    September 11, 2008
  322. john george said:

    Jane- Your comments, “…Sarah Palin is a religious nut case. Her ideas of forcing religious laws on the general public and the nation are dangerous…” and “…Sarah Palin is un-American and un-patriotic…” seem pretty exreme, to me. You state it as a fact when in reality it is just your opinion. If you want to believe this, you have my permission, but the way you state it seems to promote more division rather than opening up more discussion and understanding. I can certainly understand having a passion one way or another, but this seems to me to be forcing your opinion onto any who disagree with you.

    Jerold- Your mention of DNA as evidence of macro evolution just doesn’t explain the mechanics of it to satisfy my curiosity. I also read a report recently that our DNA is about 80% the same as that of an earthworm. I have a hard time seeing the similarity between a warm blooded human and a cold blooded earthworm, yet, according to the evidence, we are about 80% alike.
    Just an opinion of mine, but it seems that there are various ways to interpret “observable evidence”. Interpretation first has to have a foundation upon which to evaluate the evidence. This just seems to presuppose a necessity to believe that foundation is valid. The collection and evaluation of that evidence supposedly leads to greater credibility of that foundational belief. That being the case, much of the same “observable evidence” could be used to validate differing foundations. I think it was David H. that alluded to this in one of his earlier posts.

    Sean- I took a look at the reference you cited above and found this interesting quote, “… most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur. The literature has many more examples where a speciation event has been inferred from evidence than it has examples where the event is seen. This is what we would expect if speciation takes a long time.

    Third, the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred. The number and quality of these cases may be evidence enough to convince most workers that speciation does occur.

    Finally, most of the current interest in speciation concerns theoretical issues. Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know is how it occurs…”.

    Two quotes specifically stood out to me, “… The literature has many more examples where a speciation event has been inferred from evidence than it has examples where the event is seen…” and “… Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know is how it occurs…” The first suggests that conclusions are based on inferences rather than observable evidence. The second one supports my postulate to Jerold above, and, I believe, suppoorts Paul Z.’s comment above, “…Perfect unanimity on any point of science is rare — appropriately so, because science is all about skepticism. But evolutionary theory comes as close as any theory I know to being universally accepted in the broad sense…”

    I admit that I did not read the complete dissertation. It is, afterall, a whole book and not within my realm of possibilities to accomplish at midnight. The few “evidences” I found refer to “fragments”. The only majorly complete skeleton I have heard of is the famous “Lucy” skeleton. What studies I have read on this do not seem to clarify exactly where this actually fits into the scheme of human history, but there is not enough evidence in it to convince me. Sorry, I just don’t agree with your statement, “..All observable evidence points to the veracity of evolution, macro and otherwise…”

    You can write me off as one of Jane’s “religious nutcases” if you want, but I would just remind you that it was a very small segment of scientists who rejected the midevil assumption that the world was flat. That assumption was an organized religious viewpoint that was not supported by Biblical evidence. The more I read about new archeological finds and medical discoveries, the more I see my assumed beliefs confirmed. I also know that there will come a time when these discussions about evolution and creatinism will become obsolete.

    September 12, 2008
  323. Jerold Friedman said:

    John: My question was focused on how do we determine when a fact should count as evidence and when a fact should be discarded. If we don’t agree on some way to evaluate evidence, then we have no common currency to evaluate the unknown.

    The same science used for paternity tests via DNA shows the relationship between hippos and whales, or earthworms and humans. (You might find it even more amazing that carrots and humans share about 40% DNA. DNA works like a toolbox. Most species need several of the same tools, like the Krebs cycle, which explains common genes among most living things.) I’m not specifically asking whether such tests *prove* (macro-)evolution, but can such DNA tests be considered evidence of evolution.

    If we can take DNA from your cheek and tell you how closely you’re related to Genghis Khan, is that same technique evidence of evolution if the technique claims that hippos are related to whales, broccoli to cauliflower, or octopi to squids? How do you determine if this DNA test is credible? And if it’s credible, how do you determine if it’s relevant to evolution?

    And don’t forget, what do you mean by “species”? For this discussion, I’m happy to adopt any of the 22 or so competing scientific definitions that you choose.

    September 12, 2008
  324. David Henson said:

    Paul – I see a connection between larger government institutions of all kinds and larger security issues and police actions. Is this a parallel those supporting federal socialized solutions to issues do not accept ? Or ?

    September 12, 2008
  325. john george said:

    Jerold- I think this is a case where existing evidence could be used to support either creationism or evolution. The fact that there is a commonality in basic DNA amongst all life forms suggests a common beginning. What science is looking for is this beginning. So far, no one has come up with evidence of this beginning, but the observable facts infer that there must be a common beginning. This is where my faith steps in, in looking at the seemingly infinite variations of life, yet with a common DNA base suggests for me a common designer. The scientific community suggests that life developed out of chaos. It seems to me that there must be an element of faith involved in either philosophy since there has not been found yet this beginning point. I think either philosophy has merit for discussion, but when it comes down to it, one must choose to believe certain foundations. To say the creationists have no evidence to base this on is, IMHO, denying the possibility of this assumption in regards to the evidence at hand. I think neither side has a slam dunk on the interpretation.

    September 12, 2008
  326. Sean Fox said:

    John –

    Indeed neither creationism nor evolution offers concrete evidence explaining a ‘beginning’. And that is exactly where the crucial difference lies (and why this line of discussion is relevant to this thread). Creationism looks at this gap and offers an explanation (God). Evolution looks at this gap and says “we don’t know, but leave open the option that future evidence may be found which will allow us to know”. This difference is what makes evolution a scientific theory and creationism NOT a scientific theory. Science does not attempt to explain that which can not be unambiguously explained through concrete evidence.

    This certainly leaves a huge range of important human consideration outside the realm of science. Most of the big important questions in my opinion (starting with ‘why are we here’ and ‘how should we act’). That’s why we have philosophy and religion and a million others ways of trying to probe these questions.

    Important as they may be they aren’t science and don’t belong in a science class. Now you might argue that they belong in the school curriculum, but that’s an entirely different argument.

    When I hear a candidate say creationism should be taught in a science class I have to believe that either they have really mis-understood what science is (which to me puts them in the ‘unprepared to govern’ category given the importance of scientific issues and considerations in current political decision making) or perhaps they do understand science in which case their I would question their honest (again taking them out of consideration).

    September 12, 2008
  327. Wasn’t it determined fifteen years ago or so that underlying the chaos is order but it appears as chaos because you have to stand way, way, way back to see the pattern?

    September 12, 2008
  328. Paul Fried said:

    Palin seemed not to know what the Bush Doctrine was. Was this more due to natural selection, or intelligent design?

    (The Bush Doctrine having to do with US claims to the right to preemptive war, and to pursue terrorists wherever we think necessary — which harmonizes nicely with torture….)

    I know it’s a kind of wonkish kind of question, and Palin may be more symbolic than wonkish….

    DavidH: You commented and asked, “I see a connection between larger government institutions of all kinds and larger security issues and police actions. Is this a parallel those supporting federal socialized solutions to issues do not accept ? Or ?”

    I’m not sure what you mean. You’ll have to explain a bit more. Are you saying that Democrats are confidient that big government can work (all questions of military-industrial complex aside?), but big government, big security, and incidents such as abuse of police power tend to go hand-in-hand, so Dems have no room to complain? And if only we had lower taxes and smaller government and police force, then the abuses at the RNC might not have happened?

    If that was your point, I don’t think there’s necessarily a connection. One can support laws and limits to the use of power; confidence in government solutions to crime, for instance, which might include police, doesn’t have to mean power without limitation or regulation. The other thing Dems are stereotyped for is regulation, things like OSHA, Miranda rights, etc. But let me know if my guess was off the mark.

    September 12, 2008
  329. Jerold Friedman said:

    John (and Sean):

    Evidence of evolution isn’t necessarily evidence of life’s origin. Common genes do fit into a natural or theistic origin of life. Even Pope John Paul II expressed that belief in evolution does not contradict belief in creation.

    Some theists strongly believe in evolution from the principle that Noah’s Ark could not fit two or seven members of every species. Therefore, after the flood, the animals evolved into the great diversity we have today.

    So it appears to me that you agree, DNA tests are evidence of evolution but species may have evolved from a natural or theistic origin.

    You state that there is no evidence of a natural origin of life. Again, I’m not sure what method you use to determine what is evidence. From my readings, there is evidence — but not proof — of the origins of life with several experiments intent to imitate the conditions of an early Earth. These experiments created amino acids from inorganic chemicals. While the science and faith communities have plenty of criticisms about these experiments, I take the experiments as evidence — not proof — of the origin of life.

    In alignment with your post, I am OK with someone’s faith answering these questions. Relating to Palin, one’s faith does not belong in a state-sanctioned science class. If Palin or anyone else can provide a scientific explanation for Creationism, that would be exciting! As far as I know, its explanation has always been, “God wills it”. I would be seriously deficient in science if that was taught to me as science.

    Even if modern science is wrong in some details, science class is more about teaching scientific method than scientific conclusions. How evolution works is an enriching subject for teaching scientific method. Creationism has no scientific method to it.

    September 12, 2008
  330. Peter Millin said:

    Most people outside of the Republican don’t undesrtand the current battle within the party.
    Ever since Reagan we haven’t had a truly conservative party leader/president. Ever since Bush 1 the conservatives within the party have been told to vote for the “lesser of two evils”. This line of reasoning has been holding true all the way to todays contest.
    Quiet frankly their are a lot of conservatives like me that don’t agree with Bush one and two. Neither of those two is a true conservative.

    When McCain was put on top of the ticket by the rinos and Rockefeller “country club republicans” many conservatives like me wanted to sit out this election or vote libertarian.
    McCain knows this, thus his selection of Palin. Has he satisfied enough conservatives? Not sure about this, because the last thing we conservatives need is for the Rinos to win. In short I am still on the fence.

    My favorite line is: I am American first and Republican or Democrat second. We should vote for those that stand for the principals this country was founded on and promise to defend them.

    September 12, 2008
  331. Jerold Friedman said:

    Peter: I like your thinking. I have become shy of party affiliation because, in my opinion, it makes an artificial “red state vs. blue state” division among a common people. My line is therefore, “I am an American first.” I vote on the issues, not along party lines.

    September 12, 2008
  332. john george said:

    Jerold- Those are good observations on your part, and I tend to agree with most of what you are saying. I appreciate a resonable, non-acusatory approach to this discussion. As far as origins of life, I see some distinction expressed here that I haven’t heard before. Darwin titled his book Origin of Species. This has been presented to me as the origin of life, since species represent life forms. When you differentiate between origin of “species” and the origin of “life”, evolution makes more sense in the whole scheme of things. I still have a little problem understanding how certain specific life forms “evolved” from something simpler, like the bombardier beetle and the eyes of vertibrates. Darwin even had a problem with the eye. He said in one of his writings that evolution does not have an explanation for this. I appreciate that type of honesty in an individual. Anyway, I appreciate the discussion I was able to have with you.

    September 12, 2008
  333. Barry Cipra said:

    Peter Millin writes:

    “Ever since Reagan we haven’t had a truly conservative party leader/president.”

    Ah, nostalgia! Is Peter yearning for the days of the conservative leader who oversaw an expansion of the federal government, the conservative leader who agreed to a bailout of the Social Security system, or the conservative leader who, after an initial round of cuts, signed into law a series of tax increases?

    September 12, 2008
  334. Peter Millin said:

    Barry,
    Once Reagan was done cleaning up Carters mess he put the country in to the right direction….AND most importantly he did it with the support of a Democratic congress and senate…go figure.

    Truth is that if you look at our national debt curve versus GDP it has been consistently going up since Carter.

    Since then we had various forms of congress, senate and president. My point is that the money our federal government eats up is pretty much independent from who is in power.

    Remember politicians change and bureaucrats remain.

    September 12, 2008
  335. Peter Millin said:

    Barry,
    I am not sure how to format quotes, but the article below under scores some of my earlier points.

    ——————————————————————
    Unions Bargain At Table With Governor Whose Re-election They’re Helping Fund
    BY SONYA D. JONES AND JOHN R. LOTT JR.

    Posted 9/11/2008

    Democrats are expected to make strong gains in state legislatures this fall, but what do these stronger Democratic majorities mean? A look at Washington State may show what is in store for the rest of the country.

    Public employee unions are handing over vast amounts of money to the incumbent governor’s re-election campaign, while the governor is simultaneously sitting at the bargaining table negotiating contracts with these very unions.

    If it seems inappropriate for the governor, Christine Gregoire, who is locked in a very tight re-election, to benefit personally from the parties that her office is negotiating with, that’s just your conscience, not the law.

    As of Aug. 28, a number of unions — the Washington Federation of State Employees, AFSCME, National Education Association and Washington Education Association, Service Employees International Union, and the AFL-CIO — had already contributed more than $1.5 million to the Evergreen Progress PAC.

    The current negotiations are covering everything from general government employees, home health care workers, home child care workers, and nurses in state institutions to staff in the public universities. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the PAC’s ads have unleashed “a drubbing” of her Republican gubernatorial opponent, Dino Rossi.

    Amazingly, neither union members nor the taxpaying public knows the details of these negotiations until after the legislature approves the budget funding the resulting contracts. Even the members of the legislature do not know the details of the contract negotiations before they vote.

    That wasn’t the way it was supposed to be. A joint committee from the state House and Senate was originally supposed to consult the governor during the negotiations, but that committee never met. The Democratic-controlled legislature has simply chosen to ignore the costs of the collective bargaining agreements that burdened taxpayers with more than one-half billion dollars in the last budget. By law, the contracts themselves are not public records until after the legislature approves the budget.

    Even worse, while the negotiations are going on immediately before this fall’s election, the budget votes won’t occur until next year. Because of term limits, this November is Gov. Gregoire’s last election for governor, and she will never have to face the voters again after the contracts eventually become public.

    Washington state collective bargaining laws invite more abuse than some other states because they cover wages as well as hours and benefits.

    If nothing questionable is going on, the legislature could easily solve this “appearances” problem by either disallowing campaign contributions from unions while they are sitting at the bargaining table, or, even better, require that collective bargaining sessions be open to the public. Yet, there appears to be little public pressure to do either.

    Currently, 39 states lack any transparency for their public-sector negotiations. Michigan law goes so far as to explicitly prohibit any documents related to the negotiations from being disclosed. Other states don’t even let union members have access to the documents related to the negotiations on their behalf.

    Twenty-three of those 39 states also have compulsory unionization for public employees, giving the unions access to tens of thousands of paychecks per state. Unions not only get to help re-elect the politicians who give them favorable contracts, they can impose dues on people who don’t want to be union members to accomplish this.

    It is not even clear how happy public-sector employees are with their unions. When government workers have a choice whether to join a union, union membership rates are only about a third the rate that they are in agency-shop states with mandatory membership.

    Unfortunately, just as Barack Obama’s and congressional Democrats’ promises to end the secret ballot for union elections next year are largely being ignored, state labor issues are also going undiscussed.

    Yet, some minor changes in current state laws could create problems similar to those in Washington state. The big money for unions is in wage negotiations. Covering wages under secret collective bargaining would not only guarantee more abuses, it would ensure that unions care even more over what politicians get elected to office.

    November’s elections may mean that voters will soon wake up to even much higher taxes than they had expected.

    Jones is director of the Labor Policy Center at the Evergreen Freedom Foundat
    ———————————————————————–

    September 12, 2008
  336. Barry Cipra said:

    Peter writes:

    “Truth is that if you look at our national debt curve versus GDP it has been consistently going up since Carter.”

    I wish it were possible to paste in the fascinating graph at http://zfacts.com/p/318.html , which is based on data from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (Table 7.1 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf — not knowing who drew the graph, I thought it important to check its source). I found the former by doing a google search on “national debt gdp graph” and the latter through a link at the former.

    September 12, 2008
  337. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    I’m sorry, I still haven’t got time to address your question of evidence for speciation (the development of new species from old) – it’s a biggie, and I should write it quite carefully, as whatever I write is certain to be parsed in very fine detail.

    However, I want to agree with Jerold on what the Theory of Evolution is NOT. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It simply describes what already existing life does.

    Science doesn’t yet have a ‘Theory’ of how life began. It just has a bunch of weakly-supported (but not disproven) hypotheses. We know what the basic building blocks of life are (DNA, RNA, amino acids, and lipid bilayers). We also know that under some conditions (conditions similar to what we think things were like early in Earth’s history) these things can spontaneously form from more basic, more ubiquitous materials. However, we don’t yet have evidence addressing how likely it is to happen, or to have happened.

    We are looking. When the news reports that probes are ‘looking for signs of life’ when they are landing on other planets, what they’re mostly hoping to find is these basic building blocks. One hypothesis is that these reactions may take place quite readily; if so, we’d expect to find some remnants on other planets. There are others. Again – they’re all just hypotheses, which mean there isn’t much evidence supporting them, but there isn’t anything that outright disproves them, either. The evidence may be out there, but we haven’t found it yet.

    Purely for amusement, I offer the following hypothesis:

    The RNA world hypothesis
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

    Again, it’s something I find interesting and it does fit with what we know of RNA chemistry and biology, but it’s still just a hypothesis. Maybe someday people will know more about this than you or I do, but for the foreseeable future, learning about it is certainly not core to learning biology.

    Hey, we can agree on something today: the origin of life is still a mystery.

    Have a great weekend.

    September 12, 2008
  338. john george said:

    Patrick- Thanks for the wish on the weekend. Hope yours is great, also. Still would like to get together for coffee again sometime. Take a look at my post #343. I really appreciate discussing things with you and Jerold. Hey, we might actually be able to live peacefully together in the same town! Wouldn’t that be revolutionary? Liberals and Conservatives living together in harmony in the same town!

    September 12, 2008
  339. David Henson said:

    Darwin observed specific instances where ecology had appeared to favor certain traits within species – natural selection. His observations are easy to understand. The vision of an ever expended tree of life based on adaptability to conditions was developed. Exceptions to this vision are becoming known. One being situations where hosts and parasites have given up battling each other and effectively fused into a single species.

    The idea of a governing force created by the selfish desire of everything from viruses on up try to replicate themselves is powerful but seems like less than the whole story of nature. To me as “this branch of science” attempts to “fit” all new data into this framework no matter how awkward – the science begins to look like a religion. The “science” then becomes reactionary and begins to demand adherence to their ideology – again looking more like a religion.

    “Evolution” and “Global Warming” are too ideologically demanding for me to view them as hard science. I believe they are ideologically demanding because they lack powers of prediction (usefulness) that other hard sciences offer. I am certainly not casting Palin aside simply because she asks that these ideas hold their own against other ethical and philosophical explanations. I am more concerned about those who demand strict adherence to their ideas and are afraid to have them tested in debate.

    September 12, 2008
  340. After some more praying on the abortion issue, and not wanting to inflame more passions than necessary, I will use the euphemism of ‘abortion’.

    First of all, the woman does have rights over her body, just like a man.
    Second of all, when a woman becomes pregnant the fetus or baby is not
    only hers, in her body. The fetus or baby does in fact partly belong to the
    father, and fully belongs to the human race and completely belongs to nature.
    And for me, is totally a child of God, that is to say, unless you created it, you have no true right to destroy it, including your own body.

    As for Sarah Palin, I believe she is who she says she is and I think she is a strong and energetic woman, fully dedicated to her family, and her country.
    Even if she wouldn’t become VP, she adds a healing and vibrant note to the history of this country, not just as a woman, but as a leader.

    September 12, 2008
  341. Paul Fried said:

    Here’s Jonathan Freedland of the UK (I like the sound of that name) with a piece about how the world would love Obama, and won’t react kindly if we get McCain.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/10/uselections2008.barackobama

    I’m for Obama, but gosh, when the world reacts as if they can tell us what to do with our elections, or how to rig our electronic voting machines — it kind of ticks me off and makes me feel cornered. After all, we consume more oil, electricity, sugar, chocolate, and coffee — don’t we? OR have we been surpassed? (I know China passed us on CO2 emissions). We’ve been using our military bases, our CIA and our corporations to exploit cheap labor in other countries for more than a century, and we have the world’s most millionaires in part due to that. SO if we’re king of the hill and the world thinks they might get a kinder, gentler US with Obama at the helm, well, them’s fightin’ words, aren’t they? If I were a ‘publican, after chanting “Drill, Baby, Drill,” I would have sung Randy Newman’s song, “Political Science”:

    No one likes us — don’t know why
    we may not be perfect, but heaven knows, we try
    All around, even our old friends put us down
    Let’s drop the big one, and see what happens….

    But then I snap out of it and get sane again. It’s just a passing temptation, a moment of weakness. Sorry, all my like-minded Obama voters out there. I promise, I won’t vote for McCain….

    Pete: Thanks for your comments on the fault lines in the Republican party. There’s still Bob Barr and a Ron Paul write-in option. Too bad that with the terrible news coverage we get, most folks don’t even know about the positions of Barr and Paul….

    September 12, 2008
  342. Barry Cipra said:

    Griff,

    I tried (twice) submitting a reply to Peter Millin’s posting #345 responding to his statement about the national debt curve versus GDP, but it has yet to appear? Technical glitch or guideline violation?

    September 13, 2008
  343. Griff Wigley said:

    Barry, this is the 2nd report we’ve had about comments not appearing. It appears to be a technical glitch. I’ve asked Sean to investigate. Apologies!

    September 13, 2008
  344. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    I appreciated your post #343, and that’s why I wanted to chime in and agree. I’ve sent you an email.

    September 13, 2008
  345. Paul Fried writes in post #354, “that no one likes us”, oh BOO HOO HOO,
    well, I don’t like THEM that much either. With France, England, China and Russia Each selling more that ten times the amount of arms we have sold to Iraq, gee, I wonder how those tribes people are dying. It is not by our soldiers, and they have been at it long before we were even a country.

    Still I am against war, as always, but this isn’t my personal doing and I did not vote for GWB. However, I give kudos to the Bush administration because there have been way fewer American deaths than any other previous war. Less than five thousand to date, that many were killed every year of the Viet Nam war, more than 50,000 killed.

    There is lot more to all these stories than time or talent permit, so I hope any reader who is truly that interested and has the time to research and read several written histories of it all, can do that and then feel like they have a more complete, if not perfect, understanding of the Middle Eastern situation, including the democratic countries of Israel and George. Peace.
    All this is just smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that Obama is old school, trained old school, backed by old school and headed into the Morlock caves with all the others. Hope it turns around and proves me wrong if he is elected US Pres.

    September 13, 2008
  346. Jerold Friedman said:

    We certainly have become more efficient in our killings during war.

    During the Vietnam war, the Vietnamese suffered 1.1 million military deaths and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. The U.S. suffered 60,000 deaths (including 2,000 MIA). [Source: Wikipedia]

    Comparatively, during the Iraq war, the Iraqis suffered up to 1.1 million civilian deaths although Wikipedia writers note that surveys, sources, and causes vary greatly. The U.S. suffered around 4,200 deaths, and other U.S. coalition nations suffered about 4,000.

    I can’t mention these numbers without also mentioning that both wars were unnecessary and illegal under international law.

    September 13, 2008
  347. Jerold, what sort of war would be legal under International war? And how is this Iraqi one different?

    September 13, 2008
  348. Peter Millin said:

    Most of the previously linked sites are a very narrow view of what is going on. BUT I might have confused my terms…I was mostly referring to spending and the increase in the national debt.

    Attached link spells out what i was talking about.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/index.html

    Either way our politicians are out of control and we are heading for a financial disaster

    September 13, 2008
  349. Patrick Enders said:

    Barry wrote,
    Still no dice, so I’ll modify the posting here to remove the explicit links, which I suspect are causing the problem.

    I’ve had a lot of problems with including html links in my posts. I’ve given up on writing true html links, and even pasting a complicated web address into the comment often causes trouble.

    When I’ve had that problem, I’ve had to break up the address into smaller chunks. It gets the whole text of the address into the message, but not as a functional single unit.

    September 13, 2008
  350. Jerold Friedman said:

    Bright: South and North Vietnam never declared war on the other. Because of this, it is a civil war under international law, and illegal for other countries to intervene. The SEATO treaty and Tonkin Resolution did not expressly authorize war with North Vietnam or else they would have been illegal under international law, so presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson interpreted the treaties to permit war.

    The Iraq war would clearly be legal if Iraq attacked the U.S. As this was not the case, and as the United Nations did not sanction the U.S. attack on Iraq, the war is clearly illegal.

    Nations are not allowed to attack other nations unless they are attacked, or unless the U.N. approves it. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter recognizes the “inherent right” for a nation to defend itself from an “armed attack”. Any war other than self-defense are presumed to be illegal unless the U.N. sanctions it. Also note in Article 2: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

    Also note that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution holds U.S. treaties with other nations to have the same effect as federal law. We have treaties with other nations to abide by U.N. resolutions, otherwise what point would U.N. resolutions have if member nations were not obligated to obey them? Because the Bush administration did not receive U.N. approval to attack Iraq, the administration broke U.S. federal law.

    September 13, 2008
  351. Barry Cipra said:

    Griff,

    Thanks, it looks like the technical glitch, whatever it was, got fixed — creating, of course its own little glitch, namely the posting of all my attempts to call attention to Peter Millin’s inaccurate assertion. It would have been preferable to suppress the unsuccessful “say it!”s. (On the other hand, it’s good to have the explicit links available.)

    Among the potential problems when a posting is inserted after a delay, it can screw up some of the cross-referencing various people, including myself, use when citing postings by number. I think it would be better to order things according to their time of appearance, with a notation for time of submission if there’s been a delay in publication.

    September 13, 2008
  352. Paul Fried said:

    Jerold: Here’s a clip from a piece that’s in part about Lt. Gen. William Odom, a critic of the war in Iraq (along with many other generals). Odom died this year. The clip below relates to some of what you’re saying:
    …………..
    NPR aired an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski right after Odom died that offered a concise insight on the Lt. General’s career.

    “I think what was decisive for him was his own experience as a soldier, as an officer fighting the Vietnamese war. I think he came to realize that there are some wars that are not winnable in the conventional sense unless a democracy like the United States embarks on total national mobilization and then engages in total national annihilation of the enemy. And he knew that is the kind of thing a democracy would not do. And he saw some real parallels between his own experience in Vietnam, which made him increasingly critical of our war efforts, and the recent war, the ongoing war in Iraq, which he felt very strongly ought to be terminated as soon as possible,” Brzezinski said.
    ………………
    Bright:
    The “no one likes us” line is songwriter Randy Newman’s, not mine.
    The song continues,
    ……………….
    We give them money-but are they grateful?
    No, they’re spiteful and they’re hateful
    They don’t respect us-so let’s surprise them
    We’ll drop the big one and pulverize them

    Asia’s crowded and Europe’s too old
    Africa is far too hot
    And Canada’s too cold
    And South America stole our name
    Let’s drop the big one
    There’ll be no one left to blame us

    ….
    Boom goes London and boom Paris (“Pair-ee”)
    More room for you and more room for me
    And every city the whole world round
    Will just be another American town
    Oh, how peaceful it will be
    We’ll set everybody free
    You’ll wear a Japanese kimono
    And there’ll be Italian shoes for me

    They all hate us anyhow
    So let’s drop the big one now
    Let’s drop the big one now
    ……………………………………

    This is a kind of Dr. Strangelove theme song of sorts….
    It would’ve fit right in after the “Drill, Baby, Drill” frenzy at the RNC….

    September 13, 2008
  353. Griff Wigley said:

    Barry, I’m not sure why your comments (and a couple other people’s) were held in the spam bucket but they all got published when Sean discovered it. I’ve removed all the duplicates now so that your comment to Peter now appears as #348:
    https://locallygrownnorthfield.org/archives/5099/#comment-67095

    Let me know if you’d prefer in a different order. Again, apologies for the glitch.

    September 14, 2008
  354. A petition is circulating relating to the arrest and present imprisonment of 8 people, charged with conspiring to riot at the RNC.

    We the undersigned call for the dismissal of the charge of “Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism,” which you have filed against the RNC 8, activists involved in organizing protests at the 2008 Republican National Convention. This use of a conspiracy charge seeks to punish political speech and thought. Labeling these members of our community as “terrorists” sets a dangerous national precedent for persecuting political activists, threatens political dissent, and greatly distorts the concepts of violence and terrorism. We demand the dismissal of these charges and condemn the use of police state tactics of infiltration, surveillance, and militarization of our streets and community to suppress demonstrations and dissent.

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/defendthernc8

    October 28, 2008
  355. john george said:

    Jerold F.- When it comes to civil rights, I think the gate swings both ways. If I remember correctly, there was an interview with one of these organizers published in the media stating that their intent was to disrupt and possibly close down the RNC. In a situation like this, where someone is determined to keep a group of people from meeting for peaceful business, whose rights are going to be protected? Do you protect those who are meeting peacefully or do you protect the rights(?) of those whose intent and preparations are to keep the meeting from happening? I don’t think we can have it both ways. Using the argument that the protesters had not used their methods yet raises the question as to why they were planning it in the first place. Also, since these plans appear to be violent, as opposed to non-violent, do you wait until someone gets injured or killed before you act? I just don’t buy this line of defense, and my hope is that it will be thrown out of court before we waste any more time on it. I don’t think these types of violent “protesters” should be given credibility.

    October 29, 2008
  356. John G: Neither of us has patience nor respect for violent protests, and if good police intelligence shows that a violent protest is being planned, I have no reservations about it being disrupted.

    Peace officers and public policy should protect everyone’s rights. For the delegates, the right to meet privately. For the demonstrators, the right to protest peacefully.

    I can’t judge whether the RNC 8 were planning a peaceful protest or planning to commit crimes at the RNC. I haven’t seen any evidence either way. However, I do take issue with the overall “police state” presence and tactics used outside the RNC. I also take issue with protesters, even violent protesters, being labeled as “terrorists”. Terrorism is a term I would use very carefully, but in my opinion, it’s being used against protesters in order to oppress the RNC 8, and as a tacit threat against other people who may want to protest. I know too much about COINTELPRO-style disruption of conscientious citizens by the government to think that the incredible police presence at the RNC, and calling those arrested “terrorists”, is coincidence. On the contrary, it’s completely disproportionate to the spirit of political protest that the U.S. is supposed to embrace.

    October 29, 2008
  357. john george said:

    Jerold- This whole thing will be handled through the courts, as it should be. There is a sentiment among some people I have talked to who believe the court system and legal technicalities have been used too freely to let people off where there is evidence of violent intent. You say you have not seen any evidence about what these individuals’ intents were. I suppose you can evaluate what has been found so far however you please. I suppose molotov cocktails could be considered just a light source in case the electriciry goes out. Home-made shields made of stolen safety barrels and riot batons, I’m not sure about. Sorry if I do not display much magnanimity toward these individuals, but I admit that I do not feel much toward them, either. We’ll see how the courts rule.

    October 29, 2008
  358. John G: I am unaware of any Molotov cocktails, shields or batons that relate to the RNC 8 or any RNC protesters. Do you have a cite?

    The Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, with whom I volunteer, has issued regular press releases that claim there is no evidence to support the RNC 8 had any plan for any violent activity.

    Affidavits released by law enforcement which were filed in support of the search warrants used in raids over the weekend, and used to support probable cause for the arrest warrants, are based on paid, confidential informants who infiltrated the [protesters’ group] on behalf of law enforcement. They allege that members of the group sought to kidnap delegates to the RNC, assault police officers with firebombs and explosives, and sabotage airports in St. Paul. Evidence released to date does not corroborate these allegations with physical evidence or provide any other evidence for these allegations than the claims of the informants. Based on past abuses of such informants by law enforcement, the National Lawyers Guild is concerned that such police informants have incentives to lie and exaggerate threats of violence and to also act as provocateurs in raising and urging support for acts of violence.

    See http://www.nlgminnesota.org/node/66

    It frightens me that eight people are in jail on terrorism charges based entirely on paid informants. If the informants had infiltrated a group that was planning to use Molotov cocktails and other harmful instruments, why has nothing turned up in evidence?

    I am eager to read the stories you’ve seen that speak of cocktails, shields and batons.

    October 29, 2008
  359. john george said:

    Jerold- There is an article in both the Strib and Pioneer Press about this. The search warrants issued turned up the evidence I cited. The defense attornies involved are trying to get this evidence thrown out because the search warrants did not list the basement area specifically, where the bombs were found. The shields and weapons were found in a trailer, which, according to how you interpret the law, can be considered a vehicle, and therefore subject to search without a warrant because of the possibility of it being moved. It is these types of legal games that really turn my crank. I have no use for this type of interpretation of laws which allow these types of people to go free. If you want to defend this type of mindset, you are free to do so, but I am grossly offended by it.

    October 29, 2008
  360. john george said:

    Jerold- Correction on my last post. The Strib does not have an article yet about these protesters. I just had a chance to glimpse it on the way out of the house this morning, and I thought I saw a headline similar to the one in the Press, but I was wrong. The Pioneer Press article is on the top of the first page of the local section.

    October 29, 2008
  361. Ben Oney said:

    John: The Pioneer Press article is about two men from Austin named David McKay and Bradley Crowder. They are not members of the RNC 8, a separate group of arrestees who have been charged based solely on ‘evidence’ provided by paid informants, as Jerold has already mentioned. I don’t want to be a dick, but maybe you should get your facts straight before dismissing the legal rights of community activists.

    Jerold: Thanks for posting the link to the petition! One corrrection though: All members of the RNC8 are currently free on bail, not imprisoned as you mentioned.

    Anyone interested in this should check http://www.rnc8.org for updates.

    October 29, 2008
  362. John G: I found only one related story in the Pioneer Press, and it doesn’t say anything about what you mentioned. Do you suppose what you read did not make it to the web? Seriously, if there were Molotov cocktails, shields or batons, I would reconsider my position with the RNC 8, but I have heard nothing of the sort. Even this article mentions things that can clearly have several purposes, kin to finding a knife in someone’s kitchen, the knife can’t be said to be intended for violence.

    See http://www.twincities.com/ci_10750009?IADID

    If you can find the story, or direct me to the article (publication name and date), I want to read what you read.

    Pardon the reference, but please understand that “the authorities” are sometimes challenged or frightened by new or contrary ideas. This is part of my understanding of the New Testament. New ideas are sometimes pounded down by government. Considering your background and interests, I respectfully request that you not convict the RNC 8 based solely on what the sheriff declares. There is always more to the story.

    While my experience with police has been generally positive, I will always remember a case I worked on as a legal assistant. The police arrested six people for “blocking the sidewalk” at a demonstration. In the police report, the arresting officer said that she “walked into the middle of the group” and they refused to disperse per her orders. The question was later asked, if they were “blocking the sidewalk”, how could the officer walk into the middle of the group? The charge was dropped. I sincerely believe that the officer wanted to disrupt the lawful protest. I can’t say that the same thing was intended with the RNC 8, but from what I’ve read, I am suspicious that’s what happened.

    Ben: I am happy to hear that the RNC 8 are out on bail. I fear that my information is outdated, like John’s remark about Molotov cocktails being found.

    October 30, 2008
  363. Paul Fried said:

    One of the things the police and Homeland Security was really good at was identifying certain people who had a record of documenting police misconduct and brutality, and doing pre-emptive raids to take their cameras and laptop computers away.

    This was somewhat useless and pathetic, because others documented much of the police brutality, but the intimidation was effective.

    If you want to control and intimidate people (and generally move toward a Fascist state), it doesn’t matter if some folks document it. The YouTube videos of the police pepper-spraying civilians, and arresting journalists, sends a chilling message regarding freedom of speech. If McCain wins, they’ll censor anything they want from the internet.

    Here’s the obvious message: Protest at the DNC, or cover it outside as a journalist, and we’ll go easy on you. Protest at the RNC, and you’ll risk pepper-spray and arrest. The Fascist Bush-Cheney criminals in charge have been very effective in this way, and McCain promises more fear and intimidation, judging by his campaign charges of association with terrorists, socialism, etc. Be afraid. Be afraid.

    But the Department of Homeland Security has resulted in a whole new growth sector in the economy of government entitlements for Republican start-ups. Pepper-spray, tasers, riot suits, all paid for by taxpayers (and our grand-children). Redistribution of our wealth to the pseudo-conservative Fascists. Notice that it’s working pretty well.

    I predict that many people who want to keep making money in the stock market will put their money in companies with government contracts to provide pepper spray and tasers. This is a growth sector: Even if people lose their jobs, their homes, and start to riot, our tax dollars will still go to pay for riot prevention and crowd control at mass public protests, if there are any in spite of the intimidation.

    Follow the money.

    October 30, 2008
  364. john george said:

    Ben O.- The Press article does not differentiate between the “RNC 8” and these two individuals. If they are not considered in the group, then I am not aware of it. I can only tell of what I have read. The article and my comments are only directed to the two individuals cited.

    Jerold- The article I read is the printed edition dated 10/29. I have no idea how this compares to the on-line article. I have the copy at home if you cannot find it at the library. I do not have a scanner, so I will photo-copy it and mail it to you if you want.

    October 30, 2008
  365. Bill McGrath said:

    Republicans have the right to hold a convention. But people who don’t want the Republicans (or Democrats or skinheads or atheists) to have a convention have a right to protest that convention, or even to try to prevent the holding of such a convention. If the protesters commit a crime in the process of protesting or preventing that convention, they should be arrested and prosecuted for that specific crime. If they lie down in the street to block the passage of vehicles, for instance, they should be arrested and charged with the appropriate crime — perhaps disorderly conduct. They should NOT be charged with “Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism,” which is a felony charge that carries a maximum sentence of 7 1/2 years in prison. Yet this is exactly the charge that faces eight people who were arrested while sitting around in a house several days before the convention began. No one has been charged with that type of “crime” in Minnesota since World War One. — Bill McGrath

    October 30, 2008
  366. Bill: You state my sentiments perfectly. Citizens must be free to protest, even to disrupt events using lawful means (boycotts, for example, are lawful means to disrupt businesses). If a citizen commits a crime, they should be prosecuted for that crime. Laying down in the road could be a disorderly conduct, j-walking, or some other infraction or misdemeanor. Charging them with felonies, labeling them as terrorists, is disrespectful for everyone in the U.S.’s history who risked their freedom to further political discussion. I remember my history, from the Sons of Liberty to Susan B. Anthony, to John Brown, to Dr. King, and so many others. Yes, they were criminals, but they were not terrorists.

    October 30, 2008
  367. Peter Millin said:

    Bill and Jerold

    Tolerance has to go both ways. Free speech is only free if you let somebody speak that you don’t agree with.
    You have right to protest as long as it doesn’t interfere with the other persons right to freely assemble and exercise their right to free speech.

    A right that infringes on the right of others is not really a right.

    October 30, 2008
  368. Peter: I think that I agree with what you said, but you inserted a paradox which confuses me. If I have free speech rights so long as I don’t interfere with another’s free speech, does that mean that the other’s free speech is interfering with mine? I suppose having a specific example would help rather than work from an abstract statement.

    If the RNC protesters want to protest, that’s peachy. If they break laws while protesting, they should be prosecuted for the laws they break. It’s that simple. I think that means that you and I agree on this matter.

    October 30, 2008
  369. Peter Millin said:

    Jerold, this is scary you and I agreeing on something.
    🙂

    October 30, 2008
  370. john george said:

    Jerold & Bill- I think I see a differentiation between what you are saying and the position Peter and I are coming from. Free “speech” is different from free “actions”. Under the Bill of Rights, we are granted the freedom of “speech”. I don’t think the framers of our constitution intended this to be inerpreted to cover “actions” to suppress others’ “speech”. Do you see the difference? What some people did during the RNC was not “speech”. It was “actions”, some of which were violent and destructive. These, I believe, are the fly in the ointment of “freedom of speech.”

    October 30, 2008
  371. John (, Peter & Bill): The term “free speech” is slightly misleading. The freedom of speech has pretty much always been interpreted as the freedom of expression. In this way, sometimes “actions” are included in the meaning of free speech. Picketing is an action, performance art is an action, and so on.

    Anybody who breaks laws should be duly prosecuted. It’s not any more difficult than that. If a protester’s speech (like inciting a riot) or actions (like breaking windows) are breaking the law, then that deserves an arrest. Otherwise, respecting the history of our Union and the enrichment that protest brings to democracy, I say “Let them protest.”

    The problem I have is when infractions or misdemeanors rise to the level of felonies or “terrorism” because it’s directed against a political party or another organization that tries to insulate itself from the citizens. If a protester is spray painting a building, it’s vandalism, not terrorism. If a protester is participating in any number of misdemeanors, that does not make them felonies. I wish that the government was not afraid of protest. The government shows its fear when it inflates misdemeanors to felonies, state crimes to federal crimes, and so on.

    I look at this identically as a candidate for public office. I prefer that citizens communicate and work with me in a cooperative if not mutualistic way. However, if someone is upset with my governance, I will listen to their grievance and I will not retaliate in any way. I won’t send the police after them; I won’t legislate anti-citizen laws. I see the federal government moving away from the fundamental right of citizens to criticize the government, and this scares me.

    October 30, 2008
  372. john george said:

    Jerold- You are definitely an open and aproachable individual, and I think, just from the discussions we have had here, that I could talk to you about any concern I might have with your involvement on the council. That is not the issue with some of those who participated in the RNC demonstrations. Lets say, for example, that I was filled with hatred for what you stand for, as some of these people were toward the GOP, and I decided the best way to keep you from getting into office would be to deter you in any way I could from participating in some of the local candidate discussions. Lets say I planned to baracade your doors so you could not get out of your house, or slash your tires (on both your car AND your bike) so you could not get to the forums. Next, I go out and purchase the materials to carry out these plans.Then, lets say I was stupid enough to reveal these plans in a NN interview. With this prior knowledge, would you say, “Oh, John has a right to demonstrate against my candidacy, so I’ll just take my chances?” I don’t think so. I think you would possibly go to the police and report these plans and ask for increased surveilance, and rightfully so. This may not be line for line what happened in St. Paul, but I think it is close enough to demonstrate my point.

    Another area is regarding hate speech. If I take up a vengeful tirade against some minority and publicly defame this minority, this is prosecutable under federal law. It is not considered just an expression of an opinion. Would anyone be physically harmed in this? No. Would they be offended? Most definitely. Is this level of crime worthy of prosecution and incarceration ? Yes, according to the interpretation of these laws on the books right now. I see a discrepency in the application and coverage of these laws if the terrorist laws cannot be used against violent protesters. The concept of zero tolerance leaves no room for mercy.

    October 30, 2008
  373. John: I agree with you. Barricading the doors to my house = false imprisonment and trespass to land. Slashing my tires = vandalism and arguably larceny. These crimes, if known before they’re committed, should be prevented.

    If these were your plans, I would not want you to be charged with a felony or terrorism. That is my point.

    October 30, 2008
  374. john george said:

    Jerold- Unfortunately, that is how the law is being intrpreted right now. Perhaps the most important outcome of this next election will not necessarily what is done with the economy but what will be done with the Supreme Court.

    October 31, 2008
  375. john george said:

    Jerold- There is an interesting article in the Pioneer Press today (11/07), lower left of the front page of the local section. It is about some protesters’ treatment of an oposing viewpoint caught on film. I don’t know how it reads on the web. There is an interesting internet posting with one of the protester’s comments, too.

    November 7, 2008
  376. Jerold Friedman said:

    John G: Thanks for keeping this topic current. I am dismayed if the Molotov cocktails are indeed what they appear to be. I have known police to mislead the public by calling neutral things (like kitchen knives) dangerous. I can imagine the shields being neutral, and I don’t believe that shields are illegal. I think it’s very unlikely for police to confuse (intentionally or otherwise) anything for a Molotov cocktail.

    I think public demonstrations are great, whether they’re silly, annoying, dramatic, or anything nonviolent. If public safety becomes threatened, I have no sympathy for the demonstrators.

    Assuming they were Molotov cocktails, I hope that only the culpable people are found guilty, not the entire lot via guilt by association.

    I’ll be eager to follow this story as it evolves.

    November 7, 2008
  377. john george said:

    Jerold- I agree. It seems to me that we have lost sight of what King was actually able to accomplish through his non-violent but persistent demonstrations. It takes a little more time, and I wonder if some people just do not have the patience to try to effect change peacefully. I still think this minor, extreme fringe of people do more harm for a cause than helping it.

    November 7, 2008
  378. Jerold Friedman said:

    John: I would hesitate to use King in context with the RNC 8.

    King had said that if it weren’t for the violent advocacy of Malcolm X, that King didn’t think his own advocacy would have been as effective. It was an unintentional good cop (King), bad cop (Malcolm X) routine that made King seem desirable to a great many white people.

    Some may view the RNC 8 — if they were planning violence — as the bad cops who scare society into the arms of the good cops. Like King, the good cops may not have been successful without the bad cops. As such, the bad cops may have been necessary for the good cops to succeed.

    This routine works in other contexts. Some believe that it took a really, really, really, really bad white president to scare enough people out of their prejudice, so they would finally vote for an articulate, capable non-white presidential candidate. I don’t have my magic 8-ball to be sure, but I think that Obama would have done much worse in the primary if Bush was a popular guy.

    November 8, 2008
  379. john george said:

    Jerold- You might be correct on the election. As far as violence in protests, I still don’t believe this is justified. We’ve determined a difference between legality and justification. I still contend that change actually comes about more on a personal level than a community level. That is not to negate community efforts to change unjust practices or laws, but unless the people actually change inside, outside change can only be coerced. When that happens, the natural tendency is to revert to the original behavior once the person feels they can get away with it. There is a scripture in Ezekial (if I remeber right) that goes something like this. Can an Ethiopian change his skin color, or a leopard change his spots? So can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

    November 8, 2008
  380. Jerry Friedman said:

    John G: I don’t claim that using fire is “justified” for any protest. Nor do I think that King’s success with using political nonviolence is the model, because Malcolm X’s influence was also a factor. Without Malcolm X, Dr. King said that he would not have been as successful. Therefore, we can’t determine how effective Dr. King was in the absence of Malcom X.

    I try to keep my analogies as accurate as I can, so I am not accused of trying to win an argument by using false analogies. Your example with King and now Ezekiel are false analogies. Ethiopians have immutable genetic factors controlling their skin color. No one claims that psychology is immutable, but it’s more difficult to change in some than others. There have been plenty of people accustomed to doing evil who change to doing good and vice versa. Among them, Malcolm X was an imprisoned criminal when he decided to change into a civil rights leader. Malcolm X didn’t change his skin color, but he certainly changed his spots.

    November 9, 2008
  381. john george said:

    Jerry- I think the Ezek. reference has more to do with motivation than behavior. It exposes the basic depravity of man into which we are born. I have heard it said that we are born as little savages, and we need to be domesticated. Anyone who has been through the raising of a two year old or a teenager can attest to that, I think. There are a lot of hormonal changes going on in young people and it behoves us to understand how to handle them.

    Any person can change his behavior, either by will or by outside coercion. This can be done without having a change of heart, though. Once the incentive for change is removed, it seems that the person reverts to the original behavior. For instance, and this is very simplistic, when my children were young, if I was in the room with them, they played together pretty well. Once I left the room, then the selfishness arose pretty quickly. When a person has a change of heart, then the behavior change is more permanent. I’m sorry you do not like the analogies, but I think they are correct. The scriptures have more insights into human behavior than most psychology books I have read, but I have not read them all, so I am not condemning them all in one fell swoop.

    November 10, 2008
  382. Peter Millan – that’s a patently false statement, that all the votes go to one candidate. For example, in the Mt. Iron fiasco, I believe coleman got 27 and Franken 56 or something like that. Maybe you should make it a point to attend/observe the local recount, if they’re held in each county, so you can see how it goes back and forth and back and forth and errors all around. Please be more responsible in your statements.

    Here’s a breakdown from the STrib:
    http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/34200229.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUoaEaD_ec7PaP3iUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyU
    Since the preliminary Election Day numbers, Franken’s biggest gains were in Lake County, where he added 246 votes, and in Pine and St. Louis counties, where he picked up 100 in each.

    Coleman’s biggest gain was in Ramsey County, 29 votes, but that was more than canceled out by an additional 41 votes there for Franken. Coleman’s biggest drop was 124 votes in Anoka County, where Franken also lost 90 votes.

    November 11, 2008
  383. Peter Millin said:

    Carol,

    Do you deny that in case of the iron range votes votes for Franken were changed from 45 to 145? Due to an clerical error???
    How about the ” Frankenvotes” that mysteriously appeared in the back of a car of an election official? Those only were rejected AFTER the Coleman lawyers challenged them?

    The issues surrounding the vote counts for senate are questionable and suspicious at best.
    It casts ill feeling on no matter who wins in the end.

    What is so hard about 1) filling in a ballad correctly? 2) Counting every ballad correctly. This shouldn’t be rocket science I don’t want us to be turned in to another Florida.
    If you take a multiple choice test in school and you mark your ballad wrong what happens to that answer???
    You get it marked as wrong, there is no room for interpretation or discussion.

    November 11, 2008
  384. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: These statements from the Fox News article is painfully misleading, “There should be no role to divine voters’ intentions. […] But the real travesty will be to start letting election officials divine voter’s intent.”

    Why does the article’s author characterize recounts as “divining” the voters’ intent? Recounts do no such thing.

    This has nothing to do with making mistakes on a test. Voting is a fundamental right (i.e., it relates to democracy, unlike test-taking) and fundamental rights earn a high priority to ensure the right is respected, and the controversy is not over the voter’s mistake but the voting machine’s mistake. If you took a test and the automated grading machine failed you when you should have passed, do you suggest that you should keep the failed grade?

    November 11, 2008
  385. Peter – I’m saying your statement that “all all the extra “found” votes go to one candidate,” is false, which it is. I’ve sat through a recount and watched how it works, and I think it would do you good to do the same and learn how it is that ballots are not counted, miscounted, spoiled, all of the above. Voters don’t fill in the circles correctly, or they circle a name rather than fill in a circle, all sorts of things. In a recount, conducted by a neutral team with members of both sides observing, challenging, and each ballot is physically looked at, you can see for yourself.

    November 11, 2008
  386. Peter Millin said:

    So far all the extra votes went in favor of Franken, maybe that’s a better way to say it.

    I don’t question the sincerity of the election officials. I am more concerned about the lack of clear procedures and ballot safety.

    It clearly states on the ballots to fill in the circle. IMHO if that is not done correctly the vote should not count.
    If we leave any other marks to the interpretation of “voter intend” we open ourselves up for these kind of situations.
    Which does nothing more then question the whole system.

    November 11, 2008
  387. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: Carol already corrected your false statement, that “all the extra votes went in favor of Franken”. Some went to Coleman. It looks like you aren’t reading her responses to you.

    Again, voting is a fundamental right in a democracy. If someone votes incorrectly, but their intent is obvious, such as circling the name of the candidate rather than filling in the bubble, then you are advocating that we disenfranchise voters. Again, voting is not an academic exam and it should not be treated as such.

    Your proposal, to reject all non-conforming votes even when the voter’s intent is clear, means that you would deny people the vote with vision, reading, or comprehension problems.

    You say that you favor a clearly stated rules, such as the clearly stated rules of how to fill out a ballot. Why then do you disfavor the clearly stated rules of an automatic recount if the tally is less than 0.5%? Why are you selective about which rules you like?

    Are you happy with the Florida 2000 election results? The official recount was stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court even though the Court’s own rules are to stay out of state sovereignty, which applied in this case. The unofficial recount sponsored by Florida newspapers claimed that Gore should have won Florida. Do you think, therefore, that it was right for the Court to stop the recount, or should every vote have been counted even if Gore won the 2000 election?

    November 11, 2008
  388. Peter Millin said:

    Jerold,
    Who is against a recount? Certainly not me. I do disagree that “under votes” or “wrongly marked” votes should be counted.
    Their are clear instructions on how to fill out voting sheets.
    Why do we have rules and don’t behold to them, especially if it’s convenient for once political gains?

    Do we want o be know as a state of morons that doesn’t know how to fill out a basic ballot ??

    November 11, 2008
  389. Peter Millin said:

    Jerold,

    All the extra votes in the Iron Range went for Franken……100 to be sure, which in itself is to equal of a number.

    November 11, 2008
  390. Jane Moline said:

    Peter: What you are saying is that people who are unable to understand the directions should not be allowed to have their vote counted. Voting is not an intelligence test or comprehension test or even an English test–it is a vote. Our rules do not say that someone must complete the ballot as instructed–only that they are allowed to vote. In most elections, these ballots that are not completed to the instructions are ignored as the other ballots make it obvious who the winner is–but in the case where the margin of vote is less than one-half of one percent, we automatically look to all ballots to count those that would otherwise be ignored due to to using a machine to count ballots–and if they can be hand counted they are counted–the law does not say that they must be marked to be counted by machine only—a valid vote is a valid vote. This is not a test. If you want to change the law, you should lobby for that law change, but I doubt many people will agree with you. Most Minnesotans are content with our voting and recount process.

    If someone did not vote for any candidate, they will not have a vote in the Senate race. If they just marked an “x” next to a name, circled the name, or only partially filled in the oval, the vote will be counted. If they voted for more than one, their vote will not count.

    The Iron Range total that changed was from a precinct that incorrectly reported 24 votes instead of 124 votes for Al Franken–it was a clerical input error, not any mysterous jump of 100. That is why the votes are not certified until the counties have completed their review or audits–in this case, they caught their error the next day. Voting totals change like this in every election–it is difficult to report accurately 100% of the time on a late night after a long day. That is why votes are not certified immediately.

    Minnesotans are proud of our long tradition of voting turnout. Part of that is same day registration. This apparently bothered you because you were questioned at the poll–but you were allowed to vote–(even though you are a Republican who blogs on a left -leaning blog)–and the delay was not unreasonable and you found out later that it was due to your name having been misspelled –a clerical error. However, you mentioned it on election day as if it was either a conspiracy against you or a sign that it was too easy to vote in Minnesota.

    Unfortunately, the Republicans are setting up for a legal challenge to this particular race–and raising issues that do not exist. I would hope that both parties will abide by the recount–which I know could go either way.

    The Republicans are circulating bizarre theories about why the margin is shrinking–continuing the mudslinging that was their mainstay during the campaign. If you are so darn worried, volunteer to be an observer.

    November 11, 2008
  391. Peter Millin said:

    I think my kids have learned “filling in the dot” in Pre-K.
    If you lazy or stupid or just plain ignorant to execute a simple task as “filling in a dot”…then maybe you are not capable of even comprehending the election process.
    Gimme a break. How hard is it?

    My nephew who has “down syndrome” knows how to fill in a dot……how far are we willing to dumb down the simplest tasks to support stupidity ???

    November 12, 2008
  392. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: When someone has a right, the government has the duty to honor that right. I am delighted that your children can follow test instructions, but they do not have a Constitutional right to take tests. Trivial obstacles are no excuse to deny someone a right.

    Your characterization of some citizens as “lazy, stupid, [or] ignorant” overlooks the people who may not follow directions for any number of reasons. It overlooks the possibility of bugs in voting computers. It overlooks the occasional reversal of outcomes that happen after recounts. Your position would deny voters of the democratic process by not counting their votes if something went wrong.

    And again, I must point out that if you embrace the rules on ballot, to be consistent, you should also embrace the rules of the recount. Between the two, the administrative rules on the ballot are more arbitrary than the Constitutional rules of a recount.

    November 12, 2008
  393. Jane Moline said:

    Peter: Luckily, you are not in charge nor make the rules. The rules have already been made. If you don’t like them, get elected and change it or move to a state where they don’t protect voters rights–like Ohio or Alabama or Texas. (You will not likely be elected in Minnesota on the basis that you want to stop people from voting.)

    November 12, 2008
  394. Peter Millin said:

    Geez my communication skills are worse than I thought.

    Let me try again.

    I have never argued against a recount.
    I do support every bodies right to vote.
    I do believe voters should be protected.
    I do believe every correctly filled out ballot has to be counted.

    What I not support is:
    Falsely filled out ballot be counted. Unless it’s an equipment error.

    Interpreting voter intend. I.e. Somebody voted for Obama but for nobody else so we give the vote by default to Franken?????

    I personally would be embarassed if I couldn’t muster enough brains to fill out a circle.

    Holly…where did I say that I want to prevent people from voting????

    November 12, 2008
  395. john george said:

    Peter- On this one point, I agree with you, “…Interpreting voter intend. I.e. Somebody voted for Obama but for nobody else so we give the vote by default to Franken…” I was very happy that supposedly 300,000 people who voted for Obama did NOT vote for Franken. If these votes were to be infered, as you suggest, I think that would be questionable. I don’t think the recount laws would be interpreted in this way.

    As far as people’s right to vote, there are still some very sharp people around who never learned to read or write, especially in the older generations where formal schooling was not even available for them. I dare say some of these poeple have more wisdom than some educated people I have met, but then that is just my opinion. I’m not sure that being able to read or write necessarily qualifies a person to vote.

    November 12, 2008
  396. William Siemers said:

    Peter…If someone did not mark their ballot for a senatorial candidate then the ballot will not count. If they voted for two or three of the candidates then that ballot will not count.

    If someone circled a name, underlined a name, made a check mark or an ‘x’ next to a name, then that ballot should be allowed. If someone writes an ampersand, question mark, dollar sign or any other ‘mark’ in or over the oval then that vote should be allowed. If one pencil point mark exists within the oval, then that ballot should be counted. If someone brings in an ink pad and marks the ballot with a thumb print, that ballot should be allowed. If I decided to mark my ballot in blood that should be allowed. The idea of a democracy is for the vote to count…not to be disallowed.

    November 12, 2008
  397. Peter Millin said:

    William,

    Your example are beyond common sense and reality and I respectfully disagree with MOST of you example.

    Unless you (not you William) are an complete idiot there is no need for ANYBODY not to fill out a ballot completley,

    Everything else is childish an immature.

    Many great Americans have given their lives so we can vote freely. The least we can do to honor them, is to respect our right to vote and do it in normal, respectful and professional manner.

    The rest is just showboating.

    November 12, 2008
  398. john george said:

    Peter- Your opinion, “…Unless you (not you William) are an complete idiot there is no need for ANYBODY not to fill out a ballot completley…” doesn’t quite hold water. My wife, a BA with honors graduate of ISU, will not vote for anyone or anything she does not have any knowlege of, especially soil conservation candidates or judges. I think we have a choice in this country to vote or not for whomever we desire. I think the 300,000 people who voted for Obama but did not vote for either Coleman or Franken probably decided they would not choose the lesser of two evils. They simply did not vote for either, and that is their free choice.

    November 12, 2008
  399. Bright Spencer said:

    Test

    November 12, 2008
  400. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: If you object to Franken getting votes simply because the person voted for Obama, I agree with you. However, I haven’t heard of this practice ever being done.

    Otherwise, I would re-state what William said. If there is a mark on a ballot that a person wanted to vote for a candidate, that vote should be counted for that candidate.

    John G.’s point is also extremely important. If someone has comprehension problems for any reason, and that person votes but doesn’t follow directions, that person’s vote should count.

    The U.S. is not supposed to be a nation where people are disenfranchised because they don’t comprehend voting instructions.

    November 12, 2008
  401. Peter Millin said:

    John,

    I should have said “correctly”…not “completely”. And yes that includes not voting for all of the people on the ballot.

    November 12, 2008
  402. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry wrote,

    The U.S. is not supposed to be a nation where people are disenfranchised because they don’t comprehend voting instructions.

    But we used to have a pop quiz before voting, if you were a person of a certain color.

    A bit of googling brought up this gem from our racist past: a sample Alabama “literacy test” selectively given to African Americans, for which they were excluded from voting if they didn’t get all questions right:

    Quick, see if you can answer these:

    – If a person charged with treason denies his guilt, how many persons must testify against him before he can be convicted?
    – At what time of day on January 20 each four years does the term of the president of the United States end?
    – If the president does not wish to sign a bill, how many days is he allowed in which to return it to Congress for reconsideration?
    – In what year did the Congress gain the right to prohibit the migration of persons to the states?
    – The president is forbidden to exercise his authority of pardon in cases of _______.

    http://www.crmvet.org/info/litques.pdf
    http://www.crmvet.org/info/litques.htm

    Mercifully, those laws were long ago declared unconstitutional. A side effect of striking down those racist policies of the past is that challenging people’s intelligence (even by so apparently simple an act as requiring them to perfectly fill out a little circle) is not legal. Because, among other things, it would disproportionately impair the voting rights of some populations – in this case, including the visually impaired and those with unsteady hands.

    November 13, 2008
  403. Peter Millin said:

    Expecting from someone to put a pencil dot in to the right place hardly qualifies for “challenging or testing” someones intelligence.
    You are really stretching here Patrick.

    And for those that have a physical or mental conditions we already have help in place.

    November 13, 2008
  404. Peter Millin said:

    There is still hope that the Democrats get the 60 vote filibuster proof majority in the senate.
    This is great news…no more whining and no more excuses.

    November 13, 2008
  405. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter,
    You may think that I am stretching things, but the law does not agree with your point of view.

    November 13, 2008
  406. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter,
    For your conveniece, I have posted selections from Minnesota law regarding the assessment of ballots:

    204C.22 DETERMINING VOTER’S INTENT.
    Subdivision 1.Ballot valid if intent determinable.
    A ballot shall not be rejected for a technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter’s intent. In determining intent the principles contained in this section apply.

    Subd. 2.From face of ballot only.
    Intent shall be ascertained only from the face of the ballot.

    Subd. 3.Votes for too many candidates.
    If a voter places a mark (X) beside the names of more candidates for an office than are to be elected or nominated, the ballot is defective with respect only to that office. No vote shall be counted…

    Subd. 6.Mark out of place.
    If a mark (X) is made out of its proper place, but so near a name or space as to indicate clearly the voter’s intent, the vote shall be counted.

    Subd. 9.Votes for only some offices or questions determined.
    If the voter’s choice for only some of the offices or questions can be determined from a ballot, the ballot shall be counted for those offices or questions only.

    Subd. 10.Different marks.
    If a voter uniformly uses a mark other than (X) which clearly indicates an intent to mark a name or to mark yes or no on a question, and the voter does not use (X) anywhere else on the ballot, a vote shall be counted for each candidate or response to a question marked. If a voter uses two or more distinct marks, such as (X) and some other mark, a vote shall be counted for each candidate or response to a question marked, unless the ballot is marked by distinguishing characteristics that make the entire ballot defective as provided in subdivision 13.

    Subd. 11.Attempted erasures.
    If the names of two candidates have been marked, and an attempt has been made to erase or obliterate one of the marks, a vote shall be counted for the remaining marked candidate….

    Subd. 15.Blank ballot for one or more offices valid.
    If no name or response to a question is marked and no name is written in, the ballot is blank with respect to that office or question.

    The full Minnesota law on the matter of “Determining Voter’s Intent” is at this link:
    https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=204C.22

    November 13, 2008
  407. Peter Millin said:

    IMHO stupidity should not be excused by law. The fact that we have to have these laws for such a simple task, doesn’t hold well for us.

    November 13, 2008
  408. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: I didn’t see you post the law that says, “If one votes for president but fails to vote for a senator, the senator who belongs to the president’s political party will be given the vote.” Is that law missing from your post or did Peter just make it up?

    I highly recommend “Freedom Song” by Danny Glover, a film about the drive to get Mississippi black voters the right to vote in the 1960s. While the film is fictionalized, it covers the issues you’re describing. It depicts blacks being denied the vote for failing to pass a literacy test, and after they were coached on how to pass the test, the registrar asked them additional questions, like “How many suds can you get from a bar of soap?” It’s difficult to see the movie and believe that these things really happened.

    November 13, 2008
  409. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry,
    You are correct: there is no such provision. The relevant portion that addresses this is:

    Subd. 15.Blank ballot for one or more offices valid.
    If no name or response to a question is marked and no name is written in, the ballot is blank with respect to that office or question.

    November 13, 2008
  410. Peter Millin said:

    🙂

    November 13, 2008
  411. Peter Millin said:

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gMpTmr96V5hKIfyHT4Av4jsVQgrQD94AE8P80

    n Associated Press analysis of votes in the tight, still-to-be decided race for a U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota shows that most ballots lacking a recorded choice in the election were cast in counties won by Democrat Barack Obama.
    The finding could have implications for Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken, who are headed for a recount separated by the thinnest of margins — a couple of hundred votes, or about 0.01 percent.
    About 25,000 ballots statewide carried votes for president but not for the Senate race. Although some voters might have intentionally bypassed the race, others might have mismarked their ballot, or optical scanning machines might have misread them.

    November 13, 2008
  412. Peter Millin said:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122644940271419147.html

    According to conservative statistician John Lott, Mr. Franken’s gains so far are 2.5 times the corrections made for Barack Obama in the state, and nearly three times the gains for Democrats across Minnesota Congressional races. Mr. Lott notes that Mr. Franken’s “new” votes equal more than all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the Presidential, Congressional and statehouse races combined (482 votes).

    This entire process is being overseen by Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who isn’t exactly a nonpartisan observer. One of Mr. Ritchie’s financial supporters during his 2006 run for office was a 527 group called the Secretary of State Project, which was co-founded by James Rucker, who came from MoveOn.org. The group says it is devoted to putting Democrats in jobs where they can “protect elections.”

    November 13, 2008
  413. Patrick Enders said:

    The Secretary of State Project was a direct response to the actions of Katherine Harris in 2000, as well as some concerns about Ohio.

    November 13, 2008
  414. Peter Millin said:

    Meet Al Franken

    Al Franken’s campaign hit a new low when they tried to argue that they should get all of the personal information connected to rejected absentee ballots in order for them to determine the legitimacy of the rejection. They spun a sad tale of a Bemidji woman whose ballot got rejected because her signature had changed — due to a stroke. This touching tale had everything to pull on the heartstrings … except the truth

    http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/articles/index.cfm?id=19522&section=News

    November 14, 2008
  415. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: Good article, albeit your summary left out some balance. This comment is key, but omitted in your statement. Sometimes people err, and they dutifully correct the mistake:

    “We are still investigating,” Franken spokesman Andy Barr said Thursday night, adding that while the woman’s absentee ballot was rejected it was not because of her shaky signature as he reported a few hours earlier.

    And how could you miss this jewel?

    And a state administrative law judge Thursday dismissed a Coleman lawsuit over a Franken commercial claiming that a watchdog group listed Coleman as one of the four most corrupt U.S. senators. The judge ruled that the group listed just four senators on its corrupt list, so Coleman would be considered one of its four most corrupt.

    I favor more election oversight. If Franken’s camp helps ensure that elections are honest, I will be the very last person to complain.

    November 14, 2008
  416. Peter Millin said:

    Jerry,

    In typical lawyer fashion you deflected from the issue…..nice going…. 🙂

    If I ever need one you be the first I call

    November 14, 2008
  417. Patrick Enders said:

    For those of you interested in the finer points of the Senate recount, I highly recommend the following sites as being particularly informative:

    At FiveThirtyEight, there is insightful coverage of the recount, and how it is progressing:
    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/minnesota
    I especially recommend the following post:
    Minnesota Challenged Ballot Primer http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/minnesota-challenged-ballot-primer.html

    At Star Tribune’s ‘Ballot Challenge’, you can view individual challenged ballots, and personally decide how you think each challenged ballot should be counted:
    http://senaterecount.startribune.com/
    (Don’t forget to reread the rules for determining voter intent, and do be sure to click on the links to view the entire ballot – as, according to the rules, you sometimes need to compare the mark on the Senate section with the kinds of marks that the voter used elsewhere on the ballot.)

    November 28, 2008
  418. Peter Millin said:

    Most experts agree that the only way Franken can win is by going to court.
    Looks like he took a page out of Gore’s book.

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/35263049.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciaec8O7EyUsr

    Priceless !!!!

    I am still hoping Al can pull it off, because that would bring the senate closer to a filibuster proof Democratic majority.
    Which means that the whining about “We can’t get anything done because of the senate” has to stop. It will also establish clear responsibility and accountability for all decisions made as long as the total majority lasts.

    Time to get out the popcorn….this will be better then watching “As the world turns”.

    December 1, 2008
  419. Bright Spencer said:

    Peter, I am afraid you will be waiting along time because the accountable persons and parties will still spin and twist and the press will be hiding, slicing, dicing the truth until it looks like grandma’s mince meat pie.

    I’ll be happy to be wrong on this one.

    The only things that are gonna change are we might end the war in Iraq, which I still maintain was and is the best way to route out terrorist, due to the more educated population and favorable landscape over the mountainous and treacherous lands and seasoned warriors of Afghanstan, (if you had to fight a war anywhere, and once you started, you better end it well). So, you’d end the war, which is set to end sometime anyway, and the second thing that might change is the end of Guantanamo Bay, which is nearing the end anyway with only 80 prisoners left so far and some awaiting trial with actual evidence against them. That is happening, too. SO, so far, Obama looks a lot like Bush to me, and the press is saying nothing…even when Biden referred to Obama as Mr. President today, he was not called on it. Come on, Dems, wait your turn!
    Come on, Press, act like an American institution with a drive and determination to print the truth.

    December 1, 2008
  420. Peter Millin said:

    Bright,

    What is even more pretentious is Obamas sign that says ” The office of the president elect”..huh ????

    I didn’t realize that there is such a thing. As always with Dems….symbolics over substance.

    December 2, 2008
  421. Bright Spencer said:

    Peter, regarding creation of the new “office”, we must keep in mind that America is a country just beginning to bloom. We are inexperienced children making things up as we go. That is where both our beauty and our blunders lie.

    So, no office last year?, there’s one now and even if it’s no more than a few chairs with blanket over it, it’s our newest creation! America lives for anything new.

    John Baer, former White House communications man, 1995-97 said yesterday on C-SPAN, what we see in the American news resports about what is happening on Capital Hill is one “pin prick” of what is really going on behind the scenes. And much less than what our European counterparts see and hear.

    I can imagine with all the diversified views of the Obama appointees, there might be a lot more haggling going on than actual progress toward the “there” that we were promised during the campaign.

    December 2, 2008
  422. Peter Millin said:

    Bright,

    While you might be correct it still speaks to Obama’s character. It’s not about change its about his glory and history.

    December 2, 2008
  423. Bright Spencer said:

    Peter, in #442 you made an interesting comment. Could you expound upon that?
    Did you mean his personal history?

    December 2, 2008
  424. Bright Spencer said:

    I don’t know why the absentee ballots were excluded in the first place, ref 441.

    December 2, 2008
  425. Peter Millin said:

    443

    Obama for better or for worse will make history as the first black POTUS, regardless if he does well or not.

    Currently that fact has gone to his head a bit. How else would you explain his own POTUS elect office and logo. Seems a bit to grandiose for my taste.

    December 2, 2008
  426. Bright Spencer said:

    Okay, Peter, I hear what you are saying now.
    O might make a mistake by being visible too often and playing the transparency card as if it was something in and of itself.

    December 2, 2008
  427. john george said:

    I’m not sure why all the fuss over calling Obama “president elect.” That is what he is, afterall. I thought this was just a proper term to address someone in his position.

    It seems there are greater issues out there that need addressing, like how this cabinet of “opposites” is actually going to function. Seems to me I’ve read some historical perspectives about Lincoln’s and Wilson’s cabinets that would suggest this is ill-advised. Sometimes, the push to bring plurality to a board is a good safety net and fosters balance. Other times, it is a recipe for mass confusion. Time will tell how these new appointees will actually work together. Of course, this is America, and there is space for wrong decisions to be righted without there being complete civil (uncivil?) upheavel.

    December 2, 2008
  428. Bright Spencer said:

    John, Obama said that he likes to have strongly opinionated people around him so he can consider the different views, but it may also be that he is surrounding himself with his future opponents of 2012, in hopes that they will have had enough of the big time by then. You have a good point though and I think there will be
    more haggling than “getting there”.

    As for the to do about the term “president elect”, Peter was talking about a circular sign that appears at O’s press conferences (five already) that says “offiice of the president elect” and Peter notes that there is no such office officially. My gripe is that Biden looks at Obama at the last conference and calls him “Mr.President”, to which I say, hey, Dems, wait your turn. Although Bush seems way ready to go home and make coffee for Laura every morning and leave it to O now, I think he should serve out his term and help this country move forward into the new era of rebuilding and restructuring.

    December 3, 2008
  429. Peter Millin said:

    Pretty sad that it will come that.
    One would think that a simple issue like one man/woman equals one vote.

    Even more of a reason to be clear on filling out the ballot properly as requested and simply discard all those that don’t follow established procedure.

    The notion of “voter intend” is open to personal interpretation and fraud. Although I would say that most of the ballots I have viewed on the STRIB were pretty clear cut.

    I go back to my original point. Voting is not just a right it is a duty as well. Unless somebody has a mental or physical handicap there is no reason for not filling out the ballot properly.
    If one can’t or won’t do it the vote should be discarded.

    December 7, 2008
  430. Bright Spencer said:

    Peter, you have good points. There is also some real need to look over all of our democratic systems and rework them. This recount, as frustrating and costly of time and money, is one way to get at that, if people will recognize the good opportunity the count represents.

    Also, I saw the case of a ballot being cast by a voter who drew an form very much like the
    one that should have been filled in, but it was placed about an inch to the left from the actual location, which was not filled in or marked in any way. I have only to guess that this voter has a perception problem and should have the vote counted. Maybe another way of voting could back up the written ones, like answering a verbal question and then have the number match the balloot number. Or the voter could blink their eyes or eye once for candidate Frank, and twice for candidate Norm. Something like that could work as confirmation.

    December 7, 2008
  431. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: You contradict yourself a few times. You state at first the celebrated democratic principle of “one man/woman equals one vote” and later “Voting is not just a right it is a duty as well.”

    In the same breath, you repeat your suggestions on how to systematically remove that right from people who make mistakes, whether the mistake is caused by physical or psychological impairment, or carelessness.

    In other words, you didn’t say, “Voting is a right only to people who read, comprehend and follow instructions,” but “voting is a right.”

    Television news has displayed a dozen or so sample ballots that raise the question of voter intent. For example, one ballot had Coleman’s and Franken’s name filled in, but one was X’d out. The ballot machine rejected the vote. On a recount, the voter’s intent is clear. Why do you complain ad nauseum about such things? Coleman’s and Franken’s legal teams have access to all the ballots which is a healthy way to ensure the right to vote, you support, stays a right and not a privilege.

    December 7, 2008
  432. Peter Millin said:

    Jerold,

    There is no contradiction in my comments at all. Yes evry should be counted and YES every citizen has the duty to fill out the ballot correctly, unless of course any kind of handicap would prevent them to do so.

    So where is the contradiction??

    Leaving someones vote up to a board of lawyers to interpret is just plain nonsense.

    And I also stated if the intend is clear and the rejection is due to a machine error it should be counted.

    Where do you see a problem with my position? Unless of course you suggest that we start reading tea leaves??

    December 8, 2008
  433. Peter Millin said:

    There is an old saying in Germany :

    Tell me who your friends are and I tell you who you are…..(or something like that)

    In short…judging by Obama’s friends he is either as crooked as they are or he just has incredible bad judgment.
    Based on him being our future POTUS I hope it’s the first one….otherwise we are in deep trouble.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/18/whistleblower-hits-obama-friends-appraisal/

    December 9, 2008
  434. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    With the understanding that election results are public information, I have incorporated a tape of Bridgewater Township election results into a large sculpture piece “The Time is Now: Election 2008” in the NAG members show. Opening is Thursday night Dec. 11, 7-9 pm. Hope to see some of you there.

    There were 1193 ballots cast, 563 for McCain/Palin and 603 for Obama/Biden.

    December 9, 2008
  435. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: You’ve repeatedly said that people who don’t follow directions should not have their vote counted, i.e., if they “X” the bubble rather than filling it in. That statement contradicts your later statement that citizens have a right to vote. If there is a right to do something, the burden is on the government not to disenfranchise the right — unless there are laws that clearly outline the circumstances, the processes, and so forth. The recount is being done in accordance to the citizens’ right to vote; by your saying the “X” votes (and other misread votes) should not be counted, you are saying that the law should not be followed and the right should not be respected.

    If you ask me the same question again, I’ll tell you the same: You cannot both support one’s right to vote and then support petty reasons to disenfranchise the right.

    You said, “Leaving someones vote up to a board of lawyers to interpret is just plain nonsense.”

    Do you mean the Canvassing Board? The Canvassing Board has the Secretary of State and four judges, no lawyers. What other Board do you mean, or do you just make your facts up?

    “The board’s five members are composed of two state supreme court justices, two district court judges and Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.”

    http://townhall.com/blog/g/646edc15-74fa-443c-b5ec-2094f71b6ad9

    December 11, 2008
  436. William Siemers said:

    Peter…Re: #460…Regarding the article to which you link: Read it.

    For the most part this is a rehash of ‘connections’ that voters discounted. The AP in almost every case says Obama’s connection to these people is either limited or irrelevant.

    December 11, 2008
  437. Peter Millin said:

    William,

    Given the latest scandal surrounding Blagovich those connections are relevant, unless you believe that there is a Santa Clause.

    You can’t seriously believe that the zest pool called Chicago politics had no impact on Mr. Teflon ???

    Relationships matter and remember it was Obama who said about Wright ” I have been in his church for twenty years I never heard him say that” and about Ayers ” Just a guy who lived in the neighborhood”.

    Now he wants us to believe that he didn’t know that Blago was auctioning off his senate seat??

    Wake up. Obama is a crook just like most of them.

    December 11, 2008
  438. Peter Millin said:

    Jerry,

    If you fill in your ballad correctly there is no need for interpretation and the recount would be over by now.

    Mark Richie, you mean the very same guy who was involved with ACORN?? LOL

    December 11, 2008
  439. Patrick Enders said:

    The Canvassing Board met this morning, and made two important rulings:

    1) 4,823 rejected absentee ballots have been examined, and 638 – 13% – of those were wrongfully rejected. (That is to say, the ballots were completed correctly by eligible voters, but were rejected anyway.) The Board therefore unanimously voted to have all counties review and count all wrongfully rejected ballots. Projected statewide, 13% would mean 1,600 citizens had been wrongfully denied the right to have their votes counted, and will now have that corrected.

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36043514.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUX

    December 12, 2008
  440. Patrick Enders said:

    Oops. Ruling #2 is: Because of the 133 missing ballots, that single precinct will have its original election night count used in the recount. (same source)

    December 12, 2008
  441. Patrick Enders said:

    Here are the faces and voices of several persons whose absentee ballots were inappropriately rejected:

    December 12, 2008
  442. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    Patrick, thanks for the info on absentee ballots. I decided to work through my feelings about the election by doing some art. There are two pieces in the NAG Membership Show which opened last night and will be up through Jan. 3:

    “The Time is Now: Election 2008.” An actual tape of the Bridgewater Township results is a part of it.

    “Hogs in Winter” with ag quote from Obama flyer.

    Check out the ornaments on the tree inside the NAG shop also.

    December 12, 2008
  443. Peter Millin said:

    If the illegally rejected absentees are counted and Franken is still losing will he finally go away and shut up.

    This guy is a sore loser and an embarrassment to Minnesota.

    While we made a big deal about Palin’s experience…what are Franken’s qualifications??

    December 12, 2008
  444. john george said:

    Peter- Franken didn’t have to have a stand-in on SNL.

    December 12, 2008
  445. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: How could Franken be a sore loser if he may have won the election? Doesn’t that mean he might be a sore winner?

    December 12, 2008
  446. Peter Millin said:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rahm-obama13dec13,0,3359611.story

    President elect is already involved in a scandal, that even before he takes office.
    I hope this is not a sign of things to come, for all our sake.

    What ever happened to “change we can believe in”? Obama has hired back all of the Clinton thugs and surrounds himself with the leaders of Chicago gutter politics.
    This doesn’t look like change….it looks like more of the same.

    To Obama’s credit though, he actually never defined change. Is this what he meant? Yikes.

    December 14, 2008
  447. William Siemers said:

    Peter…once again you have linked to a story (in # 472) that in no way supports the allegations in your post. Surely among the right wing websites and blogs you can find a link that would actually support what you say.

    December 14, 2008
  448. Peter Millin said:

    William,

    You seriously believe that Obama had no knowledge on who would replace him? You can’t be serious, nobody is that naive.

    Here is the statement Obama should have made. “Of course I am aware of the people and negotiations surrounding my replacement, but what I didn’t know is that money was involved.
    I won’t tolerate such behavior and those involved have no place in my administration”.

    What did he do instead ? He denied even knowing who was on the list for his replacement.

    Seriously William…..c’mon take your blinders off.

    December 14, 2008
  449. Peter – once again, you’re going overboard, citing to a story that does NOT support the statement you’re making. While the fire is being investigated as arson, the article refrains from any speculation. These references detract from your credibility.

    December 14, 2008
  450. Bright Spencer said:

    Carol, There is a whole lot of surmising here…Patrick Fitzgerald has stepped out early after several years of investigating Gov. B of IL because I think he wanted to precede any actual appointment that would be covered up, swept under the rug, and then burnt. There’s your arson for ya. 😉

    I feel as though Obama is not in the camp of Gov B of IL, but he did say he would back him in 2006, after the investigations and after every body already knew that Rod was doing things that made him appear to be punkish.
    That in itself makes Obama look less like one would have liked to think of him last week.

    Now maybe some people will understand why I was so jumpy about Obama for POTUS from the get go.

    December 14, 2008
  451. Bright & Peter –

    Bright, I am posting in a strictly literal reference here, that the site you, Peter, used:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/13/AR2008121302503_pf.html

    … does not state or even allude or imply or hint that:
    Left wing radicals are burning the church Palin attends.

    This is not the first time you’ve done this, Peter, but I’m going to add to the objections, as stated by William Siemers, and perhaps others too.

    Griff – I think this should be addressed by NoLoGro moderator(s).

    December 14, 2008
  452. Bruce Anderson said:

    Peter: I will add my voice to those of William and Carol. I welcome your opinions (I really, honestly do), but implore you to stop making inflammatory comments and providing links to stories that do not, in any objective sense, support your comments. This does not contribute to enlightened/enlightening discussion. I think Carol is right to suggest that this issue should be addressed by LoGroNo moderator(s). (Although it’s asking a lot of a moderator to continually be the arbiter of whether linked stories supports comments made here.)

    I think this is important because many people do not have or make the time to read the stories that people link to, and make their own judgment concerning whether the stories support the opinions voiced here. When you provide a link to a reputable news source such as the Washington Post or AP (two of your recent links), reasonable folks with limited time may reasonably think, “Geez, this guy is linking to a reputable news source to support his stated opinion. He must be on to something…”

    I would feel this way whether the opinion expressed, but not supported by the linked story, was from the left, right or in between.

    December 14, 2008
  453. Peter Millin said:

    I find it surprising that most of you support any type of slander against the current regime..but God forbid when someone questions Obama.

    Carol and Bruce the linked story is an illustration that despite earlier denies from Obama, his advisers knew about the candidates.
    Which means Obama doesn’t have a clue on what goes on in his transition team or he was lying.

    I hope he was lying, because if he has no control over his team then we are in even more trouble then I sought.

    Both of your cries for procedural issues on this blog are a diversion…since neither of you is able to disprove my allegations.

    December 14, 2008
  454. Earth to Peter – please reread — my objection is to your post 475 wtih the Palin link that has nothing to do with your comment, I quoted your comment and the link in BOTH posts… and that has zip to do with Obama. That’s TWICE now…

    December 14, 2008
  455. Peter Millin said:

    If not the fringe left who else would burn a church?? Certainly not the fringe right.

    You are right I should read your comments more closely.

    December 14, 2008
  456. Bruce Anderson said:

    Peter: Re comment #481. Again you are dissembling. The Guardian article you link to says NOTHING that supports your charge that Obama is lying.

    While it is within the realm of the possible that Obama will be found, in the future, to have been lying about his or his staff’s inappropriate involvement with Blagojevich in any deal-making concerning his old Senate seat (although I doubt that very seriously), none of the stories you are linking to provides any evidence of this.

    As Carol said above (#476), these references detract from your credibility. If you expect to influence anyone’s views of Obama (as opposed to just attempting to get some zingers in), objectivity and references that actually support what you are alleging would be a good place to start.

    December 14, 2008
  457. Jerry Friedman said:

    Why do you [bloggers] who (1) appropriately put the burden of proof on the one who affirms, (2) want more than specious evidence, and (3) understand that analysis, not fiat, is necessary for a sound conclusion, keep giving Peter your time and insight?

    Peter has repeatedly shown us that he puts the burden of proof on the liberals/progressives/intellectuals/etc., he is OK with specious evidence, and his opinion is more important to him than a sound (i.e., supported by evidence and analysis) conclusion.

    It’s tiring to read Peter’s posts. It’s becoming tiring to read others’ posts who pretend that Peter can be convinced to respect rules of evidence and logic. A friend once told me that he used to lead truth to where he wanted it to go — but he was confounded by an irrational world that did not conform to the truth that he was leading. When he decided to follow truth, where ever it went, my friend discovered that the world was not irrational.

    If Peter is leading the truth, let him, but don’t fool yourselves into thinking you can train him to follow the truth.

    I don’t think that Peter needs to be moderated/censored. Rather, he is asking to be ignored. I have honored Peter’s request.

    December 14, 2008
  458. Bruce Anderson said:

    Jerry,

    In comment #487 you conclude

    I don’t think that Peter needs to be moderated/censored. Rather, he is asking to be ignored. I have honored Peter’s request.

    I’d rather have a vigorous, honest discussion/debate with those of differing points of view, but I reluctantly will be doing the same.

    December 14, 2008
  459. Patrick Enders said:

    I’m with Jerry. I’ve found that a great deal of peace of mind can be gained by ignoring posters who have consistently shown no ability to engage in an honest dialog.

    December 14, 2008
  460. David Henson said:

    Jerry – do you prefer to preach to the choir ?

    December 14, 2008
  461. Bruce & Patrick – you’ve hit on the key words, “honest discussion/dialog,” and it pains me to have blatant misrepresentation sitting there… and frankly, I feel a lot better taking sixty seconds to expose baseless crap than to let obvious false statements go unchallenged in public. In this culture often saying things over and over and over makes it appear true, so IMHO sometimes it’s worth the sixty seconds.

    December 14, 2008
  462. Jerry Friedman said:

    David H: No.

    Is it a rhetorical device to ask someone, that if they do not want to waste their voice on someone who does not listen, whether they only want to talk to those who listen only to them? Now that you’ve named the two extreme positions, might you name the hundreds in between?

    Your devil’s advocacy is apparent, and I appreciate that, but offering two extremes does not advance any understanding of the more plausible in-between.

    December 15, 2008
  463. Jerry – Take a look — I think you’ve the one who’s framed it as binary (waste time or ignore) and through a “rhetorical” statement posited as a “question” declared that my two sparse 60 second statements of fact are a waste of my time and that reading Peter’s flase statements are a waste of your time. You can, of course, speak for yourself, but you really can’t speak for anyone else. There are many ways of handling someone who slings around false statements, and we each can choose, and if it’s not a choice of your liking, yes, feel free to ignore and delete! Or any of the many inbetween measures you now acknowledge. We’ll see if Peter’s inflamatory false statements are attention seeking and act accordingly. I’m certainly not making statements in an effort to convince him of anything, but instead making statements to correct the public record rather than let false statements sit like the fart in the elevator.

    December 15, 2008
  464. Holly Cairns said:

    Jerry said:

    Why do you [bloggers] who (1) appropriately put the burden of proof on the one who affirms, (2) want more than specious evidence, and (3) understand that analysis, not fiat, is necessary for a sound conclusion, keep giving Peter your time and insight?

    Ha ha! Deja vu.

    December 15, 2008
  465. Patrick Enders said:

    Carol,
    Perhaps you could just copy-and-paste the following statement, whenever appropriate:

    Peter,
    Once again, the article you have linked to does not support your assertion.

    And then leave it at that?

    December 15, 2008
  466. Jerry Friedman said:

    Carol: Yes, we’re all autonomous and can keep engaging anyone in any way. My recommendation not to have him moderated/censored covers that aspect, so anyone who prefers the status quo can still enjoy it.

    You understand my complaint because of your selection of analogy. I can certainly take another elevator, take the stairs, or change my destination. However, I hope to stay involved in this DNC/RNC forum spin-off. It’s a classic question: Should those who object to a stinky elevator ride have the burden of leaving or should those who create the stink?

    I am against censorship. I am also against this DNC/RNC forum being taken over by a single subject: one person’s indefensible conclusions and others’ efforts to show that they’re indefensible.

    Every analogy I’ve come up with is not as fragrant as yours, yet they all reveal that this forum’s purpose is for an engagement of ideas on a particular subject, and one person’s habitual refusal to engage should not be rewarded. If there were infinite elevators, Peter and those who want to try to engage him could do so ad nauseum. We are several elevators short of infinity.

    I don’t and won’t criticize you for your posts to Peter, to me, nor to anyone else. I won’t criticize others who want the status quo. I’m just saying out loud that this elevator smells, and it would smell less if we don’t say the things proven to cause flatulence.

    December 15, 2008
  467. Peter Millin said:

    To all,

    It is quiet obvious that neither of you is interested in another point of you. Most of you deflect this issue by trying to discredit me.
    Some of you just like to hear yourself talk and only listen to those that agree with you.

    Not all of my posts are posted in seriousness some of them are posted to get you upset. Because of your attitude towards me. It’s my way of paying you back for your smugness and elitist behavior.

    Yeah you can make fun of me and can come up with all sorts of intellectual calisthenics, but it only illustrates your own insecurity and narrow mindedness.

    You want to continue to live in your own world, please do so. I have nothing to prove to anybody and all your personal attacks and trying to put me down really have no effect on me.
    I am too old and I have seen too much.

    Before some of you ” get your knickers in a twist” the above comments are not meant for all here…those I have directed them to…..you know who you are.

    Cheers….and peace out.

    December 15, 2008
  468. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: I am happy for once to see a post of yours in earnest.

    December 15, 2008
  469. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter,
    I suggest studying the posts of David Ludescher, Ray Cox, and John George for examples of conservatives who participate in a constructive, honest, and valuable dialog on this site.

    December 16, 2008
  470. David Henson said:

    Jerry and Patrick – I think everyone now understands your position on Peter and additional posts are at best thread drift and at worst a rant.

    December 16, 2008
  471. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: Thanks for being on top of this story.

    Wow.

    While I will be delighted with either win, in the sense that I want democracy — the voters’ will — to prevail, this story has been frustrating for me in two ways:

    1. I am still depressed that Al Gore stopped his legal challenges in 2000/1. I wish that, like Al Franken, Al Gore zealously advocated the voters’ will rather than assuming the best thing to do was to concede a victory. Franken did an SNL skit with Gore in 2001 relating to Gore’s loss. I wouldn’t be surprised if Gore’s mistake was a prime mover in Franken’s decision to keep litigating.

    2. I deeply want the U.S. to move away from the dominating two-party system. With close elections like this, and Dana Graham and Kris Vohs (14 vote difference and 63 write-in votes), I don’t think I can vote for third parties any more. When I lived in California, with its long history of Democratic and/or liberal and/or progressive politicians being elected, I felt safe voting for my preferred candidate rather than lesser evil (I voted for Leonard Peltier in 2000, California of course went to Gore). With Gore and Franken in mind, how can I ever vote for my favorite candidate if there’s a chance that it helps my least favorite to get elected?

    December 18, 2008
  472. Bright Spencer said:

    Jerry F said this: “With Gore and Franken in mind, how can I ever vote for my favorite candidate if there’s a chance that it helps my least favorite to get elected?”

    Jerry, take a tip from Mother Theresa or whoever wrote the “do it anyway” poem.
    No one’s vote is helping or hurting more than anyone else’s, right? Plus, if nothing else the third parties may grow large enough to win elections on a regular basis someday. Besides, they bring up points that often go overlooked by the D and R parties and bring issues to mind that no one else would. That in itself is valuable.

    December 18, 2008
  473. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry, you wrote,

    2. I deeply want the U.S. to move away from the dominating two-party system. With close elections like this, and Dana Graham and Kris Vohs (14 vote difference and 63 write-in votes), I don’t think I can vote for third parties any more.

    Yep. Even though I’ve voted for third party candidates in the past (and been especially interested in seeing them get a foothold on the local level – the Greens held a couple offices in Madison when I lived there) your assessment above is exactly why I finally declared myself a Democrat in 2000. For now, the end result of divided liberal voting is that Republicans will get elected.

    Mercifully, elections are more complicated on the local level. Kris vs. Dana was a tough choice for me, and I’m glad my vote on that one mattered.

    Apparently, my vote on the Senate probably mattered, too.

    I wonder how people who voted for the Reform candidate are feeling about the recount?

    December 18, 2008
  474. Patrick Enders said:

    The MN Supreme Court has rejected Coleman’s suit to stop the counting of inappropriately rejected ballots:

    Star Tribune:

    In a ruling crucial to the disputed U.S. Senate election, the Minnesota Supreme Court Thursday rejected an attempt by incumbent Norm Coleman to block the state Canvassing Board from counting improperly rejected absentee ballots.

    However, the court ruled that the campaigns of Coleman and Democrat Al Franken, along with Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and vote canvassing boards establish a uniform standard for identifying and counting such absentee ballots. The court said they should then be added to the tally.

    Given the Democratic Party’s strong push for early/absentee voting this year, it is likely that at least a slight plurality of the inappropriately rejected absentee ballots will turn out to have been legitimate votes for Franken.

    Al’s gotta be considered the most likely to win at this point. And the legal options for the Coleman campaign don’t look too promising:

    In objecting to the counting, the Coleman campaign argued that the state Canvassing Board violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by not setting uniform procedures for counties to identify and count improperly rejected ballots.

    But Charles said he doubts that argument would sway the U.S. Supreme Court.

    “The equal protection issue goes against them. … Their best argument is that some counties are going to count them and others aren’t … But the proper response to that argument is an order telling all the counties to count all legal votes.”

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36406524.html?page=2&c=y

    December 18, 2008
  475. Jerry Friedman said:

    Bright: Ethically I am a consequentialist, meaning that the consequences of an action are the most persuasive on what I think is the right thing to do. Unlike the popular mischaracterization of Utilitarianism, I don’t simply assert that the ends justifies the means. Rather, the *best* means should be used to achieve the best ends. For example, assuming that democracy is best for Iraq, we shouldn’t bomb them into democracy, but we should work with them in humane ways toward becoming democratic.

    Usually, I say what you said along the lines of vote for whom I want to be elected. If I faithfully did so, I doubt that I’d ever vote for someone who is on the ballot. I prefer candidates who are demonstrably loyal to people (not corporations, government org’s like the military, etc.), to free speech and civil rights, to deep ecology and mutualistic policies toward other nations. I can think of only one federal politician who probably fits my expectations. Such is the fate of complex societies, having so many things to disagree on.

    With a 5-vote difference, Coleman has 50.00009% of the vote. If “the good party” or “the bad party” had a comfortable lead, I’d be much more comfortable to vote my conscience. Suppose in the State of Columbia, the Moderate Party has 35% of the vote, the Good Party has 15%, and the Bad Party has 50%. I’d feel OK voting for the Good Party to help them overtake the Moderate Party. (This has happened to some extent in Hawaii, where the Democrats and Greens are the most popular parties.) When the vote is 50.00009% vs. 49.99991%, I keep thinking about how important it is to get the less-bad party elected.

    Frankly, more important than my one vote is my advocacy. If a few others agree with me, it may change the outcome of an election by 10 votes, even 50 if I can be so bold. Fewer write-ins could change the next close call in Northfield elections, and it might change state elections. Considering Bush v. Gore, the consequences of a few votes can affect the world.

    I am often accused of being an idealist, and I am usually guilty in that regard. Recent elections have been so close that I fear the consequences of ideal voting are worse than voting for the lesser of the evils. I fear my idealism will lose to the realism of such close votes.

    December 18, 2008
  476. Bright Spencer said:

    Jerry, I hear you and I know that is how people do generally understand what happens. But I would like to say that once they have you voting against your heart, they have you. Say you went the other route of getting whom you really wanted on board. Maybe you would convince your person, or maybe you’d become the person yourself. Maybe you would convince me to become the person. Cuz for every person who votes like you do, there is another voting for the G or B party for some other reason than which one will be the best for the situation/s at hand so there is little reason to it. Most of us are voting with our hearts anyway and numbers are just numbers.

    Mike Bloomberg, Mayor of NYC has said that both sides rule from the center, because that is where most of us really live on most issues. So maybe you don’t really feel that strongly about your issue or person but really have a stronger feeling for the center?
    Not accusing, just considering the possibility for continuing the conversation tomorrow.

    December 18, 2008
  477. john george said:

    Patrick- You’re right about the complexity of that ruling. Nothing seems really clear or easy in this recount. It seems like those in authority to come out and say, “This is the way we are going to do it!” are just starting to say that. I think the system actually works. It is whether everyone will be satisfied with the results.

    December 19, 2008
  478. Jerry Friedman said:

    Bright: You pose a good topic for discussion, whether it’s right to vote for one’s ideal candidate and voting for the better (but not ideal) candidate means “they have you”.

    I think it has a lot to do with how we’re raised and what our culture imbues in us in this regard. Compared to many other nations, people in the U.S. are raised with a glowing idealism about the American Dream. A popular view outside the U.S. is much more cynical, oriented toward survival and practical matters. People seldom question their cultural values. Once again I am confronted with questioning the American Dream, as it relates to voting.

    I have said that consequentialists should vote for the better candidate who has a statistical chance of winning (statistics based on Dem/Rep party dominance in getting votes). I admit that voting for our ideal candidate also might be consequentialist — if the *consequences* of not being ideal are that “they have you,” which is bad — but I think that idealism in voting is much more likely to be based on what our *duty* is believed to be.

    For hundreds of years there has been debate on which is the better approach, *duty* or *consequences*. Life is full of decisions where acting on duty or consequences would give different results, so life is full of this debate.

    So my question to you is whether you support voting of one’s ideal candidate out of a *duty* to do so, or because the *consequences* of not doing so are bad. It’s a slender distinction, voting for one’s ideal of duty or voting to defend the ideal of duty, i.e., consequences. There is no right answer; I’m seeking your answer. Your answer might help me advance my position on this debate.

    December 19, 2008
  479. Bright Spencer said:

    Jerry, first of all, I would frame things differently. I think no matter who wins a place, there are enough outside forces, inside balances and unforeseeable and mysterious things going on, that no one person can cause more than a little ‘bad’ for a small amount of time. We all like blame one person, but when a lot of people vote with that one person, then, a lot of people can take the blame or praise.
    I am also a firm believer in the horse story, where everything happens and it always works out. Labeling every person or outcome either good or bad is not really realistic over the long view.
    So, saying that, I would vote for the candidate I would truly like to see in that office. If I didn’t like the candidate, I’d not vote and see if I could stir up some one that I did like…or at least plant some seeds for someone to grow.We can’t always have our way right away and the pendulum swings right and left so everyone or their progeny eventually gets a turn.
    If we don’t vote for our person, then that person has no way to know whether to try again,or to make necessary changes til that person looks so much like the person we did vote in.
    Ralph Nader is a great American, and if it weren’t for him, candidates wouldn’t have anyone to be better than outside of the major parties. He pushes them and that’s a great position to be in, so it’s not all about winning.
    Have to get going now, but hope this makes some sense so far.

    December 19, 2008
  480. Jerry Friedman said:

    Bright: Yes, I better understand your position now and it has helped me focus on what is distinct between your position and my evolving position.

    Like you, I believe that for the most part government is complex enough that “a little bad” caused by one person doesn’t last. One bad senator won’t affect a largely good Senate.

    My concern here is the peril that might come if most voters believe that, there’s a risk that several “a little bad” people will be elected. Even more perilous, if “a big bad” politician is elected.

    Senator Joseph McCarthy beat his opponent, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., by 5000 votes in the 1946 primary (a narrow margin according to the Wisconsin Historical Society). I cannot agree that McCarthy did “a little bad” to the American people, or that had La Follette won, La Follette or another senator would have been the firebrand behind the Red Scare. The 5000-vote difference in the primary had terrible consequences. As you suggest, surely there was more to McCarthyism than McCarthy. La Follette was also an anti-communist but otherwise he was a shy and introspective senator. I pose that he would have done more to calm the Red Scare than to inflame it.

    I admit that most elections aren’t that polar. I don’t think every time someone is elected, the government is affected as greatly as McCarthy’s era. As you said, “there are enough outside forces, inside balances and unforeseeable and mysterious things going on, that no one person can cause more than a little ‘bad’ for a small amount of time”. I think this is usually correct. How can we predict that. If I lived in Florida, how could I have voted for Nader and not regretted helping Bush win the initial Florida vote? I could claim ignorance, not knowing that Bush would be voted America’s worst president ever. Having experienced that once in 2000, how could I vote for a third party candidate again?

    I don’t believe that things always work out. Some people die, lose their job or savings, or suffer other tragedies directly because of our elected leaders. What is the death count in Iraq now? Millions I’m sure. Things can’t work out for the dead. Their families will grieve for a very long time. And it’s predicted that a new generation of terrorists will hurt Americans for revenge because of the Iraq war and occupation. Bush caused this to happen. Bush caused the trillions of dollars to fund the war, which is hurting America today. The consequences of wasting the money on an illegal war will not work itself out ever. Americans will suffer until the taxpayer pays for what Bush spent.

    Nader is a great American and I would celebrate if he won an election. I promise you that if there is an election where Nader has a statistical chance of winning, I will vote for him. If there is a vote where the Republican or Democrat is a statistically certain winner, I’ll vote for Nader or another great American. Otherwise, I don’t want to help another Bush-McCarthy-Coleman-type to win.

    December 20, 2008
  481. Bright Spencer said:

    Well, let me just think out loud for a few paragraphs. If we vote for A, and A dies as a result of a spider bite, and B gets in and makes a crucially bad decision. We voted our duty and it came out bad. I don’t think we can know of the consequences beforehand.
    Both sides, Dems and Reps have things they do that have caused lost lives…it’s just a matter of definitions, but they both do. They all voted for the Iraq war, save one. So, I am having a hard time unraveling this one. Do you blame yourself for what happens as a result of your vote, when you really didn’t have any control over anything but putting yourself in the voting booth and believing information you were given?
    And what would make you vote for your person over the other one?
    Also there is the fact that we will never know what Gore would have done and we will never know that would have been the consequences of his decisions. I think he’s just an old pot head and he would probably be of as little of an asset as he could manage, but that’s just my little ol’ opinion. (Btw, I didn’t vote for either of them, as I don’t feel they are presidential enough. I want my president to be a real good and wise person from day one, and there are people out there like that.)

    December 20, 2008
  482. john george said:

    Jerry- You express an opinion that Bush is the worst president in history as if it were a fact. You evidently feel very strongly about this issue, as you normally don’t do that. I don’t think we have enough perspective of time or events to make that evaluation yet. You can believe that if you want, but I don’t think it can be declared as a fact at this point in time.

    If you look at American lives lost in Iraq, there have been 4209 so far. Overall, about 1.2 million have died. I still say these numbers pale in comparison to the 50+ million babies that have been aborted since the Roe v. Wade ruling. I suppose it depends on a person’s perspective and what he places a value on in determining loss. You say the war could have been avoided. Perhaps you are correct. I say the abortions could have been avoided, and I think I am correct. So when it comes down to it, we all must make some decisions based on what we believe to be true but can’t definitively prove to be true. History is the only thing that can provide the proof, and that takes time.

    December 20, 2008
  483. David Henson said:

    Obama the Gambler … Rick Warren … WOW ! This will be Chicago politics. Obama has not even had a day in office and he just throws a core constituency under the train to make a grab at a bigger voting bloc. The issue is not talked about much but African-Americans turned out in record numbers but in addition to voting for Obama in California they voted down gay marriage. Obama is seeing an opportunity for a galactic power consolidation and he is going for the gold. I’m not sure how liberals feel about this move but I am surprised in that the move seems likely to backfire.

    John – what do you think about this choice, is it admirable or cynical ?

    December 21, 2008
  484. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I have read this and other articles by professional historians that conclude the same, that Bush Jr. is the worst U.S. president ever.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

    I started to become politically aware around the time of Gerald Ford, so my memory includes a scarce few presidents. From what I’ve read and what I’ve experienced, Bush is the worst.

    December 21, 2008
  485. john george said:

    David- I am going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt- I would say it is admirable. It is a fact that there is a schism between many evangelicals and the GLBT movement. When Obama said he wanted to unify America, not divide it, I now believe his intentions are sincere. It is possible that this is all just a political conspiracy to more firmly establish Obama and the Democratic party in the ruling position for a long period of time, but perhaps it is not. I would have to wait and see what the outcome of this invitation is. I have heard that there is a lot of pressure coming from the left side for him to say this was a mistaken decision on his part and to uninvite Warren, but I hope he does not give in to that pressure. Some of the reports I have heard coming out of California strenghten my opinion that the GLBT movement does not want to have tolerance between them and the Evangelicals. It seems their position is to force acceptance and blessing of their lifestyle onto those who disagree with them. This is, IMHO, the heighth of intolerance, and their pressure on Obama to dump Warren is more confirmation of this intolerance.

    Jerry- I cannot get your link to open up, so I can’t really respond to it. I remember when Goldwater was running against Johnson, he said that we either needed to go into Viet Nam and fight that war or get out. The peaceniks of the time decried this course of action in favor of a negotiated peace. I think history is quite evident as to whom was right, but it took a couple years of Johnson’s administration for us to realize this. That is just one case I can use to substantiate my convictions that we do not have enough time elapsed to really make a difinitive decision. You may feel otherwise, but I do not lean toward instant evaluations of and conclusions about historical events. No matter who or how you compare Bush to any other president before him, these are different times. The only other president to have experienced a direct military attack on our country during his office was Roosevelt, and we know what that lead to.

    December 21, 2008
  486. David Henson said:

    I guess we have to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. But I would think the basic rules of “You dance with the one who brung ya” would apply … buy hey I didn’t vote for him.

    December 22, 2008
  487. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I am not aware of a direct military attack on the U.S., at least not since WWII. If you’re referencing 9/11, we were not attacked by any nation nor any military.

    Nonetheless, I agree that later generations may hold a different opinion. So I’ll revise my statement to call George Bush the worst U.S. president ever, from the perspective of this generation’s historians (as cited), and my own opinion. Roosevelt’s attack on Japan and Germany was morally and legally justified. Bush’s attack on Iraq was neither.

    December 22, 2008
  488. Jerry Friedman said:

    Bright: Sorry for the delayed response. Regarding your last post, I don’t think that we can *know* what a candidate would do before being elected. However, everyone can evaluate a candidate and vote based on their evaluation. As imperfect as that process is, it’s what we have. So if there is a candidate whom we evaluate as scary, isn’t it more important to vote against that candidate than for our ideal candidate? This was the basis for the criticism against Nader’s voters, because someone voting for Nader would probably prefer Gore rather than Bush. Maybe Bush wasn’t scary enough in 2000 to persuade Nader’s voters to choose Gore, but with the 2000 election in memory, you can understand why I now hesitate to repeat that mistake.

    While the Dems and Reps voted for the Iraq War, it’s documented that the Bush Administration tainted the evidence, resulting in the nearly unanimous vote. In this sense, I don’t blame the Reps, I blame Bush.

    I blame myself for all things I do that I had reason to know was the wrong thing to do. If I thought that Graham was clearly better than Vohs and I voted for you as my ideal candidate, I would have blamed myself for 1/14th of the reason why Vohs won. Thankfully, I am happy with either Graham or Vohs winning. Take this formula to Franken and Coleman, I would have assumed some blame for Coleman winning if he wins narrowly and I did not vote for Franken. Believing Coleman to be much worse than Franken, I think that I am compelled to vote for the person best able to prevent Coleman from winning.

    We will never know if Gore would have been a better president than Bush. I’d rather have “an old pothead” as president (remember, George Washington grew pot) than a coke-head and drunkard. Pot, at least, tends to pacify people. Coke and alcohol amplify aggression. Comparing narcotics is a poor way to predict presidencies. Gore is vastly better educated than Bush. On that aspect alone, it’s hard to believe that Gore would have been worse than Bush.

    December 22, 2008
  489. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Since you had trouble with the link, here are its first three paragraphs (citing, in part, 415 nonpartisan, professional historians):

    The Worst President in History?
    One of America’s leading historians assesses George W. Bush

    SEAN WILENTZ
    Posted Apr 21, 2006 12:34 PM

    George W. Bush’s presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

    From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty — and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression’s onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.

    Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a “failure.” Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration’s “pursuit of disastrous policies.” In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton — a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

    December 22, 2008
  490. Griff Wigley said:

    Paged comments are now working again.

    Or maybe not!

    I’m testing.

    1:15 Update: Still a glitch evident. It puts the newest comments at the top. I’ve turned off the plugin again. Apologies!

    December 22, 2008
  491. Bright Spencer said:

    Hey, Jerry. No problem on the wait time, I am happy to have someone with whom to discuss these ideas.
    Well, I don’t know if Bush tainted evidence, they all seem to get accused of such things at one time or another, and I am never really sure of anything that I don’t see and then it’s “Believe none of what you read and half of what you see.”
    Well, say I agree that Bush was an awful president…well,I can agree that he wasn’t perfect by any means…and none have been so. There is no school for presidents or place s where you can get the full impact of experience needed for the presidency…altho shrub certainly had an eyeful thru his father’s presidential stint.

    And then, I’ll need to pull a fast slick willie and ask how you define “success”?

    Furthermore, one of the things I meant to get to before was the notion of unexpected consequences…like when we found out that feeding peoples around the world sometimes creates more crisis by fueling population growth that cannot be well sustained on any level…there are also good consequesnces like people becoming free for the first times in their lives and whether or not you think we should be liberators, forced liberators, or unintentional liberators, it’s still a great great outcome…that is if you think education women and children is a good idea.

    Another thing that must be considered by Christians and believers in an afterlife, is that death is not a bad thing, and in fact, may be a really good thing.And one of the things I believe is that not all people come to this earth to live a set amount of time and have a set amount of progeny and do a set amount of tasks. That is manmade parameters and not necessarily of the spirit…though I feel sure that we are not put here to die for nothing.
    And, while I don’t expect your point to point response, I’d be happy to hear it, Jerry.

    December 22, 2008
  492. Jerry Friedman said:

    Bright: The story about Bush tainting evidence comes from the false reports of Iraq trying to buy weapons-grade uranium. There was no evidence of Iraq trying to do so, but Bush and his administration said there was. That was when Ambassador Joe Wilson publicly announced that the Bush administration was lying about Iraq (then purportedly the Bush administration retaliated against Wilson by outing his ex-wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA agent). The point being, there were zero facts that Iraq was trying to get uranium, but Bush authorized the use of a fake letter claiming Iraq’s efforts to get uranium, and then we went to war. Public record shows that Bush decided to use the fake letter; Scooter Libby testified that Bush was the one deciding to leak Plame’s name.

    There is no school for presidents. No president has escaped accountability for not going to a president’s school and for good reason. Of all officials, the president should be the one held up to the highest standard, and should be last to escape accountability.

    Unexpected consequences happen, but I don’t see how that fits into our discussion. Regarding voting, I wouldn’t blame myself for a good candidate gone bad. If the candidate was terrific on the campaign and I voted for her, then she later turned out to be bad, I would be OK for voting the best way I could based on the available information. However, if I had reason to believe she was bad and I did not vote for her strongest competition, and she won, then I would have helped her get into office. So my self-blame would have nothing to do with truly unexpected consequences.

    If “death is not a bad thing, and in fact, may be a really good thing,” remind me why you are against abortion?

    December 22, 2008
  493. Bright Spencer said:

    Let me see if I have this straight. You might be for a third party candidate unless there is a tight race between two polar opposite candidates, and then you would feel obliged to vote for the one you felt was the better of the two.

    The consequence of that is sort of telling people that a person with great qualifications won’t get your vote if there is a danger of a bad guy getting in as a result.

    And, you wonder how I can say people can die and it’s alright and still be against abortion. Well, I am banned against speaking about abortion on this forum so I can’t answer that but if I could, I would. I can tell you off line if you want…brightATbeautywood.commotion. I am writing it that way so it doesn’t get harvested.
    In the meantime,let me ask you these question, becasue you seem to have a good understanding, of things that come up as red flags in my mind.

    Why would Bush use something so thinly veiled to start a major invasion?
    Was it just to
    utilize the mfg locations in 42 states that make munitions?
    What kind of evidence would Saddam or his assigns leave if they were purchasing uranium, given their history of massive deceit? And by that I mean his telling people he had more weaponry than he actually did to make himself seem more powerful over the years.
    How do we know that Valerie Plame was an honest agent? Or that Joe Wilson wasn’t playing a deceitful card himself?
    I know we got way off the subject, but it is interesting to me. And once again, I will state that I am not a Bush person, but I do appreciate that we have not been reinvaded.

    December 22, 2008
  494. john george said:

    Jerry- Thanks for posting part of the link. In my perusal of it, I do not find any references to time tested standards by which to judge a president’s performance. Perhaps these are something understood by reading other writings by this and other Princeton authors. This only confirms my theory that we judge anyone’s performance along lines of what we happen to believe. I know you and I come from different perspectives, so it does not surprise or better illumine me as to where you are coming from. I agree with Bright’s observation that no president in our history has done everything correctly. In fact, I have already read a published opinion about president elect Obama shamed the Democratic party by inviting Rick Warren to speak at the innauguration. If we base our judgements of presidents upon popular opinion or opinions of those who do not agree with his policies, then we will certainly find basis for condeming his performance. Sorry, I am not convinced that tenure at Princeton necessarily elevates a person to non-partisan objectivity in his or her judgements.

    December 22, 2008
  495. Jerry Friedman said:

    Bright: Let’s carry the abortion talk over to private e-mail. Answering your post:

    Your summary of my position looks accurate.

    1. “Why would Bush use something so thinly veiled to start a major invasion?” I don’t know. My assumption is that the Bush Administration plan looked good on paper, but for several unforeseen reasons (like Joe Wilson outing the fake letter) it fell apart.

    2. “What kind of evidence would Saddam or his assigns leave if they were purchasing uranium, given their history of massive deceit?” Last I heard before the invasion, the U.N. weapons inspectors wanted more time. One can’t hope for a thorough investigation if the the inspectors’ time was cut short. It’s more suspicious that no evidence of nuclear weapons were found before or after the war, and Bush later admitted that there was no evidence to be found. Whether Hussein had nukes or not is irrelevant. No one found any evidence of them. Even if evidence was found, war is not justified, otherwise we should invade China, Israel, Pakistan, India, and Russia for having nuclear weapons.

    3. Regarding Wilson and Plame, first I look at evidence, secondly motive. I am aware of no facts that suggest that Wilson or Plame were dishonest. Further, Plame’s role came only after the fake letter was revealed, so we only have Wilson to look at. Why would Wilson be suspect for telling the world that the Iraq war was predicated on a fake letter, that he told U.S. intelligence agencies was fake? After Wilson discredited the letter, Bush nonetheless used it as the official reason for the invasion, and later said, oops — U.S. intelligence was wrong. Bush’s admission that the letter was fake means Wilson was honest. Add to that, the information came from a U.S. ambassador, not an anonymous tip.

    4. “And once again, I will state that I am not a Bush person, but I do appreciate that we have not been reinvaded.” We were not invaded a first time, and we were never attacked by Iraq. If thwarting attacks and invasions are important to you, you should have wanted us to finish what we started in Afghanistan and left Iraq alone. If demolishing Al Qaeda was our mission, Bush messed up repeatedly. Saddam’s government hated Al Qaeda too.

    December 24, 2008
  496. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: You’re free to read the article. Search Google for “worst U.S. president ever”. I posted it to share that my claiming ‘Bush is the worst U.S. president ever’ is not solely my opinion.

    The article explained some of the criteria for weighing a president’s merit. The article explained that the surveyed historians were bi-partisan, and even the “liberals” didn’t fault Regan or Bush Sr. as the second or third worst presidents, which tends to show that the liberals weren’t swayed by politics.

    In my view, a president who breaks treaties and federal laws, who authorizes torture, illegally invades a sovereign, who holds criminals or prisoners of war or enemy combatants for years without civil rights, who shreds U.S. citizens’ civil rights, who appoints cronies and fires prosecutors based on loyalty to the Republican Party, and overall turns great sympathy for the U.S. into volatile hatred, earns my vote for the worst U.S. president. If you have a moment, I’ll add more to the list.

    December 24, 2008
  497. john george said:

    Jerry- Perhaps what we are discussing here is not whom is the worst president but whom is the worst historian. (Ha!Ha!) Take a look at this article by Clifford May on this Strib link.:
    http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/36470139.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:UthPacyPE7iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU.
    You and others have refered to our invasion of Iraq and Afganistan as an “illegal war.” I think this article may give you pause to rethink that conclusion. There are other learned people in this country besides liberal educators at Princeton. At least we do still have the freedom to choose which ones we believe.

    December 24, 2008
  498. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Perhaps predictably, I disagree with the article you presented, for these reasons:

    1. It’s improper for an individual or a nation to break a law and later say the law should have been different. For an individual, this amounts to civil disobedience. I don’t see why a nation can’t engage in civil disobedience, except (a) it’s still illegal, and (b) a nation has much more influence to change an international law than an individual can change a national law; I expect nations to change laws or obey them until they are changed. Of all nations, the U.S. could have had the Geneva Convention clarified under international approval. Terrorists are not new, nor are the legal issues surrounding them. Remember that when the U.S. sponsored the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, the U.S. was sponsoring terrorism. The U.S. could have had this matter clarified a long time ago. It’s insincere and therefore unbelievable to me that now, suddenly, the U.S. has a problem with Geneva’s application to “enemy combatants”.

    2. The U.S. Courts have generally condemned the Bush Administration’s actions regarding “enemy combatants”. To be patriotic, one has to respect the U.S. rule of law, and not respect any branch of government acting outside of its authority. The courts, who have the authority to explain the rule of law, say that Bush is acting outside of his authority. By supporting Bush’s illegal actions, the author is supporting a criminal U.S. — criminal by federal and international standards.

    3. As I said recently to Bright, the invasion of Iraq has put the U.S. at greater risk. Saddam Hussein’s government hated Al Qaeda. By destroying Hussein, we destroyed an enemy of Al Qaeda, and we pulled resources away from Afghanistan where the terrorist attacks on the U.S. were developed. In my opinion, the Bush Administration underestimated the Taliban and took the post-9/11 hatred of Americans against Arabs to make an immoral, illegal and opportunistic takeover of Iraq.

    4. The article’s author says, “It is absurd to suggest that America can prevail in a war against terrorists by prosecuting them after they carry out attacks in which they intend to die. A rational government, conscious of its duty to protect the population, must attempt to prevent terrorists from completing their missions. That requires gathering solid, actionable intelligence.” I agree. However, every interrogation expert I’ve heard or read about says torture gives very unreliable information. See “In The Name Of The Father” or “Rendition” as lovely examples.

    5. Civil rights exist for countless historical reasons. The U.S. has an impressive record of incarcerating and executing innocent people. Civil rights are supposed to be the best guard against the state harming innocents. By denying civil rights to enemy combatants, you virtually ensure that innocent people will be imprisoned and tortured.

    December 24, 2008
  499. john george said:

    Jerry- I was not assuming that you would agree with the article, but I like to challenge people with something that is well thought out and articulated. Neither one of us is going to convert the other, and I am not trying to do so with the link. I think you and I can agree on one thing, that the enemy we are fighting here is hatred, and not any particular political block or nationality. This is a human shortcoming that is irrespective of race or creed. It is something, that according to my beliefs, is only overcome with the demonstration of good. That is why Jesus said to bless those who despitefully use you, for in doing so, you heap burning coals upon them. There is One who will ultimately judge the conduct of each man, so I am more concerned about lining up with His revelation than I am with any particular scholar.

    I don’t think we did everything right with the Iraq invasion, but my view of world events presupposes that when God says He holds the king’s heart, and it is as a watercourse in His hand, then there is something of eternal significance beyond the mere current events we are witnessing. In the article, May gave a good example of Stalin’s response to Pope Pius XII’s oppositon and how that played out. I think this is an example of what I am talking about.

    This is where you and I really differ in our analysis of world events, whatever they be. And that is ok. We each have the freedom to choose our beliefs without fear of recrimination, at least at this time. I believe there will come a time when expressing my views will cost me my life, as it does in most Islamic dominated countries. I am not anxious for that day.

    December 25, 2008
  500. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Indeed the enemy we’re fighting is hatred. It’s not Arabs, it’s not Muslims, it’s a small group of idealists who think their holy book is unquestionable truth, and who have little or no tolerance for others. It’s a small group of idealists who think god speaks to them, or to their leaders. It’s a small group of idealists who think that sacrifice, perhaps martyrdom, and always piety will give them great rewards in the afterlife.

    I think that there would be more peace in the world if holy books would come after respecting, honoring, and having compassion for others. I can dream.

    December 25, 2008
  501. john george said:

    Jerry- Someone else had a dream, and that has affected social trends in this country for the last 40 years. The battles for the hearts of men continue on, and are not yet won, but that is no reason to give up. I desire to dream along with you. And I am not ashamed to do so. We really need to get together for coffee sometime. Give me a call after the first of the year.

    December 25, 2008
  502. Jerry Friedman said:

    In case anyone is still following this thread, two RNC protesters have just been acquitted. One remains on trial for what looks like trumped up charges (parading without a permit; fleeing a police officer).

    I don’t recall any other convictions but I know a lot of people were arrested. As a Legal Observer for the National Lawyers Guild, I witnessed a whole lot of arrests. Not hearing about any convictions, and hearing about acquittals like the two below, reinforce my belief that the federal and Twin Cities police at the RNC were unconstitutionally oppressive.

    =====

    (3/19/2009) A Ramsey County jury today acquitted two defendants on seven counts arising from last year’s Republican National Convention in St. Paul. After a four day trial, the jury of six people found Ilana M. Radovsky not guilty of two counts of Unlawful Assembly, one count of False Name to a Police Officer, and one count of Fleeing a Police Officer on Foot. Gracia Logue-Sargeant was found not guilty of two counts of Unlawful Assembly and one count of Disorderly Conduct. Prior to deliberating, Judge Michael Fetsch, with the consent of the prosecutor, dismissed one count against each defendant of Parading without a Permit in violation of a St. Paul city ordinance.

    Despite eyewitness testimony from Minneapolis Police Sgt. Jeff Jindra that Ms. Logue-Sargeant was part of a disorderly demonstration and personally pulled a newspaper box into the street, the jury refused to convict Ms. Logue-Sargeant of Disorderly Conduct. “Some of the police testimony was simply not credible and the remaining police testimony did not establish that any crime occurred,” said Bruce Nestor, attorney for Logue-Sargeant. “These two young women were simply trying to participate in the democratic process when they were swept up in a mass arrest by a military-style police operation,” he said. Ted Dooley of St. Paul, MN, represented Illana Radovsky. Both Dooley and Nestor are attorneys with the Minnesota Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild.

    This verdict follows on the heels of the acquittal of seven defendants on unlawful assembly charges in a prior Ramsey County trial. Attorneys with the National Lawyers Guild urged St. Paul City Attorney John Choi to dismiss the remaining Unlawful Assembly charges being prosecuted by his office in light of the City’s failure to obtain a conviction on any charges to date that have proceeded to trial.

    In addition, a second RNC related trial involving Sean McCoy is ongoing. Mr. McCoy originally faced four charges. Two charges, of Unlawful Assembly and Obstruction of Traffic, have already been dismissed by the court and trial is continuing on a count of Parading without a Permit and one count of Fleeing a Police Officer on Foot. Mr. McCoy was arrested at the same time and location as Ms. Radovsky but is being tried separately. He is represented by the Office of the Ramsey County Public Defender.

    March 20, 2009
  503. john george said:

    Jerry- I’ve been following this somewhat, also. The article I noticed the other day (and I cannot find it right now) was that the man accused of manufacturing molotov cocktails has now changed his plea to guilty. He has also changed his story about being coerced into manufacturing these weapons by a FBI informant. Griff’s original title, The Good, The Bad & The Ugly is appropriate, I think. When public sentiments run as high as they have over the last couple years, there is bound to be some extreme behavior on all sides. I think the word “caution” was lost somewhere in all the security plans for the convention. Martyrdom loves adversity.

    March 21, 2009
  504. David Henson said:

    No one chanting “Yes we can” was pushing for a change that would stick America’s middle class taxpayers with additional trillions of new debt in order to fill up the coffers of some of the biggest and richest swindlers on Wall Street.

    Where’s the change, in short, between Bush’s TARP-1 and Obama’s TARP-2?

    From ‘Hopelessly Naive’ The American Spectator

    March 30, 2009
  505. Peter Millin said:

    Yes we can :

    1) Load trillions of debt on to our children.

    2) Have the IRS hunt you down for not paying taxes, while put people in government that have done the same.

    3) Ask you to drive a smaller car while flying around in a private jet.

    4) Raise your taxes to bailout our friends from Wall street.

    5) Force you in a government run health care system, while going to a private clinic ourselves.

    6) Use the tax code to target a select group of people.

    7) Increase the cigarette tax on the poorest in the country, while promoting pot.

    8) Use cap and trade to increase energy cost on the poorest.

    Change we can believe in?

    April 3, 2009
  506. Peter Millin said:

    ATTENTION THREAD DRIFT

    Unrelated but still illustrates government hypocrisy

    April 3, 2009
  507. David Henson said:

    US banks that have received government aid, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, are considering buying toxic assets to be sold by rivals

    Mr Bachus added it would mark ”a new level of absurdity” if financial institutions were ”colluding to swap assets at inflated prices using taxpayers’ dollars.”

    ft.com

    April 4, 2009
  508. Patrick Enders said:

    Another update on a story that just won’t die:
    We’re getting very close to the point where Mr. Pawlenty will have to decide whether or not he’s going to certify the results of the Senate election.

    Minnesota has just finished counting the 351 previously-rejected ballots approved by the three-judge panel as having been legally cast and rejected in error. The numbers: Al Franken 198, Norm Coleman 111, Other 42.

    This means that Al Franken’s lead has increased from the 225 he had going into today, up to 312 votes out of roughly 2.9 million. We still need to wait for the judges to rule on the remaining issues, but the vote-counting during the election contest-proper is done.

    The only way for Coleman to overcome this lead would be to win an appeal against the election court’s prior rulings in favor of strict standards to let in new ballots, or to somehow win his much more far-fetched proposal to retroactively declare a number of absentee votes illegal and deduct them from the totals based on countywide averages. The first one is more likely in terms of feasibility, and even that’s a long shot, leaving the Coleman camp at their other proposal to “set aside” the election result entirely.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/with-votes-counted-franken-now-leads-by-312-votes.php

    April 7, 2009
  509. Ben Oney said:

    On the off chance that any of the few people contributing to this thread still give a damn, I think its worth mentioning that Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner has dropped two of the four totally bogus charges against the RNC 8 defendants. Dropped are one count of ‘Conspiracy to Commit Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism’ and one count of ‘Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Damage to Property in Furtherance of Terrorism.’

    From the ‘Defend the RNC 8’ website:

    In removing the controversial MN PATRIOT Act from the debate at this moment, Susan Gaertner obviously hopes to defray the costs of this unprecedented prosecution on her campaign for Governor, and to mitigate the overwhelmingly negative public opinion of Ramsey County’s repressive behavior during and since the RNC.

    “Make no mistake,” said defendant Luce Guillen-Givins, “This change to the complaint against us is a token gesture meant to placate our supporters and bolster a floundering political prosecution.”

    As defendant Eryn Trimmer pointed out, “This move only focuses attention more acutely on the outrageous nature of the two remaining charges, Conspiracy to Commit Riot and Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Damage to Property.”

    If you’ve got a bone to pick with legitimate political dissent, please further admonish the RNC 8 in this thread. If you think things like the constitution are actually pretty rad, just head over to http://www.rnc8.org, where you can learn more about the criminalization of dissent in Minnesota and even make a donation that contributes to the cost of the defendants’ legal defense.

    April 22, 2009
  510. Patrick Enders said:

    Ben,
    Thanks for the update.
    Do you know which, if any, of the original charges and allegations are still being alleged?

    April 22, 2009
  511. Jerry Friedman said:

    Don’t forget that there were about 800 arrests of demonstrators at the RNC. Last I heard (last week) there were 34 trials, 1 conviction for parading without a permit, and that conviction is being appealed.

    On mass arrests, prosecutors usually try the easiest cases first, so their early wins will build momentum in the public eye. If this is how St. Paul approached the mass arrest, their conviction rate on the easiest cases is lousy.

    Such a waste. St. Paul contributes to the police state and spends tax dollars like they have a limitless bank account.

    April 22, 2009
  512. john george said:

    Ben- Thanks for bringing this to the forefront again. Yes, there are some of us who still give a damn.

    Wasn’t one of the accused acually convicted of, or at least pleaded guilty to, the manufacture of molotov cocktails? I remember there being a big flap about how an FBI mole was supposed to have been the instigator of this, but, if I remember correctly, this was found to be baseless.

    This one point I would agree with: the dropping the “Furtherance of Terrorism” clause. This smacks of off-shore influence to topple our government. We don’t need off-shore influence to do that. There is enough home grown sentiment to accomplish that. I still am ambivilant in my opinion about civil disobedience to accomplish a political goal. If there is precedent to inhibit the RNC delegates’ access to their meeting place, then is there precedent to inhibit access to any organization’s meeting that we happen to disagree with? Where do we draw the line? Is it just along lines that our particular group that we associate with agrees to? It is these questions that leave me undecided about the practice.

    April 22, 2009
  513. Patrick Enders said:

    John, you wrote,

    This one point I would agree with: the dropping the “Furtherance of Terrorism” clause. This smacks of off-shore influence to topple our government.

    Terrorism is a method, not an offshore influence. It has been used by persons who were anti-Vietnam War protesters, abortion clinic bombers, and paranoid isolationists like Timothy McVeigh.

    We’ve got plenty of that here at home.

    April 23, 2009
  514. john george said:

    Patrick- Terrorists, huh? I thought people like McVeigh were just criminals. To me, terrorism suggests there might be some cause worthy enough, at least in the minds of the terrorists, to justify criminal damage to life, limb and property. I don’t think the people you cited deseve this type of validation. I have never thought of the original colonists, in their uprising against Britain, could be classified as terrorist, but perhaps they could, if I’m following your line of reasoning correctly. After the 911 attack, there seemed to be a consensus that terrorism is a method more bent on overthrow of the government or society in general. I think this is different than peaceful civil disobedience to protest a particular policy or societal attitude. I just don’t agree with the concept that damage to life, limb and property is justified to further a cause. My response to the demonstrators would be, “Ok. You’ve stated your mind. You have not changed mine, so get out of my way and let me into the convention. If you refuse to do that, then you can suffer the consequences.” I do not believe the right to protest supercedes my right to meet with those with whom I agree.

    April 23, 2009
  515. Patrick Enders said:

    Interesting timing:
    Yesterday, Coleman’s lawyers took a verbal beating in their appeal to the MN Supreme Court. It’s well worth a listen, here: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/06/01/midmorning1/

    Today, Pawlenty will announce that he’s not running for reelection in 2012.
    http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/46726117.html

    Since the Gov will no longer have to face the voters of Minnesota, my guess is that he’ll feel free to drag out the ‘certification’ process as long as possible – unless the Supreme Court’s ruling is extremely specific in directing him to do otherwise.

    June 2, 2009
  516. Anthony Pierre said:

    was tiller’s killer a terrorist? I think so. and this terrorism works. there are less and less people willing to put their lives on the line.

    June 2, 2009
  517. kiffi summa said:

    in response to 541.5 ; usually a comment like this one of AP’s would have drawn a response, but there has been none in the five days intervening.

    Is this a ‘no-no’ because of the ‘religious right’ connection? the Operation Rescue” connection? the alleged mental illness?

    This man definitely fits my definition of a terrorist, albeit a single actor… but wait …given the statements of the head of Operation Rescue, is this witnessed murderer a single actor or an ‘agent of influence’ ?

    Does it make a difference?

    June 6, 2009
  518. Jerry Friedman said:

    Kiffi: Of course you know the reason. Economics. Politics. Who cares about objective definitions when the same people who brought you the Red Scare use propaganda to control public opinion.

    Journalist Will Potter explains his point of view (which I share) here: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/crimes-the-government-does-not-label-terrorism/2062/

    These 30 crimes are not called terrorism, with links to the full story on Potter’s blog:

    1. Plotting to assassinate the president.
    2. Beating African-American voters because they voted for Obama.
    3. Threatening to assassinate the President and detonate C4 at the Mall of America.
    4. Making death threats against biologists to “kill the enemies of Christian society.”
    5. Attacking a black man with a chainsaw because of his race.
    6. Using a noose to assault a black man at the Pentagon.
    7. Tying up a black student and taunting him with racial epithets as part of a high school graduation party.
    8. Smuggling “shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and other military weapons.”
    9. Leaving an incendiary device at a federal courthouse.
      1. Placing a pipe bomb near a hotel and then calling in a bomb threat.
      2. Making bomb threats on an airplane.
      3. Impersonating an armed federal agent.
      4. Shooting at FBI agents in a drive-by.
      5. Threatening federal agents with an assault rifle.
      6. Offering to sell your own child for sexual purposes.
      7. Attempting to buy a 9-year-old girl for sex.
      8. Selling a 5-year-old for sexual purposes.
      9. Forcing a young woman to engage in prostitution through force, fraud and coercion.
      10. Kidnapping 3 children.
      11. Sending white powder to John McCain’s presidential campaign with a note reading, “Senator McCain, If you are reading this then you are already DEAD! Unless of course you can’t or don’t breathe.”
      12. Mailing 65 threatening letters to financial institutions with white powder.
      13. Mailing the Social Security Administration and saying ““I’m going to blow up your office and the IRS office as well.”
      14. Sending more than 25 threatening letters to federal, state, and local governmental agencies containing fake Anthrax.
      15. Sending a white powder through the U.S. mail to the Internal Revenue Service with a note that says “YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO ANTRAX DIE!”
      16. A former sheriff’s deputy forcing a teenage girl to perform sexual acts in his patrol car.
      17. Three police officers shooting a 92-year old woman at her home “during the execution of a search warrant obtained by the defendants based upon false information.”
      18. Using “deadly weapons including firearms, baseball bats, machetes, bottles or knives in the commission of numerous murders, attempted murders and assaults…kidnapping; obstruction of justice; and witness tampering.”
      19. Stealing cattle for personal profit.
      20. Setting fire at a petting barn and killing more than 40 animals.
      21. Setting dozens of fires that caused “incalculable suffering.”
    June 6, 2009
  519. john george said:

    Kiffi- I’ll restate my comment from my post 541.4

    I think this is different than
    peaceful civil disobedience to protest
    a particular policy or societal
    attitude. I just don’t agree with the
    concept that damage to life, limb and
    property is justified to further a
    cause.

    This type of crime, no matter what side commits it against the other side, is just plain wrong. I think there is a responsibility we have with our free speech in this country, and I think we have been leaving it in the dust.

    June 6, 2009
  520. David Henson said:

    The first bill containing language to put in place his (Obama)health care goals has begun circulating on Capitol Hill. Draft legislation from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would require employers to cover their employees or pay a penalty, and would guarantee coverage for all.

    This kills small business. And if you exempt small business then it kills the concept. The first thing any health reform needs to do is get employers out of the health care field – not expand their roll.

    June 6, 2009
  521. The effort to subvert Obama’s health insurance plan has also begun:

    [THE LINK IS FOUND BY CLICKING ON MY NAME, IN THE TITLE BAR OF THIS COMMENT, ABOVE. GRIFF’S FILTER IS ACTING UP AGAIN.]

    The goal of insurance companies: to eliminate any competition from a ‘public option’ which might drive down prices for health insurance.

    June 6, 2009
  522. Anthony Pierre said:

    requiring employers to cover their employees wouldn’t be such a big deal if insurance wasn’t so expensive.

    having a public option that is just as good as a private one at a fraction of the price is just what the economy needs.

    June 8, 2009
  523. john george said:

    Anthony- Your comment

    having a public option that is just as
    good as a private one at a fraction of
    the price is just what the economy
    needs.

    leads me to this question, which I have not found an answer for anywhere. What government administrated health care system in any country of the world has treatments “just as good” but “at a fraction of the price?” I still think it is interesting that if anyone anywhere in the world really wants their medical problems solved, they come to the United States. I also think, as I look at my various EOB’s, the marked difference between the regular price of the treatment I recieve and the “allowed” (contracted) price that the insurance company actually pays says something about the actual cost of the care. I just don’t see how, given the salaries associated with medical carriers, that the government take-over of the industry is actually going to change costs. I just see a shift in where and how the money goes. Instead of private enterprise being profitable, it appears to me that we will see a gigantic growth in the size of government and a loss of tax base along with it. Where are the taxes coming from to fund this program? What amount of tax is going to be required of us next?

    It is really two different economic theories we are talking about. I don’t think these are proven or disproven in a short period of time. It would be a tragedy to see our health care system disentegrate just because we are not presently covering 100% of the population all on the same level.

    I have a concern that the same thing will happen with this industry as has happened with manufacturing. Sending production off shore has not raised the economic levels of the countries we have sent production to. It has set us on the brink of sinking down to the same level of economic status as most of the third world countries are at.

    June 8, 2009
  524. Patrick Enders said:

    John,

    Obama’s proposal is NOT a plan for the government to take over the health care industry. At the most, he proposes that people have the right to CHOOSE a federal health insurance plan, as one choice in addition to the privately available ones.

    Interestingly, insurance companies are worried that the government will actually be able to offer insurance at a lower rate than their profit-based business plans. There’s a very interesting article in the New York Times today on this, titled “State Coverage Model No Help for Uneasy Insurance Industry”

    The best bit is this:

    But critics argue that with low administrative costs and no need to produce profits, a public plan will start with an unfair pricing advantage. They say that if a public plan is allowed to pay doctors and hospitals at levels comparable to Medicare’s, which are substantially below commercial insurance rates, it could set premiums so low it would quickly consume the market.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/health/policy/07plan.html

    …which prompted this very nice commentary:

    So let me get this straight. It’s not fair to have a public option because they don’t have to make obscene profits for their shareholders and they can use the leverage of the combined group of medicare and public option customers to negotiate better fees with doctors, hospitals and drug companies.

    Isn’t that the point?

    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/07/public_health_care_option/

    June 8, 2009
  525. Patrick Enders said:

    John,

    Obama’s proposal is NOT a plan for the government to take over the health care industry. At the most, he proposes that people have the right to CHOOSE a federal health insurance plan, as one choice in addition to the privately available ones.

    Interestingly, insurance companies are worried that the government will actually be able to offer insurance at a lower rate than their profit-based business plans. There’s a very interesting article in the New York Times today on this, titled “State Coverage Model No Help for Uneasy Insurance Industry”

    The best bit is this:

    But critics argue that with low administrative costs and no need to produce profits, a public plan will start with an unfair pricing advantage. They say that if a public plan is allowed to pay doctors and hospitals at levels comparable to Medicare’s, which are substantially below commercial insurance rates, it could set premiums so low it would quickly consume the market.

    …which prompted this very nice commentary:

    So let me get this straight. It’s not fair to have a public option because they don’t have to make obscene profits for their shareholders and they can use the leverage of the combined group of medicare and public option customers to negotiate better fees with doctors, hospitals and drug companies.

    Isn’t that the point?

    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/07/public_health_care_option/

    June 8, 2009
  526. Patrick Enders said:

    John,

    Obama’s proposal is NOT a plan for the government to take over the health care industry. At the most, he proposes that people have the right to CHOOSE a federal health insurance plan, as one choice in addition to the privately available ones.

    Interestingly, insurance companies are worried that the government will actually be able to offer insurance at a lower rate than their profit-based business plans. There’s a very interesting article in the New York Times today on this, titled “State Coverage Model No Help for Uneasy Insurance Industry”

    The best bit is this:

    But critics argue that with low administrative costs and no need to produce profits, a public plan will start with an unfair pricing advantage. They say that if a public plan is allowed to pay doctors and hospitals at levels comparable to Medicare’s, which are substantially below commercial insurance rates, it could set premiums so low it would quickly consume the market.

    …which prompted this very nice commentary at Talking Points Memo:

    So let me get this straight. It’s not fair to have a public option because they don’t have to make obscene profits for their shareholders and they can use the leverage of the combined group of medicare and public option customers to negotiate better fees with doctors, hospitals and drug companies.

    Isn’t that the point?

    I’d have links, but Griff’s filter is screening them again.

    June 8, 2009
  527. john george said:

    Patrick- The term “federal health insurance plan” doesn’t sound like private enterprise to me. I do not have the advantage of the inside perspective of the health care industry that you have, so I do appreciate your perspective. I can only speak from the experience we had with my mother’s health care costs and treatments in her waning years. I saw the billings for an angioplasty (actually, 5 stints) performed at Abbott Northwestern. Of the total bill, her medical assistance paid about 20%. Medicare covered about 40%. The rest was actually written off as a loss by the hospital, since she had no other insurance. When we were settling her estate, the state of Iowa only recovered about $11,000 of a total bill that was about $250,000. I don’t see how this type of practice can continue any more than ever paying off the billions of dollars we have commited to the whole financial sector. I don’t believe any hospital has a 40% margin of profit on its services. Until I can see some of these figures in black and white, I will be skeptical of the claims of a federal insurance plan.

    I think there is validity to the accusations of profiteering within upper management of some of the insurance companies, but what happens to the rank and file people that actually make these companies work? Do you really believe that greed can be forced out of people just because of government competition? I don’t. These people will just go to some other industry to make their bucks. I think the whole industry will shift over to government control, and the government departments have just as much greed and mismanagement as private industry. One of the jokes circulating is how to get an affluent liberal to pay his taxes. You appoint him to a cabinet position. Neither party has a monolopy on virtue or vice.

    June 8, 2009
  528. Bright Spencer said:

    As for insurance stories, I’ve heard as many variations on a theme as there are recordings of “White Christmas”.

    June 8, 2009
  529. Patrick Enders said:

    John, you wrote:

    The term “federal health insurance plan” doesn’t sound like private enterprise to me.

    It’s not private enterprise. But it would be a public option as an option in competition with private enterprise.

    Anyone who prefers private enterprise would be free to choose any of the existing private options.

    Personally, I trust private insurance companies about as far as I can throw them. The goal of private insurance is to turn a profit, and the best way to turn a profit often seems to involve finding excuses to refuse payment altogether.

    June 9, 2009
  530. William Siemers said:

    I agree with Bright.There are plenty of ideas being discussed on health care reform, but no proposal from the administration…yet.

    Wisely, Obama’s team is letting ideas develop in congress. They want something, but what that something turns into is anyone’s guess at this point. The administration knows that they cannot repeat the Clinton’s mistake of trying to ram a plan down the throats of senators and members of congress.

    Given this scenario, it seems likely that change will be incremental. In other words…no universal coverage.
    On one hand this is very disappointing. The country needs a bold solution, not another band aid approach.

    But on the other hand, we are in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the depression. The government has committed trillions of dollars, that it does not have, to addressing it. The long term effect of this spending is unknown. Markets remain nervous. And still, the economic situation is by no means resolved. Maybe a cautious, and dare I say, conservative, approach to health care reform is in order.

    June 9, 2009
  531. Jane Moline said:

    We are in an economic crisis caused by greed compounded by lack of regulation. We are seeing the same problem in the health insurance industry–and private enterprises are attempting to save their excessive salaries, bonuses, retirement plans and stock options. The per capita cost of health insurance in the US is the highest of 12 developed nations and we get the lowest return on our dollar.

    When an insurance executive’s bonus is affected by their decisions to raise premiums and deny coverage, they are choosing to benefit themselves over the insured. We have to regulate this industry to reduce the administrative costs. There are 50 million uninsured plus 50 million more underinusred, and another 50 million who are afraid they may not have the coverage there when they need it. We need universal health, and if that means we end up with a system like Canada or Great Britain, so be it. I think we can come up with a better plan by learning from the systems used in other developed nations and making the US system the best in the world.

    June 9, 2009
  532. john george said:

    Patrick- If we have an option of choosing private enterprise or a federal plan, where is the money going to come from for the federal plan? Out of our collective pockets! To say that we have a choice between being forced to pay for health insurance once through our taxes, plus purchasing our own private plan on top of this, is no choice at all. Why on earth would I pay twice for the same thing? According to my Canadian relatives and friends, this is exactly what is going on there with their health coverage. Those who can afford private coverage get better and more timely treatments than those who rely only on the federal system. Will the IRS allow me to deduct that portion of my taxes alloted toward the federal plan? I don’t foresee that as likely.

    One thought I have had about our system is that it is a little like a dysfunctional family where verbal and emotional abuse is rampant. Though the children in this family are offered a better family situation, they will not readily take the opportunity because there is more security in what they know, bad as it might be, than in the unknown new family.

    I definitely think we need some shake-up in the way health care is provided and financed in this country. I’m not convinced that a federal program with more regulations will accomplish that any more than the community expectaions policies being considered by the city council will change any of the bad behavior being displayed down town.

    June 9, 2009
  533. David Henson said:

    The profit and corruption in insurance largely has to do with Medicare and Medicaid. How does a bigger government footprint fix that ?

    Also, social security is bankrupt and will not fulfill it’s promises. Freddie and Fannie are near to bringing down the whole financial system. So how is that citizens are to accept the vision of universal health care and ignore the reality of other government programs.

    June 10, 2009
  534. Patrick Enders said:

    David, you wrote:

    The profit and corruption in insurance largely has to do with Medicare and Medicaid.

    Huh? Could you perhaps explain your assertion – it doesn’t seem self-evident.

    June 10, 2009
  535. Jane Moline said:

    The corruption in the health care industry has to do with plain old greed–when the head of United Health is compensated 123 million dollars in one year, that is outrageous. How many premiums were raised for his compensation? How mamy were denied coverage?

    Medicare and Medicaid have their own problems, but they are only a small portion of the corruption–it is when companies refuse to look at their compensation practicies as corrupting. We have to eliminate bureaucratic waste–and there minimal waste in the Medicare system while administrative costs in the private insurance industry are upwards of 10 to 12 percent.

    And John George–you are worried about paying for healthin insurance twice when you are already paying for it twice–you policy and then the increased policy price due to increased health provider costs becuase the uninsured are not paying their bills–so we get to through higher pass-through costs, higher property taxes (so we can support our local hospital) and increased overall health costs because people are unable to avail themselves of preventive care–so the uninsured cost us 2 and 3 times over.

    One proposal is to use a payroll tax to fund insurance–if the business provides insurance, they get a credit from the tax–but business is nervous about this as they worry that the tax may exceed their health care costs now. For many companies, it should be a savings–the excessive cost of insuring their employees has led many companies to reduce their benefits.

    Another proposal is to tax health care benefits that are now tax free to employees. The proposal is to tax those who are in the higher income range for the benefits received with an exlusion for those at lower income.

    We have to realize we are paying too large a portion of our annual incomes-overall–for everybody–for health care costs. The system is broken and the only people benefiting are–health insurance executives.

    Now we need to put it in a package so we know what we are paying–instead of all the hidden costs resulting from the broken system that we have.

    Those health insurance executives are going to be the most voracious against real reform. Let’s hope we don’t get a useless “reform” like we just witnessed with credit cards.

    June 10, 2009
  536. David Henson said:

    Patrick, if you you Google Medicare Fraud there are over a million links. Here are 2:

    A report on Medicare fraud that will reportedly be released shortly by the US Inspector General is said to indicate that more than one-third of spending for medical equipment, by licensed providers, is improper.
    http://www.world-check.com/articles/2008/08/21/medicare-corruption-report-/
    Some experts estimate that up to 10% of health-care dollars are stolen. For Medi-Cal, that translates to about $2.5 billion a year, almost half from the state general fund.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2002/dec/26/local/me-fraud26

    And that $2.5 billion is just California and just the “criminal fraud” but not the “soft fraud”/ waste in the system.

    June 10, 2009
  537. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Maybe I’m just being thick, but I’m still not following the connection between those articles and your assertion that

    The profit and corruption in insurance largely has to do with Medicare and Medicaid.

    Corruption and profit in private insurance would seem to be entirely independent of anything that goes on inside of Medicare/Medicaid.

    June 10, 2009
  538. David Henson said:

    Patrick, you are playing with semantics – esp considering you said private not me. The point is government run programs cannot deliver. So why create another?

    These debates are tough on libertarians because when debaters refer to United Health Care as “private industry” I cringe. 100% of UHC income is either directly from government or from tax incentivised employer premiums – this “revenue” to me is much more “public” than “Private.” Health care costs since the start of Medicare & Medicaid have jumped from, I think, 5% of GDP to 16% of GDP.

    June 10, 2009
  539. john george said:

    Patrick- I think the thing that is evident in your discussion with David H. is that greed and fraud are as evident in government programs as they are in private programs. Regulation does not eliminate it because of the human factor involved. There are unprincipled people who will find a way to get their hands in the till leaglly or not. Since you will be directly affected in your compensation, I think it would be very important to know how this whole thing is going to work before oyu put your stamp of approval on it. Just because it is an Obama program does not make it advantagious for everyone. I know that the budget cuts are affecting my wife because the whole geriatric care industry is pretty much funded by government payments. It is going to be interesting what will happen when we no longer have money in the funds to pay people.

    June 10, 2009
  540. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I assumed you were referring to private insurance because you referred to profit. There is no profit in Medicare/Medicaid.

    June 10, 2009
  541. David Henson said:

    Patrick, sorry, I see now you are agreeing about the corruption in public programs but were questioning the concept of “profit.” But, of course, all these public programs have coincided with DRAMATIC inflation in medicine (to be fair a society growing richer is going to increase medical spending but not by that degree we have). And this inflation has unquestionably lead to greater profits in medicine.

    During this massive run up in health expenditures (I think like $200/year in 1960 to $6000./year per person now) the health spending breakdown % between hosp/rx/admin/office/etc. is largely unchanged. That is very suspicious to me because it appears as more money has flowed into the system it has been divvied up: “one for you, one for me” style. This would suggest that we have gotten limited innovation for the dollars spent. My concern about a public program is that innovation will stop and inflated overhead will be locked in forever.

    June 10, 2009
  542. Anthony Pierre said:

    Why arent all of the republicans screaming terrorism (shooting of tiller and the holocaust museum)?

    they are acts of terrorism on obama’s watch.

    maybe they are afraid of alienating their base.

    June 10, 2009
  543. kiffi summa said:

    YEP … and they think the views of those who don’t agree with them are ‘terroristic’, in that they feel their ultra-right, preferred life choices are being affected, i.e. a deterioration of the moral quality of the US.

    You’ve heard it here… haven’t you?

    June 10, 2009
  544. john george said:

    Anthony & Kiffi- I think this is an interesting quote from the President regarding the Holocaust Museum attack:

    This outrageous act reminds us that we
    must remain vigilant against
    anti-Semitism and prejudice in all its
    forms. No American institution is more
    important to this effort than the
    Holocaust Museum, and no act of
    violence will diminish our
    determination to honor those who were
    lost by building a more peaceful and
    tolerant world.”

    especially in the light of the overtures he has made to the Islamic nations of the world, many of which have openly sworn to erase Israel from the Middle East. I would suggest that we can’t have our cake and eat it, too. Hatred and intolerance does not have ethnic, gender, political, or religious boundaries, as has been evidenced by some of the posts here. I believe that until we, as a nation, can make make a unified stand against these types of criminal actions, we will not see them subside.

    June 10, 2009
  545. Anthony Pierre said:

    John, take a really hard look at the last 2 terrorist attacks. Where does the foundation of their hate come from?

    June 11, 2009
  546. David Henson said:

    Anthony, the foundation of those attacks is that the USA enriched non-democratic regimes through trade. Effectively we traded our ideals of freedom for cheap energy. Really the energy would have been cheap either way – so a few corporations traded our ideals of freedom to secure themselves as the middlemen for that cheap energy.

    June 11, 2009
  547. john george said:

    Anthony- I believe these attacks came out of deceived, unregenerate minds of people who reject the truth. As I said

    Hatred and intolerance does not have
    ethnic, gender, political, or
    religious boundaries,

    and I think these acts are evident. Just because the cat has kittens in the oven, it doesn’t make them biscuits.

    June 11, 2009
  548. Anthony Pierre said:

    david, I was talking about the killer of the abortion doctor and the holocaust museum shooter. 2 acts of terrorism.

    June 11, 2009
  549. Anthony Pierre said:

    who deceived them, john? it sure wasn’t the atheists.

    June 11, 2009
  550. john george said:

    Anthony- Some of these people decieved themselves. There are possibly as many different reasons these people do these things as their are people. Just as we cannot make a sweeping accusation that athiests precipitated these acts, I don’t believe you are justified in making a sweeping generality that Republican or Christian groups as a whole are to blame. As I said,

    Just because the cat has kittens in
    the oven, it doesn’t make them
    biscuits.

    June 11, 2009
  551. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    I wouldn’t blame Republicans or Christians generally, but there is a faction of the party that can best be described as “right wing crazies.” Unfortunately, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and even Palin and McCain have fed into the paranoia of that group – continually misrepresenting Obama’s agenda, linking him to Socialism and Terrorism, and claiming that he is planning to take away everyone’s guns and turn Israel over to Muslims.

    To some degree, these Republican (and supposedly Christian) agitators bear some responsibility for the fruits of their labors.

    June 11, 2009
  552. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    I wouldn’t blame Republicans or Christians generally, but there is a faction of the party that can best be described as “right wing crazies.” Unfortunately, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and even Palin and McCain have fed into the paranoia of that group – continually misrepresenting Obama’s agenda, linking him to Socialism and Terrorism, and claiming that he is planning to take away everyone’s guns and turn Israel over to Muslims.

    To some degree, these Republican (and supposedly Christian) agitators bear some responsibility for the fruits of their labors.

    June 11, 2009
  553. Anthony Pierre said:

    I know that all people that believe the same thing are the same person, and I know you walk the walk and talk the talk. However there aren’t many like you.

    June 11, 2009
  554. john george said:

    Patrick- I think that probably every organization has some extreemists. There are even those who drove half way across the country to try to disrupt both political conventions and destroy property and cause personal injury in the process. There are even factions within the gay movement that want to use any means to silence those who speak out against them. I think that Hanity and Limbaugh have done we conservatives a disservice, but this is, afterall, a country of free speech. Free speech does not necessarily mean wise or rational speech. We all need to sort the chaff from the grain. When a person is deceived, they will twist any comment to justify their actions. To place blame on someone else is just a cop-out from personal responsibility. It is the same thing Adam and Eve did in Genesis, so this trait has been around for a long time.

    June 11, 2009
  555. john george said:

    Yes, Anthony, they broke the mold when they made me. There are many of my of my contemporaries that are very glad of that, too, if ask them. LOL.

    June 11, 2009
  556. Matt Sewich said:

    John,

    I agree with you about where the money is going to come from.

    There is little doubt that a “federal option” will eventually kill-off the private health insurance companies and the not-for-profts who provide health insurance in the current system. They will be competing against a seemingly bottomless pit of money, they can’t win.

    June 11, 2009
  557. Patrick Enders said:

    So a note was found in the killer’s car – and guess what? Among other things, he had bought in to the paranoid Republican myth that Obama wants to take away people’s guns:

    “You want my weapons — this is how you’ll get them. The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what his Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America’s money. Jews control the mass media.”

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/06/note_found_in_von_brunns_car.php

    He was already known as a racist, antisemite and a ‘birther’ – one of those people who is convinced that Obama was not born in the U.S..

    All groups attract some extremists. Republican agitators should know better than to actively stir up their armed crazies with the kinds of lies, misinformation, and outlandish rhetoric they’ve been spreading.

    John,
    Surely there are some times when an agitator is in some way responsible for the actions of their listeners.

    Speaking purely hypothetically, let’s say that a preacher declared to his congregation: “X is a ___, and a ___, and a ___. Someone needs to kill him.”

    If a listener in the pews then went to the man’s house and killed him, would the preacher be entirely unaccountable for the results of his free speech? (I understand that he could, for example, be held unaccountable for inciting a riot by shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.)

    Under my understanding of the law, he would not be guilty of murder or party to the murder in this case (unless he was more explicit in his directions). However, he might well be guilty of incitement. I have to admit, though, that I don’t know the legal threshold for such a charge in the US, and I had trouble finding it on a search.

    Where would you draw the line?

    I’m not asking that Limbaugh or Murdoch or Glenn Back be charged with incitement. I am suggesting that as members of civil society, they have a (purely moral/ethical – if they’re capable of such a thing -) duty to bring their rhetoric back out of the realm of paranoid fantasy.

    June 11, 2009
  558. john george said:

    Patrick- There are people on both sides of this issue that could be accused of inciting others to unconscionable actions. This fellow that shot up the Holocaust Memorial is an extreemist whose ideas would not line up well with most Christians. Just because we Christians line up with where the Republican party is right now does not mean we approve of what people like this do. I don’t listen to Limbaugh or Hanity, as I just don’t believe that lambasting those with which you disagree accomplishes anything of any value. If people could get wise and draw away from these types of people, their effects could be diluted or possibly reversed. It is written that a soft answer turns away wrath. It is also written that we should live in peace with those around us in as much as it is in our power to do so. It is also written that we should not return evil for evil, but rather, bless those who despitefully use us. I think these approaches have a much greater effect than guns or bombs.

    June 12, 2009
  559. john george said:

    Ok, guys. We are at post #578, now. I am going to be on vacation for a couple weeks, so don’t get carried away. I want you to reserve the post #666 for me. I think the old saying is third time is a charm? I don’t want to break Barry C’s. pattern.

    June 14, 2009
  560. Patrick Enders said:

    Back to the issue of health insurance reform:

    Insurance executives appeared before Congress this week, and managed to make an excellent case for why the government needs to be involved in the process of guaranteeing access to insurance for all Americans.

    You see, insurance companies love to drop people who actually have costly medical problems.

    From the LA Times:

    Health insurers refuse to limit rescission of coverage

    Executives of three of the nation’s largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.

    The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation’s healthcare system.

    **An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.**

    **It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.**

    I think that the contradiction between turning a profit and actually paying claims was best captured by Monty Python:

    *[INSURANCE AGENT, MR.] DEVIOUS:* Well Reverend Morrison, in your policy, it states quite clearly that no claim you make will be paid.
    *VICAR:* Oh dear.
    *DEVIOUS:* Yes, you plucked for our Never Pay policy – which if you never claim is very worthwhile… but you had to claim, and well, there it is.

    June 18, 2009
  561. David Henson said:

    Patrick, are you backing the idea of forcing everyone to purchase a health plan?

    June 18, 2009
  562. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I am backing the idea of making affordable, reliable insurance available to everyone for purchase. (For those too poor to purchase it, I back the idea that subsidies should be available to make it affordable.)

    There are two big problems with the insurance industry as presently constituted:

    1) It is not affordable (or unavailable) to many of those who need it the most.

    2) Even for those who think that they have insurance, insurance companies are very good at finding reasons to refuse to provide coverage. See preexisting conditions, rescission, large deductibles, and caps.

    June 18, 2009
  563. David Henson said:

    I understand you want universal affordable insurance but do you want to make that a mandatory requirement for everyone or can individuals still choose not to purchase health insurance?

    June 18, 2009
  564. Patrick Enders said:

    Short term, I’m willing to see how simply making things affordable works out.

    Longer term, I expect that universal coverage mandates will be necessary, at least for children. Unfortunately, I have seen terrible financial and personal tragedies that resulted from uninsurance – both due to ‘preexisting condition’ exclusions, and due to avoiding/delaying needed medical care due to costs.

    Now just to be clear: I’m mostly interested in making sure that all children have medical insurance. I take a whole lot less interest in mandating health insurance for adults – simply because I am more amenable to the idea that competent adults have the right to be stupid, so long as they are only harming themselves by their actions.

    June 18, 2009
  565. Matt Sewich said:

    The rising cost of health INSURANCE keeps getting talked about…what about the rising cost of health CARE?

    I mean in reality, how can you not expect the cost of health insurance to go up with the increasing cost of health care?

    Key here being you’ll make health insurance more affordable once you make health care more affordable.

    June 18, 2009
  566. Patrick Enders said:

    Matt,
    I agree. I see a few practical ways to reduce the cost of medicine. Some of them might be addressed by Obama’s reform efforts.

    First, the cost of medicine for the uninsured/out-of-pocket is often inflated (sad, but true, as I understand it) in part to make up for losses from providing care to the uninsured/non-paying. If non-payment can be eliminated, the cost to paying customers can be reduced a bit.

    Second, tests and procedures are expensive. At least two factors can play some role in encouraging increased numbers of procedures and tests under the present system. One is that procedures and tests are better compensated than a mere office visit. Another is that defensive medicine (i.e. doing extra tests out of a fear of missing something, or perhaps out of a fear of liability because of missing something) is very real.

    I don’t know what the answer is to ending defensive medicine, but I am glad to see that Obama is talking to the AMA (not a favorite organization of mine) about options to help this.

    On the compensation disparity, I am consistently shocked/annoyed to learn that in clinics across the country, the act of seeing patients in the outpatient clinic for general medical visits is considered a money-losing proposition – which is only counterbalanced by the profits from hospitalization and procedures. There is clearly something wrong with such a system, which could be improved.

    Third, Pres. Obama and others believe there are efficiencies to be gained through standardization of medical records. I can follow the general logic of efficiency, but I’ll have to see on that one.

    Fourth, there is definitely money to be saved on medications. Some of the most popular medicines are ludicrously expensive in the U.S., often while the same medicine is much cheaper in other parts of the world. One reason for this is that in the U.S., pharmaceutical companies have a fair ability to name their own price. Medicare has demonstrated that these prices can be driven down considerably by collective negotiating for bulk discounts. Similar cost savings could be generated by increasing the pool of patients included in those negotiations by including all persons who choose a ‘public’ insurance option.

    Finally, there is always the very difficult question of ‘rationing’ care. The basic idea is simple: if one is going to try to get the maximum health benefits from a finite amount of money, it would be much better spent on cheap effective therapies for the masses who aren’t yet sick, rather than spending that same amount of money on a single patient at the end of a long life with a terminal illness. However, I don’t have any easy answers on that one. I just don’t think the country is ready to face that difficult choice yet. (My purely hypothetical, if-I-ruled-the-world answer would be: the government decides how much money can or should be spent on health care, then figures out which treatments have the best cost-benefit ratio. It then fully covers those cheap and effective treatments. Drastic, expensive treatments would be covered to the extent they could be afforded according to the government’s budget. People could then buy private insurance which could cover things that the governemnt refuses to pay for.)

    So yes, I do agree that health care costs need to be controlled, and I think that health care reform should address some cost-reducing measures, as well.

    June 18, 2009
  567. Matt Sewich said:

    Patrick,

    Ok, we agree then…let’s have Health Care fix up it’s mess and then get back to me on the Health Insurance side of things, because let’s face it as much as people like to rake the insurance companies through the mud here, it’s really the Health Care industry that is driving the price of the insurance.

    I won’t disagree with you on the difference in cost for the uninsured vs. the insured…the insurance companies and hospitals/clinics make deals.

    As for defensive medicine, there isn’t a good and fair solution to this otherwise it would be implemented. Part of me wants to cap the losses, but the other part of me says wrongs need to be made right. You wish you could see more common sense in awards, but it is what it is.

    I don’t know if your idea of the government will cover “this” but you need to buy insurance for “that” (or self-insure) idea at the end of your post will fly because then too many people will just want “that” and not have to be responsible to buy “that”, it’s partly recreating the problem we already have.

    June 18, 2009
  568. Patrick Enders said:

    Matt, you wrote,

    Ok, we agree then…let’s have Health Care fix up it’s mess and then get back to me on the Health Insurance side of things, because let’s face it as much as people like to rake the insurance companies through the mud here, it’s really the Health Care industry that is driving the price of the insurance.

    I see three problems with the delay you propose.

    First, just like a battle against “corruption” or “immorality” or even a “war against terror,” the fight to have “Health Care fix up it’s mess” is a process with no endpoint, because there is always room for improvement.

    Second, the presence of one problem does not preclude dealing with another problem. The public uprisings in Iran this week are no reason to stop working towards a solution to the Palestine-Israel situation. Similarly, the banking crisis is no reason to abandon school reform As Pres. Obama has said, “The American people don’t have the luxury of focusing on one problem at a time.”

    Third, insurance costs and medical costs are inseparable issues. Quite simply, medical costs and insurance rates are both largely determined by the interaction between these two co-dependent industries. You can’t fix one without also fixing the other.

    June 18, 2009
  569. Matt Sewich said:

    Patrick,

    Yes, there are always room for improvements with service industries, but the endpoint for the general public would be to make health care more affordable and then continue on with improvements.

    To your second point…there isn’t a way to fix health insurance premiums without first fixing the cost of health care. Premiums have to go up when the cost of care (or medicine) goes up, it’s just how it works. If it suddenly costs more to fix a fender bender (which they are predicting it will with hybrid cars and the like) then auto insurance rates need to go up, more money going out means more money needs to come in.

    Third…again, I’ll kind of disagree here, medical costs drive the premiums so if you do fix the cost of care you are fixing the cost of the insurance.

    I respect that the President went in front of the AMA, I’d be surprised though if the AMA buys into any plan that cuts their revenues and pay and there isn’t a plan in the government that isn’t going to do that from what I can tell.

    June 19, 2009
  570. Paul Zorn said:

    Of course medical insurance would be cheaper if medical care were cheaper. But IMO Patrick’s right that the two are closely intertwined — something like the two snakes on the caduceus. If insurance is too expensive, for instance, then people may delay getting care until problems, and costs, become a lot worse. These higher costs make their way into the system, insurance rates climb higher still, and around we go.

    Speaking of the cost of medical care, has anyone else mentioned an influential article (President O. is supposedly waving it around the White House) by Dr Atul Gawande, in the June 1 New Yorker? (You can find it online — google gawande cost conundrum .) Dr Gawande looks in great detail at the area around McAllen, Texas, where medical spending per patient is much, much higher than in demographically and economicaly similar nearby places, such as El Paso. (McAllen seems not to be healthier as a result.) Spending at McAllen is also far higher than in Rochester, Minnesota, which Dr G uses to illustrate that high-value, medically advanced care can be provided at rates far below those elsewhere.

    Dr Gawande’s main finding about McAllen is striking: The extraordinary costs there seem to be driven mainly by far-above-average use of medical care, including expensive procedures that are prescribed way more often there than elsewhere. McAllen’s over-use seems driven less by patients (who don’t really know the pros and cons of high-tech procedures) than by doctors, who may be in over-supply in the area. The problem seems not to be driven significantly by worry over malpractice, etc., since one doesn’t see the same pattern in nearby El Paso.

    Read the article yourself and see if you agree with my summary. I would by no means describe the piece as doctor-bashing, but Dr(!) G does a good job of portraying one system and the role doctors play in it.

    [Disclaimer: I have an incipient doctor in the family.]

    June 19, 2009
  571. Matt Sewich said:

    I don’t think anybody is denying that the two are intertwined…as referenced the two sides get together and negotiate prices/discounts on procedures. Also insurance companies will dictate where their insureds go for treatment, etc…there is definitely a relationship.

    Interesting article you directed us to, so far anyways, I read the first three pages and then decided to click on the “show it all on one page” link and printed it off to finish reading later on.

    June 19, 2009
  572. Paul Zorn said:

    Matt:

    Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you or anyone denies a connection between costs and insurance. My point was that, IMO, efforts to improve the situation need to address both at the same time.

    Re Dr Gawande, one can also listen to him discuss thesse matters on a podcast from Fresh Air. (Google on gawande fresh air podcast .)

    Re David H’s question on whether it should be mandatory to buy health insurance … The devil is always in the details: How much health insurance? With what deductibles/coverage/premium? And stuff.

    Still, forced to give a short answer I’d say yes — in something like the sense that paying income taxes is mandatory. As with income tax, people with very low incomes or none at all could receive full or partial governmental subsidy for health insurance. Whether such “insurance” would be handled through private companies, through some combo of private and public entities, or even through a single payer, doesn’t really matter to the question at hand: Should everybody have to chip in? (These questions might indeed matter, of course, to how well a system actually works, but that’s another issue.)

    June 19, 2009
  573. kiffi summa said:

    Dr.Atul Gawande has been writing about a wide variety of issues surrounding healthcare for quite a few years now, 1st in New Yorker articles and then two or three books.
    His take on things is especially instructive as he looks from the inside (of the profession) out, and he has a very big picture , philosophical bent. His passionate and honest search for the best values in his chosen field seems to be his prime motivator… a fabulously interesting writer who raises real questions of societal dilemmas.

    June 19, 2009
  574. Matt Sewich said:

    Paul,

    Fair enough.

    The two health insurance companies I’m most familiar with in Minnesota are Blue Cross and Health Partners, both non-profits I believe, I know Blue Cross is, pretty sure Health Partners is as well.

    As for fixing the “price” really the only two things they can attempt to control are profit (or in the case of non-profits, surplus) and administrative cost (cost of employing people to work for them, and to pay the people who sold the policy).

    For these two carriers I believe their goal for profit/surplus in regards to pure premium is less than 1 cent of every dollar of premium. That seems pretty reasonable and there isn’t much room to move that number that is going to mean anything to the premium payer.

    Currently Blue Cross is at about 9-10 cents for every premium dollar to cover expenses and so this area of expense really is the only place that has any room to try to control costs. It would reduce the premium mildly if they could get this down to 5 cents, but is that realistic? Can Blue Cross provide adequate service to the policyholders at 5 cents? It’d be tight.

    So when we talk about the insurance companies helping get the premium down these are the two areas really in their control, 10 cents on the dollar.

    I believe Blue Cross had a 91% loss ratio in 2008 (claims versus pure premium).

    June 19, 2009
  575. Peter Millin said:

    Those who believe that a single payer healthcare system will be cheaper then our current…think again.

    Germany,Holland’s and Canada’s health insurance costs are on par with the us and in some cases even higher.

    What makes anybody think that government can run health care more efficient then the semi private sector?
    If somebody can name a single government entity that is well run I might give you the benefit of the doubt.

    SS is about to collapse.

    Medicare is under funded.

    IRS laws are so confusing, that you can’t find two CPA’s that get the same result on one return.

    INS is so disorganized that they can’t keep two illegals out of the country.

    Our infrastructure is crumbling.

    Amtrak is a joke.

    Our currency is on the verge of a collapse.

    We have a budget deficit of nearly $ 2 Trillion dollars just this year.

    Projections of national debt will be hitting $ 10 Trillions.

    Kennedy’s healthcare plan will cost nearly $ 4 trillion dollars (CBO numbers) in ten years and still leave 30 million people uninsured???

    I can’t believe that anybody here is serious in believeing that government health care will somehow suffer a different faith??

    June 19, 2009
  576. David Henson said:

    I think Matt is right the no market pressures have been brought to bear on medical services and so their costs are out of control. Could liberals accept a consumer driven universal care verses a government driven universal care? Why not just give everyone a funded health debit card of $5000.00/year or such that they can spend as they see fit with certified health vendors (Including athletic clubs, etc)? Get employers out, HMOs out, etc. Once someone has $20,000 rolled over then they could spend the excess money how ever they choose. I can guarantee you the day after this plan were put in place an earache office visit drops from $200.00 to $25.00. Consumers will be MUCH tougher than the unholy alliance of insurance lobbyists, the AMA and government bureaucrats.

    June 20, 2009
  577. Bruce Anderson said:

    Peter,
    In comment 596 you say

    Germany,Holland’s and Canada’s health
    insurance costs are on par with the us
    and in some cases even higher.

    Facts are useful things. A study published in 2004 in Health Affairs: The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere found that per capita spending in the countries you cite, as a percentage of spending relative to the US (at $4,887 per capita in 2001, and 13.9% of GDP), were the following.

    • Germany: $2,808, 57% of the US total, and 10.7% of GDP
    • Netherlands: $2,606, 54% of the US total, and 8.9% of GDP
    • Canada: $2,792, 57% of the US total, and 9.7% of GDP.

    Go figure.

    June 20, 2009
  578. Patrick Enders said:

    Public support for a public option appears to be high. From a NYT/CBS poll:

    “Would you favor or oppose the government’s offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private insurance plans?”

    72% favor, 20% oppose, 7% no opinion.

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/21/health/policy/0620POLL.jpg

    June 21, 2009
  579. David Henson said:

    Patrick, that poll is no more meaningful than asking, “would you object to everyone getting water balloons?” When the part about paying for it gets added then the polls change.

    June 21, 2009
  580. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter M:

    Lotsa complaints in #596 about the feds! I think you’ve established that you don’t like ’em.

    As Bruce Anderson observes, your assertions about relative health costs in, say, Canada vs. the US, appear to be factually challenged. Can you cite some numbers?

    You asked, too, about any “single government entity” that’s well run. I suppose you mean the federal government. OK: The National Science Foundation. The National Institutes of Health. The Centers for Disease Control. The VA health system. The OMB. The census bureau.

    Note that “well run” can’t mean “perfectly run” or “always making the same choices I would make”. Nor, of course, does the existence of some well-run entities mean that all are well-run — or adequately funded.

    June 21, 2009
  581. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Again, the public option is simply an option that people could choose, alongside private options.

    The proposals are not to subsidize health care for those who can afford it, it is to offer a non-profit option in competition with the private options.

    By contrast, the insurance companies want a mandate for insurance, but want to forbid the government from offering a non-profit insurance option which might compete with their for-profit businesses.

    If capitalism is really all that its unreserved supporters say it is, then these private companies should have no problem providing a better, cheaper product than any government option that might dare to compete with them.

    June 21, 2009
  582. Paul Zorn said:

    About the cost of health care and paying for it …

    David H. correctly insists that we always keep costs (and how we’ll pay for them, whatever they are) in mind when we discuss health care. But let’s acknowledge that these accounting problems are hard, and that the answers we get depend sensitively both on policy assumptions and on estimates of, say, rates of growth in costs, incidence of disease in an aging population, etc.

    This does not imply that models and estimates are useless — we can never know the future perfectly. But it certainly suggests that particular numbers adduced — on any side of the debate — should be understood in light of their debatable but often unstated or misunderstood implicit ssumptions.

    The biggest (i.e., most important) numbers mentioned in reference to health policy say things like this (from an AP story):

    The CBO projected the cost of [the Senate’s] original plan at about $1.6 trillion over 10 years, a politically unpalatable figure.

    Opponents naturally seized on this. Why not? $1.6T (T for trillion) is a Lot of Money, by any standard. But what does the number really mean?

    One way to think about $1.6T over 10 years is to compare it other big numbers. For instance, the US economy will probably amount to something like $160T trillion over that period, so $1.6T could be seen as about 1% of the economy — arguably not unthinkable in the context of a health care system that now sucks up something like 18% of our economy.

    More important still in understanding $1.6T over 10 years is knowing what the number actually (tries to) count. What I think this number estimates is the additional cost the federal government would incur if the proposed legislation were passed, compared to what the feds would spend under current policy. That’s useful information indeed, even if only an estimate, and any diligent legislator should want to know it.

    But (unless I misunderstand) the $1.6T does not attempt to account for health savings elsewhere in the society that the $1.6T might buy. (If the feds cover more of my health costs, then I pay less.) We can and should argue about how valuable these benefits are, but to ignore them entirely seems like a blunder worthy of Accounting 101.

    A very useful resource on the economics of health care is Uwe Reinhart’s Economix blog. It’s easily Google’d.

    June 21, 2009
  583. David Henson said:

    Patrick, either choice is another step toward communism and a war on freedom.

    June 21, 2009
  584. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: And yet I find the outrageous control and profits of the healthcare industry to be an inexcusable step toward ultra-capitalism and a war on freedom.

    If we move from ultra-capitalism toward normal capitalism, then it may look to you like it’s moving toward communism.

    I am no fan of communism, but this ultra-capitalism is killing us.

    June 21, 2009
  585. David Henson said:

    Jerry, the problem that you fail to see or fail to admit is that big government and ultra-capitalism (as you call it) grow exactly in proportion to each other. Big business are those that tap into tax dollars or force choices through policy. The socialist state we are moving towards is a war on freedom. I think it is best to admit that so citizens can make an earnest decision between a free society and one where every spending option is prescribed by a governing elite (Communism).

    I have been reading that the Red States are arming themselves in record numbers and the ammunition is now hard to come by. Our government is bankrupt, printing massive amounts of money and promising new wonderful gifts for everyone while asset values are plummeting. Please do the math.

    June 21, 2009
  586. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Communism? Really?

    Even the right-wing agitators on TV prefer to use the term “socialist” when they’re looking for a derogatory name for Obama’s proposals.

    June 21, 2009
  587. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    Do yu pay 8% of your salary on healthcare contributions? If you do I suggest you change plans.

    Here is another point to ponder. How come most of Canadians that have serious health issues come to the US?

    The health care system that took such
    good care of Sabina is not funded by
    government taxes. But it is
    compulsory. All German workers pay
    about 8 percent of their gross income
    to a nonprofit insurance company
    called a sickness fund. Their
    employers pay about the same amount.
    Workers can choose among 240 sickness
    funds.

    Basing premiums on a
    percentage-of-salary means that the
    less people make, the less they have
    to pay. The more money they make, the
    more they pay. This principle is at
    the heart of the system. Germans call
    it “solidarity.” The idea is that
    everybody’s in it together, and nobody
    should be without health insurance.

    “If I don’t make a lot of money, I
    don’t have to pay a lot of money for
    health insurance,” Sabina says. “But I
    have the same access to health care
    that someone who makes more money
    has.”

    But she acknowledges that nearly 8
    percent of her salary is a sizable
    bite.

    “Yes, it’s expensive. You know, it’s a
    big chunk of your monthly income,”
    Sabina says. “But considering what you
    can get for it, it’s worth it.”

    June 21, 2009
  588. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter M:

    You ask whether I pay 8% of salary for “healthcare contributions”. The answer for me at this moment is no, but that has to do with various side conditions, such as my employer’s contribution, whether I have kids at home at the moment, which health plan I’ve selected, etc.

    A much more basic question than how much is deducted each month from a particular salary is how much a society spends (whether privately or governmentally) in toto or per capita (it comes to the same thing) on health care. Read the Uwe Reinhardt blog Economix for defensible numbers of this type. Any way one spins it, the US spends much more per capita than Canada, Germany, Japan, etc. — and doesn’t necessarily get better health outcomes.

    Another basic question is how the price for any society’s health spending, high or low, is distributed among different “payers”. This could take place through taxation, through individuals paying market-rate premiums, through payroll deduction (as in the German case you cite … which is for all practical purposes a tax), by employers, or through some combination of these. The particular balance among these payment channels matters, but there’s really no such thing as a free lunch. If we want good health care we’ll have to pay for it somehow. And doing nothing isn’t free, either. As a society we’re forking over gigantic sums right now, to unimpressive effect. We don’t necessarily see the bill on our pay stubs, but we’re paying anyway.

    June 21, 2009
  589. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: The problem I fail to see… well, I can’t see it. The problem I fail to admit has nothing to do with Locally Grown.

    Communism is not “where every spending option is prescribed by a governing elite” — you’re describing totalitarianism. Please do the reading.

    June 21, 2009
  590. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    I recommend the movie “Sicko” and Bill Moyers’ interviews with two doctors a few weeks ago who support universal single payer plan. I am just sorry it is only an “option” in the plan now being put forward. We all deserve a fullblown universal single payer plan.

    June 22, 2009
  591. David Henson said:

    Jerry, Patrick & Paul, Do you truly see no relationship between bigger government and greater economic stratification? I will take you at your word, if your answer is no, but the relationship to me is so clear that it is hard to imagine someone denying the correlation.

    June 22, 2009
  592. David Henson said:

    Patrick, I never watch right wing agitators on TV (maybe if I did I would become a liberal).

    Communism (focused on community), Socialism (focused on society) – not sure their is a big difference. Totalitarianism in the end is required to enforce these types of systems ~ really to enforce any redistributive “system.” Individual liberty which served this country so well is really not a system as much as the absence of a system.

    June 22, 2009
  593. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I find a relationship between smaller government and greater economic stratification much more likely.

    Perhaps you could explain your thinking on this one? Your assertion is not at all clear to me – even as a theory, let alone a fact.

    June 22, 2009
  594. Patrick Enders said:

    Stephanie, you wrote:

    I recommend the movie “Sicko” and Bill
    Moyers’ interviews with two doctors a
    few weeks ago who support universal
    single payer plan. I am just sorry it
    is only an “option” in the plan now
    being put forward. We all deserve a
    fullblown universal single payer plan.

    I would tend to agree with you. However, I think it is important to avoid letting the ‘best’ be the enemy of the ‘good.’

    Given the realities of our legislative system – as well as the realities of our campaign donation system – it will be quite a feat if we manage to get a reform package that includes a public option at all.

    Nate Silver: Special Interest Money Means Longer Odds for Public Option
    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/special-interest-money-means-longer.html

    June 22, 2009
  595. Patrick Enders said:

    Stephanie, you wrote:

    I recommend the movie “Sicko” and Bill Moyers’ interviews with two doctors few weeks ago who support univers single payer plan. I am just sorry it is only an “option” in the plan now being put forward. We all deserve a fullblown universal single payer plan.

    I would tend to agree with you. However, I think it is important to avoid letting the ‘best’ be the enemy of the ‘good.’

    Given the realities of our legislative system – as well as the realities of our campaign donation system – it will be quite a feat if we manage to get a reform package that includes a public option at all.

    Nate Silver: Special Interest Money Means Longer Odds for Public Option
    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/special-interest-money-means-longer.html

    June 22, 2009
  596. David Henson said:

    Look at income. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the share of national income going to the top fifth of wage earners rose from 44% in 1973 to 50% in 2000. The share going to the top 1% rose to 15% in 1998. This is the highest it has been since World War Two.

    The government has grown and and incomes have diverged – I suppose the question is cause and effect. One example as Obama got political recognition he signed a book deal for a million dollars (many modern elected officials do book deals). Lincoln never got a million dollar book deal.

    June 22, 2009
  597. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    Totalitarian governments have indeed sometimes created their own “classes” — even while claiming to wage their own “class struggles”. China and the former Soviet Union, for example, had lots to say about workers, peasants, landlords, intellectuals, etc., all the while maintaining their own nomenklatura systems of party-based privilege.

    If this is the “clear” and “undeniable” “correlation” you have in mind, then so be it. But …

    1. Is anyone around here arguing for totalitarianism (or communism, for that matter)? Not that I’ve heard.
    2. You seem to feel that any new thing the government does is a step toward Stalinism. This may be true in the sense that a step toward Lonsdale is a step toward the Grand Canyon. But we’re nowhere near the brink of either catastrophe.
    3. Granted, leftist totalitarianism is a Bad Thing. It doesn’t follow that every step to the left is bad, or even makes things worse. The graph of good and bad vs. left and right might have some ups and downs.
    4. Speaking of economic stratification, check out the Gini index (Wikipedia knows … ), a widely used (jeez, even the CIA uses it) mathematical measure of income inequality in societies. On the Gini scale the consistent winners (if you like less stratification, not more) are from high-tax, high-entitlement Scandinavia. True, equality isn’t everything, but (as you rightly say) it’s important.
    June 22, 2009
  598. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    There are at least two problems with the association that you propose:

    First, you propose no mechanism of causality. Without that, your assertion is no more valid that the proposal that rising global temperatures are caused by the falling number of pirates.
    (apologies to Anthony.)

    Second, in the 20th century in the US, the times of rising/greatest income disparity do not correlate with the times of increasing “big government.”

    Note that – since you have not defined ‘big government’ – I will have to guess at what you meant by that phrase. Here are my guesses:

    Eras of rising ‘big government’:
    1933-1945: FDR (New Deal/WWII)
    1963-1968: Johnson’s Great Society/Vietnam
    1977-1980: The Carter administration
    1991-1992: The first two years of the Clinton administration (pre-‘Contract With America’ Republican control of Congress)

    By contrast, I would list the following eras as ones of ‘small’ or ‘shrinking’ big government:
    1921-1929: The Roaring 20’s
    1981-1993: Reagan/Bush I
    1993-2000: Clintons, post-‘Contract With America’ Republican control of Congress
    2001-2006: Bush II

    Do those sound right?

    Now take a look at the graph on this page:
    http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008/07/13/income-gap-and-marginal-tax-rate-1917-2006/

    The first graph on that page shows the ratio of the average income of the top o.o1%, compared with the average income of the bottom 90%.

    Note that the highest disparities and greatest increases in income disparity occur during the following years:
    1923-1928
    1978-1986
    1995-2000
    2003-2006

    By contrast, the following eras had the lowest (or least-rising) income disparities:
    1942-1981 (essentially flat)
    1989-1993 (higher, but flat)

    As Bruce Anderson wrote, “Facts are useful things.” In this case, the facts do not seem to correlate with your assertion.

    June 22, 2009
  599. Patrick Enders said:

    Back to the health insurance reform front: more evidence of rough going ahead.

    On CNN yesterday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California commented on the state of the debate over health care reform: “To be candid with you, I don’t know that [President Obama] has the votes right now.” She added, “I think there’s a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus.”

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018713.php

    It is very hard to enact reform that is opposed by powerful, monied interests. We’ll be doing very well if we can get even a public option enacted.

    So I guess we also need to ask: when is the MN Supreme Court going to issue its ruling on the Franken election? It may be that a former (current?) comedian will prove decisive to the fate of this legislation. Given his stated positions on health insurance reform, I’d think he’d be in favor of a public option.

    June 22, 2009
  600. Patrick Enders said:

    Back to the health insurance reform front: more evidence of rough going ahead.

    On CNN yesterday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California commented on the state of the debate over health care reform: “To be candid with you, I don’t know that [President Obama] has the votes right now.” She added, “I think there’s a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus.”

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

    It is very hard to enact reform that is opposed by powerful, monied interests. We’ll be doing very well if we can get even a public option enacted.

    So I guess we also need to ask: when is the MN Supreme Court going to issue its ruling on the Franken election? It may be that a former (current?) comedian will prove decisive to the fate of this legislation. Given his stated positions on health insurance reform, I’d think he’d be in favor of a public option.

    June 22, 2009
  601. Patrick Enders said:

    Back to the health insurance reform front: more evidence of rough going ahead.

    On CNN yesterday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California commented on the state of the debate over health care reform: “To be candid with you, I don’t know that [President Obama] has the votes right now.” She added, “I think there’s a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus.”

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

    It is very hard to enact reform that is opposed by powerful, monied interests. We’ll be doing very well if we can get even a public option enacted.

    So I guess we also need to ask: when is the MN Supreme Court going to issue its ruling on the Franken election? It may be that a former (current?) comedian will prove decisive to the fate of this legislation. Given his stated positions on health insurance reform*, I’d think he’d be in favor of a public option.

    *: http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Al_Franken_Health_Care.htm

    June 22, 2009
  602. Patrick Enders said:

    Back to the health insurance reform front: more evidence of rough going ahead.

    On CNN yesterday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California commented on the state of the debate over health care reform: “To be candid with you, I don’t know that [President Obama] has the votes right now.” She added, “I think there’s a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus.”

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

    It is very hard to enact reform that is opposed by powerful, monied interests. We’ll be doing very well if we can get even a public option enacted.

    So I guess we also need to ask: when is the MN Supreme Court going to issue its ruling on the Franken election? It may be that a former (current?) comedian will prove decisive to the fate of this legislation. Given his stated positions on health insurance reform*, I’d think he’d be in favor of a public option.

    *: http://www.ontheissues.org/

    June 22, 2009
  603. Patrick Enders said:

    Back to the health insurance reform front: more evidence of rough going ahead.

    On CNN yesterday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California commented on the state of the debate over health care reform: “To be candid with you, I don’t know that [President Obama] has the votes right now.” She added, “I think there’s a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus.”

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

    It is very hard to enact reform that is opposed by powerful, monied interests. We’ll be doing very well if we can get even a public option enacted.

    So I guess we also need to ask: when is the MN Supreme Court going to issue its ruling on the Franken election? It may be that a former (current?) comedian will prove decisive to the fate of this legislation. Given his stated positions on health insurance reform (at ontheissues dot org), I’d think he’d be in favor of a public option.

    June 22, 2009
  604. David Henson said:

    Patrick, I did not have to be born yesterday to pick out that a number like .01% (meaning top 1/10,000) is a number born for massaging. I guess just 1% did not get the dramatic results. The logical number in a democracy to look at would be the top 25-50% relative to those below (see the logic).

    I like the way you break out the years by party elected but correct me if I am wrong – the government has never gotten smaller on an annual basis since WWII – and is wildly larger now than under FDR. During this period the growth at the top (5%, 10%, 25%) has always been much higher than the growth at the bottom ~ it is not clear how free services are calc’ed and come into play. But a lot of weathy people have been created offering these “free services.”

    Personally, I don’t mind society helping people at the bottom … but why not a simple reverse income tax so everyone gets a baseline of cash annually … the reason is this would be fair and would not create those cushy government jobs.

    June 22, 2009
  605. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Perhaps you could find data that supports your assertions, and contradicts mine?

    June 22, 2009
  606. Anthony Pierre said:

    June 22, 2009
  607. David Henson said:

    Patrick, no offense, but your data is party generated nonsense and was generated to create a result, not to learn. What data do you want I googled it and all the data shows the top percentages (5%, 10%, 25%) earners growing much faster than the lower equal portions. Some of this is probably natural despite government growth (large or small). Some, as I mentioned, may not account for services as “income” (this is not clear). But I continue to ask for liberal input on what is wrong with just giving people with less some money and scaling government way back? When person A is paid via taxes to help out person B the result is a double whammy on the tax payer. In practice the person A ends up much better off than B (and sometimes engages in massive fraud). The practical thing to do would be just give person B money. Same with health care, just give people money to spend on health care not some wild “plan” with huge overhead that’s in bed with the providers. Obama said, “the American people are not stupid,” so let them handle their choices.

    June 22, 2009
  608. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Perhaps you could share the trend data that you found for those strata? It might make for an interesting comparison.

    June 22, 2009
  609. David Henson said:

    Patrick, here is some info.

    Figure 1 shows the national trends in inequality in the top and bottom halves of the distribution from 1967 to 2005, according to U.S. Census Bureau data on household income. Household income is primarily wages and salaries, but it also includes income from self employment, interest, dividends, rentals, retirement, and certain government transfers. Top-half inequality refers to the 95/50 interpercentile ratio (that is, the ratio of the 95th percentile to the 50th percentile of the income distribution) and bottom-half inequality refers to the 50/20 interpercentile ratio. We chose these ratios (as opposed to, say, 90/10 and 50/10) since these data are available at the county level, which is our unit of analysis. As the figure illustrates, while bottom-half inequality has remained relatively stable over the last 40 years, top-half inequality has followed a fairly steady upward trend. Specifically, in 1967, the 95th percentile of household income was 2.6 times higher than the 50th percentile, and by 2005, it was 3.6 times higher

    June 22, 2009
  610. Patrick Enders said:

    There’s also some inflation-adjusted data

    Scroll down to “Household income over time”

    Unfortunately, I’m off to get our future home(?) inspected, so proper pondering will have to wait – for me, at least

    June 22, 2009
  611. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: And this is why people in the Red States are buying all the ammo?

    June 22, 2009
  612. There’s also some inflation-adjusted data at Wikipedia, on the page titled “Household income in the United States,” in the section titled “Household income over time.” The link is available by clicking on my name.

    Unfortunately, I’m off to get our future home(?) inspected, so proper pondering will have to wait – for me, at least.

    June 22, 2009
  613. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    Thanks for what looks like an interesting set of stats. But a couple of questions:

    1. Could you give the URL or some other easy pointer to your source? I’m not suggesting there’s anything wrong with your numbers, just that it’s always good form to cite sources. And it would be nice to see your “Figure 1”.

    2. I don’t doubt (and doubt that others doubt) that “top-half inequality” as defined here has indeed increased over the last 40 years. But what lesson do you say we should draw from this? (Sorry to be obtuse … I really don’t know.) That big government somehow caused this inequality? Lots of other things (population, GDP, women’s participation in the workforce, membership in evangelical churches, immigration from India, Dutch elm disease …) have also increased over the last 40 years, and causal relationships among them seem obscure at best.

    June 22, 2009
  614. Paul Zorn said:

    Re ammo stockpiling …

    I have it on good authority from someone who has it on good authority (decide for yourself whether that adds up to doubly-good or only half-good authority) that even way up here in blue country Cabela’s sometimes runs short.

    There was a related story in April on NPR, by the way; Google ammo shortage obama npr . NPR attributes the situation to some combination of high military demand for ammo and hoarding driven by fears that President Obama’s election may presage an ammo-less future.

    June 22, 2009
  615. David Henson said:

    Jerry, I suppose because they are going hunting or feel threatened by falling asset values and the expectation of currency devaluations. But have not done a survey.

    June 22, 2009
  616. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    By far the US has the best health care system in the world. No other country comes even close.
    The quality, availability and innovations are top notch and put Germany, Canada, England and France to shame.

    People with money from around the world fly in to the US for health care, ever wondered why?

    This of course doesn’t make me blind to the current flaws in the system. Like someone said earlier ” Nothing is perfect”.

    BUT to go from the current system in to an eurostyle single payer system doesn’t make any sense at all.

    If most of us would take the time to read past the headlines of European health care, most of us would oppose a single payer system.

    However most Americans have a narrow view of the world and refuse to learn from other countries mistakes.

    England and France have found out the hard way that a single payer and one size fits all system is unsustainable (now there is a buzz word).
    They have now created a private option for people that can afford to pay extra!! Doesn’t that in essence bring us back to square one? Where only people with money can afford special and more individualized care?

    Do most of you want a faceless bureaucrat making decisions on what care is right for you? Which one makes more financial sense?
    Do you want to be treated as a number with no recourse? A la the IRS? or INS?

    Only a politician can tell you with a straight face ” We have to spend money to save money”. In the real world you get laughed out of town.

    June 22, 2009
  617. Peter Millin said:

    Better start stocking up on ammo, because the current people in power will raise taxes to the point were ammo becomes a luxury item.

    That’s one way to get around the second amendment. Like we have no more pressing issues to deal with. !!!

    June 22, 2009
  618. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Ah, yes. I saw here that Chuck Norris is (tongue-in-cheek, he says) advocating Texas to secede from the U.S., and he’ll run for Texas president, along with speculating about a second American Revolution.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91103

    Since I neither hunt nor joke about the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, it looks like I won’t need to buy any ammunition.

    June 22, 2009
  619. Jerry Friedman said:

    Paul: A lot of people bought a lot of water, gasoline, and other ‘survivalist’ supplies before Y2K. I think this is all good. It helps stimulate the economy, if only a little bit, for some businesses.

    What it says about public hysteria is another subject.

    June 22, 2009
  620. David Henson said:

    The Economist has an article that sales of chicks and chicken raising gear is huge now. And I know that veggie seed sales are threw the roof at Garden Centers.

    June 23, 2009
  621. David Henson said:

    Paul, the link is attached. I just found by Googling the issue. Article just had what appeared to be neutral data. There were many links all of which had supporting data so I assume the inequality has grown.

    “Caused”, maybe, maybe not, but “corrected” – the numbers would not bear this out. I mention this because it is brought up often in support of gov’t growth but I do not see as a solid justification for limiting freedom.

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/09/frbsf-changes-i.html

    June 23, 2009
  622. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    Thanks for the link. The data are indeed interesting. Again, I don’t think anyone doubts that inequality (both between top and middle incomes and between top and lower incomes) has grown over the years.

    The live question, at least for me, is what conclusion you draw from these numbers about the “big government” issue, which I think we’re discussing. For one thing, I don’t follow your second paragraph in 618.1, for one thing — not clear to me what “corrected”, “this”, and “it” refer to. For another thing, you didn’t respond to the Gini stuff I mentioned in #608. Fair enough — you may not be interested. But Gini analysis suggests pretty strongly to me that relative size of government and economic inequality are negatively correlated, at least among the rich countries. (The high-tax, high-entitlement Scandinavian countries have much less inequality than, say, the US.)

    It doesn’t necessarily follow that bigger government is always better, or that economic inequality is the only goal a government should aim for. But don’t such facts tend to undermine the view (if indeed its yours) that big government implies high inequality?

    June 23, 2009
  623. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter M:

    Re #619 …

    Yes, we do some healthcare things very well in America — as we should, given how much we spend. The point is to ensure that all or nearly all Americans get to take advantage of the best of our health expertise.

    As you say, some people come to the US for medical care that’s unavailable or not readily available at home. And some Americans (I know some personally) choose, say, Singapore for expensive surgery that’s unaffordable or not readily affordable here.

    The main point, of course, is not about these edge effects but about the system as a whole. How do we assure that everybody gets reasonable access to healthcare here at home?

    What do you propose?

    A single-payer system is what the name implies; it may or may not go along with a government-run system. France and Britain illustrate both possibilities. Big guv’mint opponents sometimes conflate the two, but they’re different. (As you say, Americans often refuse to learn from other countries’ experience.)

    My own (admittedly inexpert) preference would be for a single-payer but not single-provider system; such a mix would seem to allow economy of scale at one end and a measure of healthy competition at the other. I might change my mind on such logistical questions — but not on the principle that everybody should have some decent level of coverage. (It follows that some people will require public subsidy — a basic insurance policy, cash payments, a medical debit card, whatever … they all cost money.)

    June 23, 2009
  624. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    The only realistic option is an open market solution, that allows people to shop around for health care.

    This will allow consumers to decide what their best bang for the buck is.
    Pretty much any other insurance works that way, why would this one be different?

    The Canadian government let’s people go to the USA for treatment???
    My neighbor in Canada was told that she had to wait three month for chemo..thank God Buffalo wasn’t far away.

    June 23, 2009
  625. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    You say:

    The only realistic option is an open market solution, that allows people to shop around for health care.

    Fair enough. But (i) What do we do about the poor? Will they, too, “shop around”? (ii) What changes, if any, do you propose from the present system, which certainly allows “shopping around”.

    June 23, 2009
  626. Scott Oney said:

    Paul (#622):

    I’m curious: When you referred to “big guv’mint opponents,” were you making fun of people with roots in the American South, or just people whose public speaking skills aren’t as good as you fancy yours to be? I feel like I should prolly be offended, but I jus’ ain’t be sure on which count.

    But on to a more important point.

    Hardworking Americans now pay for their own health care, whether out of pocket or through insurance pools. There’s no way that’s going to change, through your “single-payer” plan or through any other. The wealth used to pay for health care has to come from the people who generate it.

    As the system exists now, we’re allowed to make our own decisions regarding what kind of coverage we buy, from whom we buy it, and even whether or not we need it. Many Americans are comfortable making these decisions, and would if anything prefer more options, not fewer. Are you saying that our interests would be better served by giving over control of our health care to members of the Power Elite who laugh at us and think we’re stupid?

    June 23, 2009
  627. Scott Oney said:

    “The poor” have had Medicaid for decades, so they’re pretty well covered. I’m not sure why this one keeps popping up.

    June 23, 2009
  628. William Siemers said:

    Peter M. sez…

    Only a politician can tell you with a straight face ” We have to spend money to save money”. In the real world you get laughed out of town.

    I think you know that this is not the case. Think of the fairly well known economic principle: return on investment. It works for businesses, individuals and governments.

    June 23, 2009
  629. David Henson said:

    Paul, I can only really make choices from my experience living here in the USA. If a CIA handbook suggest Sweden works differently that does not over shadow what I have seen over my life time … the degree to which I would factor that in might be .00001%. Skeptical factors would be: Sweden has very high concentration of weath (perhaps not income), I have not experienced their system only the effects of our government growth, and its a much smaller country which may have limited utility vs the USA. I would also rate freedom as the highest aspiration – not material.

    June 23, 2009
  630. David Henson said:

    “The Poor” are the very best at shopping around. A medical debit card would empower them and provide incentive to shop around. “What the h@ll do you mean that bandaide reduced my balance by $10.00?”

    June 23, 2009
  631. Paul Zorn said:

    Scott:

    The “big guv’mint” stuff was an obscure and perhaps lame homage to the late Molly Ivins, a political commentator with roots in the American south. (Come to think of it, I think Ms Ivins used to say “gummint”.) No offense intended!

    I agree completely that health care is now and always will be paid for by us, whether through premiums or direct payments or taxes or some combination thereof, and with or without a single-payer plan.

    Re your last paragraph, about the advantages of giving people choices … Did you notice my last paragraph in #622, which is about offering choice (and thus, ideally, achieving some competition) through avoiding a single-provider system? In other words, I agree that choice is generally good. Of course economy of scale can also have its advantages, so different goods might need to be traded against each other.

    I take your last sentence to be rhetorical.

    June 23, 2009
  632. I was going to mention that too, William. As just one example, I believe it’s been fairly well-established that early childhood education saves much more in future outlays than get spent on it today. Likewise, I would guess, and it’s just a guess, that money spent in preventative medicine or healthy-lifestyle education more than pays for itself in reduced reactive or more-expensive medical care later on.

    June 23, 2009
  633. Scott Oney said:

    Paul:

    Yes, I did notice your last paragraph in #622. I don’t think I misunderstood it. I took it to mean that you’d still let us pick what clinic or doctor to go to, at least to some extent, but that you don’t want to leave it up to us to decide directly how we finance our care, even though it’s being paid for with our own money. Under the national system, the government would take a few hundred dollars a month from us in taxes, and then use some of it to pay the doctor of our choice, if or when we went. Isn’t that what the “single-payer” concept implies?

    And my last sentence was hardly rhetorical. Here it is, repeated for convenience: “Are you saying that our interests would be better served by giving over control of our health care to members of the Power Elite who laugh at us and think we’re stupid?” In the end, whoever controls the money controls the system. I’m sure the national system would work out well for somebody, but, again, are you saying that we, meaning the rest of us, would be better off giving up control of our health care system to people who really don’t like us too much?

    June 23, 2009
  634. Patrick Enders said:

    Scott,
    What makes you think that a “Power Elite who laugh at us and think we’re stupid?” and “who really don’t like us too much” exists?

    Could you perhaps explain who you think these people are?

    June 23, 2009
  635. Peter Millin said:

    William,

    The difference is government is not run like a business. Most of the current people in charge are lawyers…nothing against lawyers. But they approach business with a different mindset then lawyers do.

    Maybe I am wrong, but let’s see how GM and Chrysler work out.

    June 23, 2009
  636. Peter Millin said:

    Correction 627
    Replace the second lawyer with businessmen.

    June 23, 2009
  637. Scott Oney said:

    Patrick:

    The term “Power Elite” comes from a book of that title by C. Wright Mills. It’s pretty old, so people probably don’t read it much anymore, but it’s still a well-known concept.

    As for what makes me think they laugh at us, and think we’re stupid, and don’t really like us much, I’m thinking about the “clinging to guns and religion” business, and the Sarah Palin bashing, which was often directed more at a type of person that Ms. Palin came to represent, and so forth. You really don’t have to look far to find more examples.

    June 23, 2009
  638. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    Use the money that government spends now to provide health care for the poor. Give it to the poor and let them spend it as they see fit.

    June 23, 2009
  639. Peter Millin said:

    Patrick # 626.2

    That would be most of our politicians.

    June 23, 2009
  640. Patrick Enders said:

    Scott,
    Do you also think that anyone involved in administering a single player plan would inevitably be a member of this power elite – and would also inevitably not “like us too much,” “laugh at us, and think we’re stupid?”

    Mercifully, for you I guess, a single payer plan is not on the table right now. At best, a government-run insurance company will be created. People will be allowed to choose to this insurance as one option, or they can choose a private plan.

    If you prefer working with a private insurance company, and you don’t want to be beholden to bureaucrats, you can stick with a traditional private plan.

    As President Obama said today,

    “Now, the public plan I think is a important tool to discipline insurance companies. What we’ve said is, under our proposal, let’s have a system the same way that federal employees do, same way that members of Congress do, where — we call it an “exchange,” or you can call it a “marketplace” — where essentially you’ve got a whole bunch of different plans. If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won’t have to do a thing. You keep your plan. You keep your doctor. If your employer is providing you good health insurance, terrific, we’re not going to mess with it.

    But if you’re a small business person, if the insurance that’s being offered is something you can’t afford, if you want to shop for a better price, then you can go to this exchange, this marketplace, and you can look: Okay, this is how much this plan costs, this is how much that plan costs, this is what the coverage is like, this is what fits for my family. As one of those options, for us to be able to say, here’s a public option that’s not profit-driven, that can keep down administrative costs and that provides you good, quality care for a reasonable price — as one of the options for you to choose, I think that makes sense.

    Q: Won’t that drive private insurers out of business?

    THE PRESIDENT: Why would it drive private insurers out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government — which they say can’t run anything — suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.

    June 23, 2009
  641. Paul Zorn said:

    Scott (replying to 626.1 … it gets hard to keep track):

    Yes, a single-payer system does mean to me that the government would take some of our money in taxes and use it to pay for medical services, which (I hope) we’d have say in choosing. So basically I agree with your first paragraph in 626.1, except for its slightly argumentative tone (e.g., about me “letting” others do this or that).

    What struck me as rhetorical about your last sentence was, again, its argumentative framing — with references to “giving over control of our health care”, the “Power Elite”, and people who “laugh at us and think we’re stupid.” Whether a single payer system is good or bad on balance is one question (the one I’m interested in). Whether single payer amounts to “giving over control” is another question, which deserves separate discussion. And if snooty self-appointed lefty elites sometimes behave impolitely one could probably cite, tit for tat, comparable vitriol from the right. I’d rather discuss pros and cons of health care models.

    PS. I think I was assigned to read C. Wright Mills’s “The Power Elite” back in college, during the stone but not silicon age. As I recall (yes, dimly) Mills’s Elite involved business, the military, and government, among whom Mills saw blameworthy alliances. This is not specifically the Elite you refer to, right?

    June 23, 2009
  642. Peter Millin said:

    Patrick,

    I am curious as to your position on tort reform on medical law suits?
    It is important that the patient maintains his rights to fight medical malpractice, but don’t you believe that the current form is out of control?
    Don’t you believe that the current insurance cost to protect against such suits are way to high?

    There is a simple solution to all of this. If someone brings a lawsuit adn loses he/she should be responsible for the cost of the lawsuit. This would go a long way.

    However don’t hold your breath. One of the largest contributing interest group in DC are the lawyers.

    Follow the money.

    June 24, 2009
  643. Peter Millin said:

    William, #625

    problem is that government programs don’t create any real value.
    It is nothing more then shifting money from one person to another or it creates artificial money that lowers the value of the existing currency.

    Any business that wants to survive needs to create real value not accounting gimmicks.

    June 24, 2009
  644. Scott Oney said:

    Paul:

    Yes, that’s the power elite I’m talking about. And the president we’ve got now seems intent on consolidating power by grabbing the third leg of the stool, too, which, as you pointed out, is business.

    And Patrick, even if Obama lets us keep private plans as an option, it still doesn’t seem fair. Sure, we could keep buying the insurance we always have, but we’ll be forced to pay for the national plan, too, even though we aren’t using it, so we would be paying twice as much as those who opt for the national plan. Most individuals and small businesses would be forced to give up and settle for the government-issued stuff.

    June 24, 2009
  645. Patrick Enders said:

    Scott,
    Subsidizing insurance plans for the poor-but-not-so-poor-as-to-enroll-in-Medicaid is a separate item from the inclusion (or exclusion) of a public option.

    One proposal is to expand medicaid. Another is to subsidize whatever insurance plan that these persons choose. The most likely is a mix of the two.

    These subsidies will certainly cost money, if enacted. But that is separate from the inclusion of a public option.

    By contrast, if the insurance companies get their preference, the government will subsidize individuals, but only allow them to choose between private insurance options.

    That would indeed be a very expensive option.

    June 24, 2009
  646. David Henson said:

    The end result is not public vs private but FORCED insurance. Obama wants the fight to be over private vs public plan offerings to avoid the underlining goal of FORCING everyone to purchase insurance. The result is individuals have all their income mandated to certain spending REQUIREMENTS. Combine that with no asset values and we become serfs to a communistic system. I know using words that actually describe their goal is upsetting to Patrick, Jerry and Paul Z. I am sorry, but this maybe the last battle for freedom and the American way. Innovation drives our economy and innovation will not occur in a mandated world.

    June 24, 2009
  647. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I guess you don’t know me that well, as I do not find your words particularly upsetting. I just don’t see the situation through the same lenses that you do.

    June 24, 2009
  648. Paul Zorn said:

    Like Patrick, I’m not at all “upset” to read words I disagree with. What’s the point of a discussion group, anyway?

    Just curious, David H: Do you regard all taxation as theft? Or is some OK? (I don’t expect to be “upset” either way … just wondering.) I know it’s a bit astray from the health care thread, but it might help us understand your position.

    June 24, 2009
  649. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter,

    You suggest:

    Use the money that government spends now to provide health care for the poor. Give it to the poor and let them spend it as they see fit.

    Do you have any idea how much money this is?

    The 2010 estimate for Medicaid and SCHIP (which now provide health care for the poor) is around $240 billion, according to an OMB website. Divide this by around, say 30 million poor people, and we’re talking around $8000 per person per year, just for health care.

    These are just a rough estimates, to be sure. (Do you have others?) But I think you’ve just outed yourself as a free-spending liberal.

    June 24, 2009
  650. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    You say:

    [The] problem is that government programs don’t create any real value …

    Really?

    Have you noticed the interstate highway system? The US military? The air traffic control system? NOAA? The NSF and NIH? The Centers for Disease Control? The Postal Service? The census? The federal court system?

    These are accounting gimmicks?

    June 24, 2009
  651. David Henson said:

    Paul, I believe every opportunity should be used to decentralize institutions – esp those institutions that are underpinned by force (which is all those institutions dependent upon forced taxation). I find it ironic how people who purport to anchor their lives with “reason” cannot see that “forced policies” cannot improve society. Philosophically, because force itself is the antithesis of reason. And practically because those citizens in charge and those citizens expected to comply rarely perform as expected. I honestly believe that voluntary taxes and social coordination could achieve your stated aspirations for society.

    June 24, 2009
  652. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    All those agencies mentioned to by you are cost centers they don’t produce profits.
    They are needed to maintain the economy and do not add new production.

    Are they necessary? Most of them are. But they to not or very minimally add to the real GDP.

    Businesses and people increase the value of goods not government. Government doesn’t prodcue money or value it merely consumes it…

    June 24, 2009
  653. Paul Zorn said:

    Thanks, David H., sincerely. Your posting helps me see that many other views you’ve advanced align with the very high value you place on personal freedom. I don’t share this “relative weighting” of personal freedom (I’d weight some other, sometimes competing, values just as highly) but I respect your view, and accept that it can inform a whole range of practical and moral choices.

    And I admire your optimism about voluntary taxation, even if I don’t share it — partly because (as you say) “citizens expected to comply rarely perform as expected.” Most people, perhaps even the vast majority, would try to do their taxation part (or at least their own idea of their part) in good faith. But enough wouldn’t, I fear, that some “enforcement” would be needed. It would be nice to be proved wrong on this … know any historical examples?

    Finally, I don’t buy (or maybe don’t understand) your framing of “reason” and “force” as necessarily opposed or contradictory. Some (enforced, if you like) rules and regs make things better for all of us, like speed limits in a school zone.

    June 25, 2009
  654. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    You win. I give up.

    Our definitions, assumptions, notions of evidence, and styles of argument are apparently irreconcilable.

    Uncle.

    June 25, 2009
  655. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, the value you place on violence is inherent in your last post:

    I don’t share this “relative weighting” of personal freedom

    You want to limit my freedom but I do not want to limit yours … in the end a police state (which I would say our nation has become) is required so that I am no longer free. Not to personalize but extrapolate from ourselves to society at large.

    June 25, 2009
  656. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    I am confused about your last comment.

    The whole discussion started around effectiveness of government in administring health care.

    Personally I believe that government, by it’s very nature is incapable in running anything efficently. Then you cited some parts of government that do and I agreed with you.

    The issue then went to government producing value and jobs in the economy, which you supported.
    I disagreed by eluding to the fact that all government agencies are essentially cost centers since they don’t produce any goods they make profits on.

    Govenments get their money to operate from us the taxpayers. Without that money government would have no way to survive.
    Bailouta and so called job creations are nothing more then re-allocating exisitng money from one part of the economy to the other. The value of it doesn’t increase. Adding more money without creating value only adds to the money supply not to the value of it.

    So bailouts and make work job creations to not add to the GDP since it is done with existing values.

    Your response is not really an admission of me being right..it’s more like an insult to my position..what am I missing here.

    June 26, 2009
  657. Peter Millin said:

    Today the house will vote on a cap and trade tax. The legislation came out of comittee last night.
    At 0400 am this morning 300 new pages were added fora vote today???

    My concern is how many of our elected officials have actually read it?

    One of Obama’s promises was to post all new laws 72 hours before voted on on the White House website. This sis the second time Obama has broken that promise

    June 26, 2009
  658. Peter Millin said:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124581677678245833.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Source above.

    Union members serving under collective
    bargaining agreements would be exempt,
    even though they often have the
    richest and most extensive packages of
    benefits. Union officials have told
    Democratic leaders of Congress that
    because collective bargaining
    agreements can last several years,
    they should be exempt from any tax
    because contracts can’t be changed
    quickly enough to avoid it.

    Now if Obama care is that great…why are politicians in DC excluded??

    There’s a reason the Obama health care
    plan is being rushed through Congress
    this summer — because the American
    people would likely never support it
    if given time to absorb and understand
    such fine print. If the union
    carve-out isn’t sufficient to excite
    public anger, wait till you hear about
    the version of the Obama plan prepared
    by Senator Edward Kennedy, which would
    specifically exempt Members of
    Congress from many of its provisions.

    As the U.S. Office of Personnel
    Management notes, Members of Congress
    “enjoy the widest selection of health
    plans in the country.” According to
    page 114 of the Kennedy bill, a
    similar array of choices would not be
    available to other Americans in the
    future. Instead, they would be shunted
    into health insurance plans under the
    straightjacket of whatever the
    government decides is a “basic” plan.

    June 26, 2009
  659. Peter Millin said:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124581677678245833.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Source above.

    Union members serving under collective
    bargaining agreements would be exempt,
    even though they often have the
    richest and most extensive packages of
    benefits. Union officials have told
    Democratic leaders of Congress that
    because collective bargaining
    agreements can last several years,
    they should be exempt from any tax
    because contracts can’t be changed
    quickly enough to avoid it.

    Now if Obama care is that great…why are politicians in DC excluded??

    There’s a reason the Obama health care
    plan is being rushed through Congress
    this summer — because the American
    people would likely never support it
    if given time to absorb and understand
    such fine print. If the union
    carve-out isn’t sufficient to excite
    public anger, wait till you hear about
    the version of the Obama plan prepared
    by Senator Edward Kennedy, which would
    specifically exempt Members of
    Congress from many of its provisions.

    As the U.S. Office of Personnel
    Management notes, Members of Congress
    “enjoy the widest selection of health
    plans in the country.” According to
    page 114 of the Kennedy bill, a
    similar array of choices would not be
    available to other Americans in the
    future. Instead, they would be shunted
    into health insurance plans under the
    straightjacket of whatever the
    government decides is a “basic” plan.

    June 26, 2009
  660. Peter Millin said:

    Source WSJ

    Union members serving under collective
    bargaining agreements would be exempt,
    even though they often have the
    richest and most extensive packages of
    benefits. Union officials have told
    Democratic leaders of Congress that
    because collective bargaining
    agreements can last several years,
    they should be exempt from any tax
    because contracts can’t be changed
    quickly enough to avoid it.

    Now if Obama care is that great…why are politicians in DC excluded??

    There’s a reason the Obama health care
    plan is being rushed through Congress
    this summer — because the American
    people would likely never support it
    if given time to absorb and understand
    such fine print. If the union
    carve-out isn’t sufficient to excite
    public anger, wait till you hear about
    the version of the Obama plan prepared
    by Senator Edward Kennedy, which would
    specifically exempt Members of
    Congress from many of its provisions.

    As the U.S. Office of Personnel
    Management notes, Members of Congress
    “enjoy the widest selection of health
    plans in the country.” According to
    page 114 of the Kennedy bill, a
    similar array of choices would not be
    available to other Americans in the
    future. Instead, they would be shunted
    into health insurance plans under the
    straightjacket of whatever the
    government decides is a “basic” plan.

    June 26, 2009
  661. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter,

    Since you ask, I don’t mean to insult — just to acknowledge that we seem not to communicate clearly.

    For instance, you say:

    … I believe that government, by it’s very nature is incapable in running anything efficently. Then you cited some parts of government that do and I agreed with you.

    To me your second sentence directly contradicts your first. If you really believe that government can’t do anything right, then how can you agree that “some parts” do run efficiently?

    It’s fine if we disagree on stuff; that’s what makes debating these things fun, and of course there’s no reason in the world why you should agree with me. But it’s less fun when I can’t make logical sense of your view. If I’m missing something, please explain.

    June 26, 2009
  662. David Henson said:

    Some (enforced, if you like) rules and regs make things better for all of us

    I think your statement above is what I find most frustrating with pro-government zealots. The “rules and regs” don’t make ‘things’ better. The projected change in behavior or outcomes as a result of the “rules and regs” might make ‘things’ better. But so often “rules and regs” do not achieve their stated ends and politicians never address this reality … they just set off on more emotional arguments to create more “rules and regs.”

    I was not suggesting volunteer “taxes” at the level of our current taxes. If these taxes were made voluntary (which they once were) and everyone quit paying them overnight then that likely tells you something about the system’s viability. Rather, if those dollars taken as tax, were still available in private hands they may very well be applied to more beneficial purposes.

    June 27, 2009
  663. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    On my first statement of government inefficencies I was focused on those that have the greatest impact on my life, without considering those you mentioned.

    Based on that I have moved my position to a more balanced view.

    Hope that clears it up.

    June 27, 2009
  664. Peter Millin said:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aDvu77pZr7k4

    Back to health care.
    This confirms the WSJ article on union excemptions on the health care tax.

    I seem to remember that Obama promised not to raise taxes on 95% of the people.
    With the passage of the cap and trade tax and the now looming taxation of health benefits he has broken that promise as well.

    Be carefull what you wish for.

    June 27, 2009
  665. john george said:

    Here’s a little gem of a bumper sticker I saw last week on Nantucket Island- *

    OBAMA- A WHOLE NEW ERROR

    Sorry I cannot take credit for that one. What a great play on words. I love the English language!

    Oh, and many thanks for saving my 666 spot. I’ll have to keep close tabs on this thread as it is at 650, now.

    June 27, 2009
  666. Peter Millin said:

    http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa

    Washington, D.C., June 26, 2009—The
    Competitive Enterprise Institute is
    today making public an internal study
    on climate science which was
    suppressed by the Environmental
    Protection Agency. Internal EPA email
    messages, released by CEI earlier in
    the week, indicate that the report was
    kept under wraps and its author
    silenced because of pressure to
    support the Administration’s agenda of
    regulating carbon dioxide.

    Wasn’t it Obama who said that we will put science before ideology?
    This whole climate change legislation is a scam designed to enrich some special interest groups.

    Most people (including me) want to leave a safer and cleaner environment for our children.
    Unfortunately it has been hijacked by lobby groups on BOTH sides.

    This should not be an issue that should be dictated by one narrow minded agenda it should be an approach where we should use ALL options.

    Example

    Why not explore our own oil and use the profits to explore alternatiives??
    It wouldn’t need a tax increase or other political motivated fees.

    June 29, 2009
  667. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter,

    Re #651 …

    I’m against suppressing informed scientific opinion on global warming (or on any other subject). If indeed the George Carlin (not that other one) in question had defensible views to contribute and was in some sense silenced, then that’s bad.

    But, Peter, I think you overreach badly in describing “this whole climate change legislation” as “a scam designed to enrich some special interest groups”.

    It’s one thing to acknowledge the fact (nothing new, by the way) that scientists aren’t literally unanimous on various questions about the extent, causes, and best strategies for addressing global warming. (George Carlin, by the way, is not a climate scientist but an economist — not that this necessarily invalidates his viewpoint.)

    It’s something else again to conclude that the whole thing is a cynical scam to enrich “special interests”, as you assert.

    For instance, here’s a quote from the National Academies of Science:

    In a joint statement, the science academies of the G8 countries, plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa, called on their leaders to “seize all opportunities” to address global climate change that “is happening even faster than previously estimated.” .. The academies … urged the G8+5 governments, meeting in Italy next month, to “lead the transition to an energy efficient and low carbon economy, and foster innovation and research and development for both mitigation and adaptation technologies.”

    More details at http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/

    It’s fine to disagree with these bodies, I suppose, but do you really believe, Peter, that all of these bodies are victims of a simple scam?

    June 29, 2009
  668. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    The way government and the likes of Al Gore have used some very vague theories is a scam.

    I am posting some quotes from the first Earth Day in 1970.

    Anything sound familiar??

    We have about five more years at the
    outside to do something.” • Kenneth
    Watt, ecologist

    “Civilization will end within 15 or 30
    years unless immediate action is taken
    against problems facing mankind.” •
    George Wald, Harvard Biologist

    “We are in an environmental crisis
    which threatens the survival of this
    nation, and of the world as a suitable
    place of human habitation.” • Barry
    Commoner, Washington University
    biologist

    “Man must stop pollution and conserve
    his resources, not merely to enhance
    existence but to save the race from
    intolerable deterioration and possible
    extinction.” • New York Times
    editorial, the day after the first
    Earth Day

    “Population will inevitably and
    completely outstrip whatever small
    increases in food supplies we make.
    The death rate will increase until at
    least 100-200 million people per year
    will be starving to death during the
    next ten years.” • Paul Ehrlich,
    Stanford University biologist

    “By…[1975] some experts feel that food
    shortages will have escalated the
    present level of world hunger and
    starvation into famines of
    unbelievable proportions. Other
    experts, more optimistic, think the
    ultimate food-population collision
    will not occur until the decade of the
    1980s.” • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford
    University biologist

    “It is already too late to avoid mass
    starvation.” • Denis Hayes, chief
    organizer for Earth Day

    “Demographers agree almost unanimously
    on the following grim timetable: by
    1975 widespread famines will begin in
    India; these will spread by 1990 to
    include all of India, Pakistan, China
    and the Near East, Africa. By the year
    2000, or conceivably sooner, South and
    Central America will exist under
    famine conditions….By the year 2000,
    thirty years from now, the entire
    world, with the exception of Western
    Europe, North America, and Australia,
    will be in famine.” • Peter Gunter,
    professor, North Texas State
    University

    “Scientists have solid experimental
    and theoretical evidence to
    support…the following predictions: In
    a decade, urban dwellers will have to
    wear gas masks to survive air
    pollution…by 1985 air pollution will
    have reduced the amount of sunlight
    reaching earth by one half….” • Life
    Magazine, January 1970

    “At the present rate of nitrogen
    buildup, it’s only a matter of time
    before light will be filtered out of
    the atmosphere and none of our land
    will be usable.” • Kenneth Watt,
    Ecologist

    Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich announces
    that the sky is falling. “Air
    pollution…is certainly going to take
    hundreds of thousands of lives in the
    next few years alone.” • Paul Ehrlich,
    Stanford University biologist

    “We are prospecting for the very last
    of our resources and using up the
    nonrenewable things many times faster
    than we are finding new ones.” •
    Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

    “By the year 2000, if present trends
    continue, we will be using up crude
    oil at such a rate…that there won’t be
    any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to
    the pump and say, Fill ‘er up,
    buddy,’ and he’ll say,
    I am very
    sorry, there isn’t any.’” • Kenneth
    Watt, Ecologist

    “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of
    the Smithsonian Institute, believes
    that in 25 years, somewhere between 75
    and 80 percent of all the species of
    living animals will be extinct.” •
    Sen. Gaylord Nelson

    “The world has been chilling sharply
    for about twenty years. If present
    trends continue, the world will be
    about four degrees colder for the
    global mean temperature in 1990, but
    eleven degrees colder in the year
    2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
    • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

    Point is the same stories are being warmed up today. This time the government will take advantage on this manufactured crisis adnd use it to collect more taxes.

    For thoe of you who think that the cap and trade tax will be used for the environment need to follow the money.

    June 29, 2009
  669. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter,

    You’ve cited some incorrect predictions. So what? Does this prove to you that all the science on global warming is incorrect?

    Moreover, you didn’t address my main question: Are the national science academies of the G8 and 5 other important countries all under the spell of some “scam”? Surely not …

    June 29, 2009
  670. Jane Moline said:

    Peter: some of the predictions may have come true if USA had not changed–I was here, in the USA in 1970. Love Canal (where the canal would burn, it was so polluted.) The only place you could see an eagle was in the Como Zoo–now they nest on our farm. There were virtually no big birds and no raptors. It was reaction to “Silent Spring” and the dire warnings of courageous scientists who made a difference.

    Yet we have 3M chemically polluting drinking water and EVERYBODY filters and tons buy bottled water for fear of pollutants. Global climate change is here, and we have more tornadoes. The hail-damaged cars from two years ago are still around, when the hail was the size of softballs. And cities flooded in Europe where they had not flooded for 800 years or more. Heat waves are killing people in DEVELOPED countries, from Chicago to Paris.

    I do not like to see any scientific information suppressed for political purposes. That was formerly the strategies of the Republican party, and I do not wish to see them mimicd by the current administration.

    However, it is dangerous to have a small, uneducated and uninformed minority continually reapeating that Global Climate Change is a hoax because their minister or their neighbor or some economist or Faux News talking head says so.

    June 29, 2009
  671. john george said:

    Paul Z.- I can’t speak for Peter, but because of past inacurate predictions made from

    Scientists have solid experimental and
    theoretical evidence to support

    type of statements, then I do have suspicions about the current claims. I think you have said that science doesn’t necessarily come to exact conclusions, but draws conclusions from analysis of current data, and continues to test that data. I can accept that. My take on the evidence of the last 40 years, all of which I have lived through, is that the scientific community still doesn’t completely understand all the mechanisms that they are observing. It seems aparent that the predictions listed above, based on presumed correct analysis of the data at that time, were proven false, and that the environment has mechanisms to heal itself better than we may give it credit for. Another example I cite is the condition of the Persian Gulf after the first Gulf war when many oil wells in Kuwait were set ablaze. I remember scientific opinions expressed at that time that it would take decades, if ever, for the Gulf to recover from the massive polution. It is interesting that within two years, there was no evidence of the polution. The ecosystems had been restored without the meddling of men. In fact, I think we give ourselves too much credit for creating the current climate change. For me, if the scientific community would present their analysis of the current problem with a little less certainty that they are 100% correct that it is man centered, then I would be able to receive their judgements a little easier. With their track record over the last few decades, I tend not to trust their conclusions. And that is just observations on my part.

    June 29, 2009
  672. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    You say that past inaccurate predictions lead you to “suspicions about the current claims.” Just to be clear, are you “suspicious” that some “current claims” could turn out to be false? or are you, like Peter, “suspicious” of hoaxes, scams, etc.? In the latter case, who’s behind the scam?

    June 29, 2009
  673. john george said:

    Paul Z.- I’m suspicious that some of the claims may be false. In fact, my opinion is that most of the claims that man has caused the current climate change are false. I don’t attribute this to any conspiracy, hoax, or scam. I believe the scientific community is sincere in its predictions. I just don’t think we have enough accurate information about climate collected over a long enough period of time to make some of the claims we are now making. This was the basis of many of the inacurate claims made in the ’70’s, and I think the problem still exists. I just believe Climatology as a science is still too young and inexperienced to be driving social, political and economic policies. I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water, but I think some of the responses to these predictions need to be tempered.

    June 29, 2009
  674. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    Sneaking up on 666 again …

    “Suspicious” to me suggests some element of hoax or skulduggery, but you seem to mean it in a more neutral sense. Fine — skepticism is (IMO) almost always good as regards scientific claims.

    And yet in the real world we almost always need to act without perfect knowledge. I could be crushed by a truck or a falling refrigerator on my walk to a meeting this morning, but I think I’ll risk it. And the weather looks clear now, but afternoon thunderstorms are frequent where I am, so maybe I’ll lug an umbrella along.

    So … does your suspicion that the preponderance of scientific opinion might be wrong mean to you that we should do nothing about it? What do you propose our policy should be?

    June 30, 2009
  675. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Yes, skepticism is probably a better term to describe where I am. I agree, we need to do something, but what? In all the data I have read, it appears that man’s contibutions to CO2 levels is about 3%. The steps being suggested appear to reduce this level by only about 1%. That appears to be like trying to dam up Niagra Falls with a teacup. If the climate change is a natural cycle, then we need to take a look at how this is going to affect our food and other resource production. I know there are constant efforts going on in our agriculture universities to develope new drought and insect resistant strains of crops. How much of the money being expended is being funneled into this research? I don’t just know, and partly because there is no focus on it. How much money is being focused on control of deseases that will be moving into the areas where they cannot now survive? Again, I don’t hear anyone talking about this. All the talk seems to be focused on driving electric cars and living off the land, as our forefathers did for centuries. See what I mean?

    June 30, 2009
  676. kiffi summa said:

    Read the article by Eliz. Kolbert in the June 29 “New Yorker” magazine, (p.39) about James Hansen. He is one of the preeminent climatologists in the world, and the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies.
    Other prominent scientists collect Mr. Hansen’s papers on global warming because they have been proven to be so accurate as well as prophetic. (i.e., Michael Oppenheimer at Princeton)

    How long does a science have to exist as a specific discipline to be credible?
    Should oncology be looked upon with scepticism … well, until when?

    Climatology, some of which is based on borings/coreings of ice that is thousands of years old, has a lot of evidentiary basis from times with no written record; those borings can be chemically evaluated, in laboratories with significantly accurate results.
    Should these icy records not be revelatory?

    When so many people are so willing to take serious matters, life-changing matters based on “faith’, I cannot comprehend those same people’s rejection of record achieved by scientific means.

    June 30, 2009
  677. Anthony Pierre said:

    you want a solution to stop global warming? stop eating beef. corn fed beef.

    Corn is another subject entirely, i could go on and on about how unhealthy it is for us and the environment.

    June 30, 2009
  678. Peter Millin said:

    if the basis for our current policies is “scientific” why are we silencing those that have a different point of view, just like the EPA did?

    Johannes Keppler was the one to believe that the earth wasn’t flat or the center of the universe. He did this against the majority of scientists at the time.
    He could excuted.

    I don’t question so much the integrity of the global warming scientists. I am pretty sure they mean well and are very smart people.
    I do question howvever the political remedy for it. Taxing people and dictacting behavior doesn’t seem very American to me.

    Especially while at the same time interest groups are filling their bank accounts with tax dollars.
    Al Gore and his venture capital group are to make billions from this legislation.

    Al Gore has every right to make as much money as he can, but this fact alone makes me take a step back and take note.

    The biggest irony here is that those who want to increase my cost of energy are the biggest users and polluters.
    I can’t remember the last time I took a 747 to go to a theater or went to a meeting using my Lear jet.
    Pelosi will still fly home to CA on her private jet, while I drive to work in a smart car.

    This whole issue is partially about saving the planet, but mostly about creating another revenue stream for our leaders.

    June 30, 2009
  679. john george said:

    I still side with Peter on this, although I don’t necessarily call the whole thing a conspiracy. Time will judge that. His refernce to Al Gore really touches a chord in me. Here is a person who was at the forefront in the ’70’s new ice age movement. Now, he is in the forefront of the global warming issue. He lives in a 10,000 square foot house that consumes the energy of a small town, and he supposedly doesn’t have a carbon footprint. Why? He supposedly buys his way out of it. This does nothing for conservation, nor changes the reality of the energy he consumes. I call this hypocricy. If we are supposed to consume less energy, then so be it, but let everyone do likewise. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    June 30, 2009
  680. David Henson said:

    Kiffi,
    “The World is coming to an End” is also a well documented theme throughout history and lots of power and be had by getting followers. Now any rational person would have to at least weigh up whether Global Warming (now Climate Change) is a new an innovative presentation of and old theme or real problem. Let’s see, its June 30th and 60 degrees outside today – I think I know where I would place my bet.

    The sad thing is I saw a reporter on CNN to a piece on the cold weather this summer and how we are 4 degrees below historical averages. The piece had nothing to do with Climate change but at the end she felt compelled to say, “but this has nothing to do with global warming as that happens over many years.” I felt the reporter was actually a bit fearful professionally about presenting FACTS which did not line up with liberal sensibilities and needed to tack on a little awkward disclaimer at the end in case she might get criticized.

    June 30, 2009
  681. john george said:

    Kiffi- One of the presumptions made in investigating the ice core samples is that snow and ice have always formed at the same rate over a given period of time. Unfortunately, this can only be verified by physical observations and measurements taken within the same time period in question. We unfortunately do not have that. One other piece of evidence we do have is that during the middle ages, the mean temperature during this timeperiod was higher than it is now. There is also evidence of crops being grown in Iceland and Greenland. This is indicative of climate cycles. The problem I have with the current analysis of data is the conclusion that the trend is all being produced by man.

    June 30, 2009
  682. john george said:

    Ok, Barry. Here is my 3rd. 666 post. Sorry, I just can’t think of anything anti Christ to say about it.

    June 30, 2009
  683. john george said:

    Anthony- Are you saying that we should eliminate all the cows and fields of corn? Hmmmmmmm. Still seems man centered to me. And if we are dealing with a natural cycle instead of a manmade phenominum, it will really have no effect on changing the cycle. I still say we are reacting to a wrong conclusion with the wrong solutions. The only bright side I see of this is that we may end up with some heretofore unknow source of energy. But if the food and medical industries cannot keep up with the changes, then it will be for naught.

    June 30, 2009
  684. kiffi summa said:

    As usual , John, you do not parse out the specificity, but operate on hyperbole.
    Of course there are climate cycles; no one disputes that.

    There is NO presumption that ice has always formed at the same rate in SCIENTIST’s minds because they recognize climate cycles as naturally occurring events.

    The specificity deals with the RATE of CO2 production as it occurs naturally, versus how that production rate is increased by specific activities, the burning of coal, gasoline combustion engines, etc.

    I frankly don’t give a diddly d* whether you believe in an escalated rate of climate change or not; it is the constant offering of hyperbole that confounds every discussion.

    June 30, 2009
  685. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter and John G:

    You’re certainly entitled to diss Al Gore and others for leading extravagant lifestyles, just as others enjoy seeing politicians who bray about family values getting caught down Argentina way. Have at it … . (But keep it factual, please — is there really any evidence, Peter, that Al Gore stands to rake in billions?)

    But let’s not lose sight, amid all the fun, of the real questions. Personal messups by the messengers don’t necessarily invalidate the messages themselves. Family values are Good Things even if too many brayers have betrayed them. And global warming is overwhelmingly regarded as a real problem — regardless of the personal virtues, failings, and sometimes snarkiness of its proponents and opponents.

    June 30, 2009
  686. john george said:

    Kiffi-

    As usual , John, you do not parse out
    the specificity, but operate on
    hyperbole.

    Sorry to be so dense, but what is the hyperbole? Is it perhaps this statement?

    The problem I have with the current
    analysis of data is the conclusion
    that the trend is all being produced
    by man.

    I thought I was being concise with this, but evidently not. I do not remember denying the climate change that is going on right now. I’m just skeptical of the conclusions that are being drawn and the policies that are being implemented from them.

    June 30, 2009
  687. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Iactually prefer the term “climate change” because I think it is a more inclusive term to describe what is going on. I think global warming is just a part of that process, but then, I am no scientist. What I see as the “problem” is how we are responding to what is going on, but that is just my opinion.

    June 30, 2009
  688. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    You asserted

    Al Gore and his venture capital group are to make billions from this legislation.

    and pointed to the link in #668 for background. Google, too, points out plenty of right-wing bloviation on Gore’s supposed iniquities. I certainly haven’t slogged through all of this dross, but the Bloomberg site, at least, gives no indication that Gore and co. are ready to siphon off billions. Millions, possibly, but billions are a thousandfold bigger.

    Is the difference unimportant?

    June 30, 2009
  689. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    I have read other reports on IBD and WSJ in regards to this. Pending on what you read estimates range from the millions to the billions.

    The final amount is really irrelevant it is the principle that counts.

    Follow the money.

    June 30, 2009
  690. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    I have read other reports on IBD and WSJ in regards to this. Pending on what you read estimates range from the millions to the billions.

    The billion dollar amount might have been related to the hedge fund as a whole.

    The final amount is really irrelevant it is the principle that counts.

    Again I am not necessarily disputing the climate change. Our climate has gone trough several changes in the past few million years and that won’t change..I just don’t like the remedy for it, especially when the most visible spokesman is set to profit from it.

    Isn’t it a bit strange that we pretend to know what our earth climate will look like in 100 years, if we are incapable of predicting the weather one week out??

    Follow the money.

    June 30, 2009
  691. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter and John G:

    Peter says:

    … I am not necessarily disputing the climate change. Our climate has gone trough several changes in the past few million years and that won’t change..

    Nobody disputes that climate has changed over geological time; that’s simply not the issue. The live questions are whether (i) human activity has or has had a role in climate change; and (ii) whether we can or should do something about climate change.

    You and John George appear to believe, despite an overwhelming (true, not unanimous) scientific opinion to the contrary, that the answers to (i) is “no”. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, of course. But … just wondering … could any scientific evidence change your opinion?

    Peter, says, too:

    I just don’t like the remedy …, especially when the most visible spokesman is set to profit from it.

    Granted, you don’t like Al Gore. But should we all forego trying to improve our own situation, just to spite Al?

    Even more:

    Isn’t it a bit strange that we pretend to know what our earth climate will look like in 100 years, if we are incapable of predicting the weather one week out?

    No. It’s not strange. Weather and climate are different. Please look it up.

    June 30, 2009
  692. john george said:

    Paul Z.- You state in post 672 that

    human activity has or has had a role (italics mine)
    in climate change.

    This is an entirely different position than stating that human activity is responsible for climate change. I have only read the latter verbage in the reports I have read. Every living thing on the surface of the earth has had a role in global warming.

    This is the problem I have with the interpretation of the figures. The data I have read (from the National Oceanographic website) is that man’s contribution to the whole has increased from ~ 2% to ~ 3% over the last 150 years or so. When this data is presented as a 50% increase (true), it seems overwhelming. But, in the context of the whole sum, 1% (also true) seems like a drop in the bucket. It is this data I determine my opinion from, not some religious scribe. I don’t have to be a scientist to figure this out.

    The other contributor, which I feel has been downplayed, is the non-organic based contributions of geologic activity. Mt St. Helens spewed more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all mankind contributed in about the whole century before the event, if I remember the figures correctly. I still contend that we are giving ourselves too much credit for the changes, and I don’t think our efforts are going to reverse the cycle, but I suppose it is still a matter of how one interprets the data.

    June 30, 2009
  693. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    Thanks for the reference to the “NOAA global warming report”; here’s the link (or Google on the quoted phrase):

    http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q1

    It looks like a useful resource; good on you for using it.

    As for human contributions to global warming (climate change, if you prefer, but note that the report you cite uses the GW moniker), perhaps I should have referred earlier to something like “substantial contribution” or “major contribution”. As you point out, all life and also non-life processes contribute to some degree to make up the climate, so the real questions are quantitative.

    You complain that the reports you have read say simply that human activity “is responsible” for climate change. That would indeed be simplistic, but the very NOAA report you cite presents the big picture you seem to have sought in vain, including many numbers that aim to quantify human contributions to the big picture.

    Indeed, you yourself observe that

    the data … (from the National Oceanographic website) is that man’s contribution to the whole has increased from ~ 2% to ~ 3% over the last 150 years or so.

    I don’t actually see these numbers on the website, but perhaps they’re implicit in some others there. Could you help me make sense of the 2% and 3% figures? (I don’t say they’re wrong, but I’d need to know a bit more to decide … what’s “the whole”, for instance?)

    Whatever these numbers may mean, your citation of them is hard to reconcile with your complaint that such comparative numbers never appear in “reports”.

    Finally, is 1% (or 2%) of anything really a “drop in the bucket”? It depends … if your bucket was formerly balanced between drips in from above and leaks out from below, then changing either rate even slightly could soon result either in overflowing or running dry. These things add up …

    July 1, 2009
  694. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    Our society used to kill people for certain opposing scientific views, because the majority thought them to be right.
    While the science might be settled in your mind..my mind is still open for alternative thoughts.
    If it’s such a clear cut case why does the EPA withold it’s own contrary reports?

    Some of the numbers presented by Hansen are duboius at best and he had to revise some of them already.
    Of course climate and weather are different but that’s not the point of my comment.
    My point was that we don’t know as much as we think we know. Human history is full of science gone array and foolish conclusion.
    It’s human arrogance to believe that we can predict climate change.
    If we take the whole age of earth’s existence..humans are but a footnote in that history.

    We have gone from the scare of an incoming ice age, to global warming and back to a cooling trend all within the last 30 years…the earth is how old???

    Just that should give us reason to be humble and thread carefully based on very narrow assumption.

    Like most people I am very much aware of our environment and thread carefully in everything I do…but I don’t have to drive a hybrid to prove it.

    July 1, 2009
  695. Barry Cipra said:

    john, I know you are the master of all things sulfurous (good job on posting #666, by the way!), but your volcanic memory serves you ill. A modest amount of googling would have spared you the embarrassment of propagating another discredited canard of the global warming denial cabal. Mankind’s annual CO2 contribution these days exceeds that of the Earth’s volcanoes by a factor of over 100.

    July 1, 2009
  696. john george said:

    Paul Z. & Barry C.- I couldn’t find the table in the NAOO site that I found last fall. Unfortunately, these sites seem to be updated (new, improved version?) occasionally, and this old dinosaur has a hard time finding things in new formats. I did find this link, which looks like what I found before, but the data is about 6 years old. The other charts I found were about 2 years old.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    I’ll keep looking for the other data as I have time.

    July 1, 2009
  697. john george said:

    Barry C.- What is a link to support your contention? I can’t find the tables on the NAOO site I had found before, but this link, unfortunately about 6 years old, has the same basic information.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    July 1, 2009
  698. john george said:

    Barry- Do you have a link for your info? I couldn’t find anything like that. I did find a link (though not the NAOO link I had before) with my figures. It is about 6 yrs. old, unfortunately, but the link I was looking for was about 2 years old.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    July 1, 2009
  699. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter,

    Skepticism is good, up to a point, but at some point it becomes its own kind of gullibility.

    To reject overwhelming scientific opinion on any matter, such as anthropogenic climate change, is of course your prerogative. And some few folks, like Galileo, did us all a big favor by going against the grain. But chiding others for scientific arrogance rings false when you dismiss as folly or bad science or attribute to greed the work of countless others.

    To repeat an earlier question (see #672), what would it take to convince you that global warming is real, and that we should try to alleviate?

    July 1, 2009
  700. john george said:

    Paul Z. & Barry C.- I’ve tried to post a couple links to some data I found about my position, but they are evidently snagged in Griff’s spam trap. Perhaps they will surface in the next day or so.

    July 1, 2009
  701. john george said:

    Paul- Is the balance in our atmosphere so sensitive that we are talking about titrating it? I wasn’t aware of that sensitive of a balance.

    As far as the “whole”, I was refering to the 100% of contributions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. A 50% increase of 2% of the total 100% seems quite small. That is why I used the titration analogy.

    July 1, 2009
  702. john george said:

    Barry- Do you have a link for this data comparing volcanic contributions to mans’ contributions? I tried posting mine, but, as I stated in my post 678, I think it got waylayed.

    July 1, 2009
  703. Paul Zorn said:

    John,

    Please explain, for us non-chemists, what your reference to “titration” means in this context. I don’t get it.

    Also, increasing 2% by 50% does indeed give 3%. But you attributed the “2% to 3% over 150 years” statistic itself to the NOAA source. I don’t see it there explicitly, so wondered whether you calculated it from some other numbers on that source. Can you explain?

    July 2, 2009
  704. David Henson said:

    Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming – Now Skeptics

    link

    July 2, 2009
  705. David Henson said:

    Something about retirement apparently frees people up to say what they really believe. I retired early from NASA over seven years ago to have more freedom to speak my mind on global warming

    link

    July 2, 2009
  706. Barry Cipra said:

    john, googling on “volcano carbon dioxide” or “volcano global warming” or “volcano greenhouse” or just about any such combination will produce a wealth of websites that discuss the comparison.

    July 2, 2009
  707. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    I am not questioning so much the existence of global warming or climate change. What I am questioning is the cause?
    Does the existence of humans have an influence on the climate? Probably.
    Is it to a degree that humans are a threat to the planet? I don’t know, because there is not enough evidence to confirm this.

    Does the current state of the planet require us to make irrational hasty decision, that will put our way of life under pressure? No.

    Is the only solution to the problem to make energy more expensive? No, because I don’t know anybody that willfully waste’s energy.

    We went form predictions of an ice age to Minnesota being turned in to the tropics within thirty years. Like today and back then we are convinced that this is true.
    I bought the hype back then I don’t buy it today.

    Fool me once…..you know the rest.

    July 2, 2009
  708. Anthony Pierre said:

    corn fed cows are sick meat. look it up, you will be surprised what you find.

    a lot of the corn grown (I would say upwards of 80%) is not used for human food.

    July 2, 2009
  709. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    You say:

    I am not questioning so much the existence of global warming … What I am questioning is the cause?
    Does the existence of humans have an influence on the climate? Probably. Is it to a degree that humans are a threat to the planet? I don’t know, because there is not enough evidence to confirm this.

    Your questions seem like the right ones, and indeed they’re among the questions addressed on the NOAA website mentioneed above (first by John G). Have you studied it?

    Whether there’s “enough evidence to confirm” that humans are a “threat to the planet” depends, of course, on what’s meant by “confirm” and “threat”. If “confirm” means “achieve absolute certainty and perfect accuracy” then no confirmation has been achieved — on this or virtually any other question in science. “Threat to the planet” also covers a lot of potential ground. What do you mean by it?

    Then:

    Does the current state of the planet require us to make irrational hasty decision, that will put our way of life under pressure? No.

    Your argumentative phrasing makes it hard to take your question seriously — nobody advocates deciding things hastily or irrationally. If you find particular policies hasty or irrational, we might discuss the matter seriously.

    More:

    Is the only solution to the problem to make energy more expensive? No, because I don’t know anybody that willfully wastes energy.

    Again you cook the books rhetorically.

    “Willful” waste is not at issue, and hiking energy costs need not be the “only” solution. But using price incentives to encourage conservation and development of new sources is the oldest technique in the econ playbook — and a fundamental tenet of conservative ideology. (A liberal like me shouldn’t have to argue this … )

    More:

    We went from predictions of an ice age to Minnesota being turned into the tropics within thirty years.
    … Fool me once…..you know the rest.

    Skepticism about scientific conclusions is fine. But (again!) in the real world a society needs to make concrete decisions about concrete policy options. Should we discourage hydrocarbon production through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade. Or should we continue doing what we’re doing (which is arguably subsidizing hydrocarbon use)? Should we give tax breaks for windpower, for solar, for both, or for neither? Should we encourage or forbid new nuclear power plants?

    Reasonable people can disagree on what’s best in all these cases, and (up to a point) on where the best available science points. But we should agree that doing nothing is a policy decision in its own right — and by no means obviously the “conservative” option. We should also agree that decisions (including decisions to do nothing, which may sometimes be right) should take serious account of the best available science.

    Sure, scientific opinion can be wrong or (more likely) incomplete. But it’s the best we’ve got.

    July 2, 2009
  710. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    Comment 660.1

    Anthony suggested not eating beef would help on global warming. Cattle do contribute to emissions. Anyone recall the percentage? The food/ag topic is of great interest to me, as you know. And yes, the meat from cornfed cattle has more saturated fat, is not good for you.

    July 2, 2009
  711. Anthony Pierre said:

    Livestock are responsible for 18
    percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as
    measured in carbon dioxide equivalent,
    reports the FAO. This includes 9
    percent of all CO2 emissions, 37
    percent of methane, and 65 percent of
    nitrous oxide. Altogether, that’s more
    than the emissions caused by
    transportation

    July 2, 2009
  712. Peter Millin said:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/01/sweetener-helped-sway-vote-on-house-climate-bill/print/

    Follow the money.

    NOAA is one source of information, which I have mostly read.
    However this agency is directly dependend on the politicians in power. Politicians decide funding and the size of the budget.
    I don’t question the integrity of the scientists working there, but they do question the political use of their research.
    Besides there is a growing community of scientists that oppose the IPPC.
    The EPA and others have tried to silence the opposition by completly dismissing their opinions. Comments like “The science on global warming is settled” (Al Gore), sound s a bit to absolute to me.

    So far the only real solution has been spending tax payers money, which we really don’t have. There is a lack of creativity on the side of DC of trying to come up with better solutions.

    By pushing only a certain segment of alternatives like biofuel, solar and wind, it creates a top down approach.
    It has become quiet obvious that netiher biofuels, solar and wind are the solution to replace oil, gas and coal in the long run. So why just support those??

    Why not support nuclear, gas and further oil exploration?

    Why not use profiits of domestic oil and use them to researrch alternatives?

    Why not build nuclear plants?

    The narrow view of what qualifies as acceptable for short, medium and long term solution is not driven by science. They are driven by lobby groups with a lot of money and a lot of power.
    They are quickly to dictate what’s best for us, without taking the steps to lead by example.

    Government directed market behavior has proven to be counter productive for the most part. Centralized decision making has failed and is doome to fail.

    Conservative ideology would let the market decide on what is next, without interference of government and lobby groups.

    The mindset of some eco groups is that humans are responsible for global warming. They almost sound like that humans are the source of all evil in regards to the environment.
    Especially conservatives that are heartless and don’t care about the environment at all. (sarcasm)

    These type of comments create resentment and are not condusive to solve these problems together.

    Washington has become a stage where the puppet masters of lobby groups are playing our politicians. Sorry that I don’t share the same faith in our government that you have.

    July 2, 2009
  713. Anthony Pierre said:

    france does a good job with nuclear power. look it up.

    July 2, 2009
  714. john george said:

    David H.- Good links. Thanks for sharing.

    July 2, 2009
  715. Peter Millin said:

    John Boehner sums it up pretty well here…..

    Anthony,

    I couldn’t agree any more with you.

    July 2, 2009
  716. Peter Millin said:

    Paul wrote:

    Your argumentative phrasing makes it
    hard to take your question seriously —
    nobody advocates deciding things
    hastily or irrationally. If you find
    particular policies hasty or
    irrational, we might discuss the
    matter seriously.

    After viewing this (see link below) do you really believe that this is rational and well thought out??

    July 2, 2009
  717. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    Your argumentative phrasing makes it
    hard to take your question seriously —
    nobody advocates deciding things
    hastily or irrationally. If you find
    particular policies hasty or
    irrational, we might discuss the
    matter seriously.

    July 2, 2009
  718. john george said:

    Paul Z.- The calculations are in the table I tried to link to in my post last night. I can’t get the blasted thing through Griff’s spam filter. I’ll try to find it again and manually type it in.

    Titration is an exacting method to determine the pH of a solution. It is done drip by drip of two solutions, one acidic, one basic. One drip either way can throw the mix off. You use phenalthaline in the solution. It will turn pink or clear, depending on the pH level. By calculating the volumes of the acid & basic solutions used, you can determine their concentration, if I remeber the whole procedure correctly. It’s been many years since I did this.

    July 2, 2009
  719. Paul Zorn said:

    John,

    Thanks for the definition of a titration. What’s its relevance to the present discussion? (Sorry to be dense … I really don’t understand.)

    July 2, 2009
  720. David Henson said:

    So the senate wants to fine anybody who does not purchase health insurance $1000.00. This is the worst possible legal construction I can imagine.

    July 2, 2009
  721. john george said:

    Paul Z.- I don’t think you are being dense. I was just using a chemical testing proceedure that is affected by very small inputs. I was likening these minute inputs to the small input that man’s contribution to the atmosphere appears to be. I thought you might be familiar with it. Didn’t mean to cause confusion.

    July 3, 2009
  722. john george said:

    David H.- Are you kidding me? I haven’t seen that little detail as I haven’t read the whole thing. If that is the case, then what happens to the people who cannot now afford coverage? Are they somehow expected to magically be able to afford coverage after the bill is passed? Scheesh!

    It sounds a little like the cap and trade bill being pushed through congress right now. If a company cannot demonstrate that it is going “green” with its particular processes, then it is going to be fined or have to change the process. Small companies whose production processes do not happen to line up with these governmentally imposed standards will be forced to raise their prices and become incompetitive, put mucho dollars into R & D to find a new process (which they do not have) or go out of business. Large companies who can afford the fines will just pay them and continue on their merry way, and in the process, eliminate competiton from smaller companies. This sounds just like what usually happens when government policies try to micro-manage the private sector.

    Take a look at the political cartoon in the Strib today. I think it is pretty indicative of what is going on.

    July 3, 2009
  723. Peter Millin said:

    The cap and tax bill has a provision that will affect all homeowners directly.
    Based on that provision, all homeowners have to retrofit their homes to meet “green standards” before they can sell it.

    That provision really should help the housing market.

    July 3, 2009
  724. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    In ref to 674.5 …

    Thanks for the explanation re titration’s connection to the climate change matter.

    Again, I’m no chemist, but it seems to me that the titration-related ideas (sensitively balanced mixtures, small inputs having dramatic effects, etc.) argue mainly for caution rather than nonchalance about the possibility of climate change.

    I think you’re right to focus on the size and importance of “man’s contribution” to climate change. If it’s insignificant (or even if it’s significant but truly out of our control) then let’s worry about other things.

    Gauging the size of “man’s contribution” is a live science, and so it’s natural and inevitable (and good!) that “best estimates” change as new data and knowledge are acquired. Some people (not you, I think) seem to see such number-tweaking as evidence that climate science (and climate scientists) are wrong, deluded, cynical, or greedily “following the money”. But that’s how science works — and why it works, for that matter.

    So much said, there’s a lot of information readily available that addresses the size of “man’s contribution”. The NOAA site you cited earlier, for instance, has this (and a lot more):

    Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. …

    It might seem strange that a small fraction like 380 parts per million of anything could matter much, but of course it can — as your titration metaphor nicely illustrates. For a more striking illustration, see this:

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-bathtub-effect/

    (Google “dot earth bathtub” if the link dies.)

    From the NYT, this discusses to “a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluding that the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases could leave a profound millenniums-long imprint on climate and sea levels, focuses on a characteristic of global warming that the public, and many policymakers, have not absorbed”.

    And there’s a cool video (but even the author suggests you skip to minute 18).

    July 3, 2009
  725. john george said:

    Paul Z.- I think you and I are actually approaching the whole subject of global warming similary, but perhaps from different perspectives. I don’t here you saying things like “The science on global warming is settled” (Al Gore), if he indeed did say this. The big question for both of us is how we respond to what is going on, for there are definitely changes happening. That is something I can live with, and I appreciate people who allow caution. That is different than denial. If there were not changes being reported in the various data that comes out, then we wouldn’t be viewing change. But I think the data demonstates that the atmosphere is probably not a static entity, and I think our understanding of the mechanics of these variables is growing as we investigate them further. How the variables will work out in the future is yet to be seen. I have a little plaque my wife gave me many years ago. It says that a mistake is evidence that someone tried to do something, and the “ing” bends down the side of the plaque. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best, as they say. Lets just hope that if we do make a mistake, it is not irreversable.

    July 3, 2009
  726. David Henson said:

    John, I think there is an allowance for the very poor but if you have an extra $1000.00 then Obama will be taking it as a fine unless you tow the line (but hey that is not a tax [scratching head]!). The deal is if you are young and healthy they do not want you to opt out of the system. This mandate thing is really ugly before long going to the movies will be beyond the budget of the middle class.

    July 3, 2009
  727. john george said:

    David H.- I think the age aspect of this is really interesting. The studies I have seen indicate that 80+% of a person’s health care expenditures are paid out in the last 20 or so years of their life. What happens to us old farts when we start getting expensive? I’ve discussed that in some earlier posts.

    July 3, 2009
  728. Peter Millin said:

    Gauging the size of “man’s
    contribution” is a live science, and
    so it’s natural and inevitable (and
    good!) that “best estimates” change as
    new data and knowledge are acquired.
    Some people (not you, I think) seem to
    see such number-tweaking as evidence
    that climate science (and climate
    scientists) are wrong, deluded,
    cynical, or greedily “following the
    money”. But that’s how science works —
    and why it works, for that matter.

    Paul,

    I apologize for the lack of my communication skills. The statement above shows me that I completely missed making my point.

    Some posts back I stated that I am not questioning the sincerity of the scientists involved or he data collected up to this point.
    My concern is the political use of that data. We have an armada of politician and bureaucrats shaping policy on something they don’t understand themselves.

    Most of these policy decisions are shaped by interest groups of various political agendas.
    Given the seriousness of these issues it concerns me that lobby groups exert that much influence.

    If you take a look at the way the cap and trade tax was passed, doesn’t it concern you that it was passed without most of us knowing what’s in there.
    Don’t we all deserve (including politicians) to know what is being passed.
    Do you really believe that John Kline knows whats in the bill?

    I am sorry but if I see such irresponsible behavior of our elected officials I can’t help but think that something is wrong here.

    All this doesn’t mean I am putting my head in the sand and whistle in the dark hoping it will all go away.
    This is a serious issue and we should demand that our elected officials treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

    July 3, 2009
  729. Felicity Enders said:

    WTF???!??!?!!!

    Sarah Palin just out-weirded any of the weird things she has done in the past – she just resigned. This is a true must-see:
    http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2872630

    Perhaps one of the Republicans on this board can explain this one to me.

    Near as I can tell, she seems to be resigning in order to hike the Appalachian Trail.

    July 3, 2009
  730. Patrick Enders said:

    WTF???!??!?!!!

    Sarah Palin just out-weirded any of the weird things she has done in the past – she just resigned. This is a true must-see:
    http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2872630

    Perhaps one of the Republicans on this board can explain this one to me.

    Near as I can tell, she seems to be resigning in order to hike the Appalachian Trail.

    July 3, 2009
  731. Patrick Enders said:

    Oops. That was me.

    July 3, 2009
  732. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    I agree with a lot of your points in #693, especially about the big question being how to respond to the “definite changes” you mention. I agree, too that caution (a good thing) is not the same thing as blanket denial of global warming or attribution of all the fuss to folly or greed.

    But (surprise!) a couple of caveats:

    1. I don’t know the context of Al Gore’s quote (if indeed it happened) about the science being “settled”, so have no direct comment on it. But there’s a serious sense in which, IMO, the science is settled. There’s little doubt that the climate is changing (warming, on average), that CO2 is involved, and that human activities have helped raise CO2 to levels unprecedented in 100K’s of years. Specific numbers are always debatable, but these general conclusions are as clear as science gets.

      1. I’m not sure what you mean by people who “allow” caution. It’s a free country, so we don’t need permission to hold opinions, right or wrong.

      2. A better question for me is what’s properly meant by “caution”. Climate change deniers (not you) and minimizers sometimes congratulate themselves for being cautious, prudent, level-headed, etc. But doing nothing or doing little may be anything but cautious, like a canoeist on the Niagara River, ignoring the roaring sound ahead until it’s absolutely, positively clear what’s making the sound.

    July 3, 2009
  733. john george said:

    Paul Z.- According to Peter’s link in 695 above, Gore did indeed say this. One thing I see in the debate, and I can’t tell from the context of Gore’s presentation, is whether the “settled” science is that global warming is occuring or that it is all caused by human contributions. That is the issue I contend with, is that all the increases of CO2 are human caused.

    This is how I look at caution. If we put all our eggs in one basket, just trying to reduce human contributions, will we be able to reverse the direction the atmosphere is going? This is the point that I do not believe is “settled” science. If we expend a lot of money this direction and it proves ineffective, then will we be too late to respond to the real causes? One of the problems I have with the whole idea of cap and trade is that those companies that have high emissions but can afford to “buy credits”, as Al Gore seems to be doing, do nothing to reduce the emissions. This does nothing to rectify the problem.

    If there is a natural cycle that is driving this increase in temperature, then our paltry efforts will not change anything. What research is being done to help populations adapt to the changes in their climate regions? We know that there are relatively narrow ranges in which some crops are actually able to produce. What happens when these begin to fail in areas that rely heavily upon their production? The same thing can be said about certain deseases and our resistance to them in certain climate ranges.

    I would think there would be wisdom in responding to some of these questions rather than claiming with certainty that the temperature rise can be reversed. That is how I define caution.

    July 3, 2009
  734. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    Yes, Peter’s link in #695 does quote Gore as referring to “settled science”. As far as I can tell Gore was entirely correct in the context (sketchily) described. A lot of the science really is settled, as you’ve noted. If Gore was “claiming with certainty that the temperature rise can be reversed”, as you put it, then that might be questionable (again depending on context) but I see no reason to interpret Gore’s utterance that way.

    In any event, the blogosphere loves to get all worked up about vague sound bites like this one. Depending on context, Gore could have been right or wrong, measured or intemperate, sage-like or crazy. Who cares?

    It’s fair to ask, as you do, how effective (and cost-effective, for that matter) investing in reduced “human contributions” can be. Presumably this has something to do with the size of “human contributions” compared to other factors. But here, too, there is substantial science available (see, e.g., the terrific, highly recommended, thoroughly watchable, gotta-see-this MIT-sponsored video discussions at

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-bathtub-effect/

    (I gave the same URL in #692, in case this one chokes.)
    Look for yourself, but the message seems clear that we are messing up the environment big-time, that we should and can hope to alleviate the problem substantially, and that doing nothing is the most reckless plan of all.

    Your warning against putting all eggs in one anti-warming basket is well taken, but I haven’t heard anyone advocate such a thing. Have you? Research on crop development in drying regions has been going on for some time, for instance. Google on ICRISAT, for instance.

    As for cap and trade, I’d much rather have a carbon tax (perhaps rebated elsewhere in the economy). But cap and trade is probably better than nothing. Your worry that big polluters will simply buy credits and nothing will change is, IMO, unfounded — and directly counter to the logic of free-market capitalism. If the fat cats won’t do the right thing, no worries — we just raise the price.

    July 4, 2009
  735. Peter Millin said:

    If the fat cats won’t do the right
    thing, no worries — we just raise the
    price.

    Which then becomes a cost of goods and will be paid by the consumer.

    On a side note:

    I find it quiet amusing how some rally against the “big bad corporations” . Completly ignoring the fact that most people’s 401K’s hold stock n some of them.
    The companies peformance will have a direct impact on their own retirement account.

    It is safe to say that the days of single ownnership of large cosporations are pretty much over.

    So the abstract of the “monopoly guy” doesn’t work anymore..ignorance (and I don’t mean you Paul Z) is our most expensive commodity (Rush Limbaugh).

    July 6, 2009
  736. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    Re #700 …

    The context of my “fat cats” remark was in answer to John G, who worries that a cap and trade policy on carbon emissions will fail because rich companies will just buy up all the credits and not reduce emissions. My answer was meant to convey that if this were to happen the price of credits could always be raised to the point where they really do deter emissions.

    Yes, higher prices do tend to make their way to consumers. (The costs associated with pollution—environmental cleanup, health costs, etc. — also make their way to us, as citizens. But that’s another discussion.)

    Higher cost to consumers for some technologies is not a flaw in the cap and trade argument: it’s the whole point! If, say, high-priced emission credits force up the consumer price of coal-generated electricity, then lower-emission technologies (wind, solar, tide, geothermal, LoGroNo hot air, perhaps nuclear) get a relative boost, and that’s a good thing. That’s the way market competition works.

    As I’ve said elsewhere, I’d prefer a carbon tax. That would be simpler, less bureaucratic, and more free market oriented than a cap and trade system. With such a tax, as with emissions credits, prices of some things would rise relative to others, exactly as intended. We could even rebate some or all of the carbon tax receipts back into the economy.

    (Conservatives ought to love the carbon tax idea, but for some reason they don’t. Too many, I’d guess, are either in denial or run screaming from anything that involves the T-word.)

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at as regards the virtues or flaws of corporations. Re this:

    … the days of single ownership of large corporations are pretty much over.

    Well, yes. But then those “days” never actually started, because corporations are by definition owned by groups of investors.

    July 6, 2009
  737. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    I have to go back to my previous points.

    1) Based on everything I read none of the biofuels will be able to replace coal, gas and oil. Which means spending our energy and resources on biofuels alone seems like a foolish thing to do.
    Why not use nuclear and clean coal? Or find a way to use our vast natural gas supplies? Even Pickens would agree with that.

    2) Why not explore domestic oil, coal and gas and use the money to invest in future energy?
    If all we do is raise our energy costs while China, India and others don’t, we will lose further manufacturing jobs to those countries.
    The US has a hard time competing on labor cost already, why make cost of energy another obstacle?

    Spain should be enough of a warning to us.

    July 6, 2009
  738. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    One final thought, not from me but from a great American :

    Society in every state is a blessing,
    but Government, even in its best
    state, is but a necessary evil; in its
    worst state an intolerable one: for
    when we suffer, or are exposed to the
    same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which
    we might expect in a country WITHOUT
    GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened
    by reflecting that we furnish the
    means by which we suffer

    July 6, 2009
  739. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    Re #702:

    Based on everything I read none of the biofuels will be able to replace coal, gas and oil. Which means spending our energy and resources on biofuels alone seems like a foolish thing to do.

    Yes, it would be foolish. Fortunately, nobody has suggested this.

    Why not use nuclear and clean coal?

    If coal can be made really clean, let’s do it. But there’s some dispute … . I’m not necessarily opposed to nuclear, if due diligence is observed (that’s a tall order, but possibly attainable).

    Or find a way to use our vast natural gas supplies?

    Are there indeed “vast” untapped natural gas supplies? Where?

    If all we do is raise our energy costs while China, India and others don’t, we will lose further manufacturing jobs to those countries.

    Do you know what gasoline costs in India? Check it out.

    You might also check out Thomas Friedman’s latest editorial at the NY Times … it seems the Chinese threaten to “clean our clock” on eco-smart industry. Go figure.

    July 6, 2009
  740. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    Re #703 …

    Yes, Thomas Paine was a great American, and had very bad things to say about government at its worst.

    May I assume that, as a Paine-supporter, you’re also good with some of his recommendations (cribbed from Wikipedia)?

    • a guaranteed minimum income
    • a representative government with enumerated social programs to remedy the numbing poverty of commoners through progressive tax measures
    • governmental old-age pensions
      Here’s a quote:

    … it is a right, and not a charity . . . [Government must] create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property. And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

    Welcome to the liberal camp.

    July 6, 2009
  741. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    You won’t hear me argue against a minimum wage, as long as we remember that it isn’t a living wage, big difference.

    It is humane (not liberal) to support those who need help when falling on bad times, no argument here.
    Does that mean we should create dependency instead of teaching skills? Should we raise generations being dependend on wellfare and other social services, regardless of their needs?
    This is a good example of what Paine referred in my posted quote. Good intentions tend to create a mess if not controlled and observed.

    Governmental old age pensions even in countries with a sophisticated system has turned in to a budget nightmare. Mostly driven by the fact that people live longer then they used too.
    Even then the current pensions can’t keep up with inflation.

    In the best of worlds most people would love to have a government employee health care and pension benefit program.
    A lot of the budget problems in CA are created by the pension commitments made by the counties to their employees.
    Looking at the current liabilities it creates for most states, it seems obvious that it is not sustainable, unless we raise taxes to an European level.
    Giving the inefficencies of government programs I rather invest that money on my own and take my chances.

    I

    July 7, 2009
  742. Peter Millin said:

    http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

    Conserving and harnessing renewable
    forms of electricity not only has
    incredible economic benefits, but is
    also a crucial piece of the oil
    dependence puzzle. We should continue
    to pursue the promise of electric or
    hydrogen powered vehicles, but America
    needs to address transportation fuel
    today. Fortunately, we are blessed
    with an abundance of clean, cheap,
    domestic natural gas.

    Natural gas is not a permanent or
    complete solution to imported oil. It
    is a bridge fuel to slash our oil
    dependence while buying us time to
    develop new technologies that will
    ultimately replace fossil
    transportation fuels. Natural gas is
    the critical puzzle piece that will
    help us to keep more of the $350 to
    $450 billion we spend on imported oil
    every year at home, where it can power
    our economy and pay for our
    investments in wind energy, a smart
    grid and energy efficiency.

    July 7, 2009
  743. Peter Millin said:

    Sorry to post again, but I forgot this one from the POTUS himself

    “Under my plan of cap and trade,
    electricity rates will necessarily
    skyrocket”. President Barack Obama /
    Jan 2008, in an interview with the San
    Franciso Chronicle

    July 7, 2009
  744. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    In #705 I sought to gauge your admiration for Thomas Paine, whom you’d quoted earlier and who advocated a government-guaranteed minimum income.

    In #706 you wrote:

    You won’t hear me argue against a minimum wage, as long as we remember that it isn’t a living wage, big difference.

    Do you think Thomas Paine would have recognized this “big difference”? I suspect he had something like a livable income in mind …

    And then:

    It is humane (not liberal) to support those who need help when falling on bad times, no argument here.

    You don’t have to be liberal to be humane. But it’s liberal, not just humane, to want the government, not just private charity, to support people in need. This is clearly what Paine had in mind and so he was indeed, in this respect at least, a liberal.

    And then:

    Does that mean we should create dependency instead of teaching skills? Should we raise generations being dependent on welfare and other social services, regardless of their needs?

    No. Why do you ask?

    July 7, 2009
  745. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    Re #710, all about skyrocketing electric rates under cap and trade …

    Yes, then-candidate Obama did use the sky-word when campaigning in early 2008. For a moderately nuanced discussion of this matter, Google “politifact skyrocket”. In particular, Politifact considers how much rates might actually rise (“skyrocket” isn’t exactly a precise term) under cap and trade. These things can’t be known perfectly in advance, but the Republican estimate of $3100 per family annually is shown to be absurd (and earned the R’s a “Pants on Fire” award); the MIT estimate was a bit above $300 and the CBO somewhat higher.

    But …

    What exactly is your point, Peter? Do you oppose any public expenditure in the cause of greenhouse gas mitigation? And do you simply deny, or not see, any “benefits” side to the ledger in spending to reduce carbon emissions?

    (If so, you’ve got company. Polls I’ve read suggest widespread belief in climate change as a serious problem — and widespread opposition to spending tax money to address the problem. See, e.g., the same MIT-produced video I’ve been ranting about … Google “dot earth bathtub” .)

    July 7, 2009
  746. Peter Millin said:

    What exactly is your point, Peter? Do
    you oppose any public expenditure in
    the cause of greenhouse gas
    mitigation? And do you simply deny, or
    not see, any “benefits” side to the
    ledger in spending to reduce carbon
    emissions?

    No I don’t but why with taxes?

    2) Why not explore domestic oil, coal
    and gas and use the money to invest in
    future energy?

    July 8, 2009
  747. Peter Millin said:

    Do you think Thomas Paine would have
    recognized this “big difference”? I
    suspect he had something like a
    livable income in mind …

    So with this in mind should a minimum wage be equal to the national average of income? (not sure what the current number is)
    Would this mean that wellfare should be at the same level?
    It is my understanding that the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. Most people have to start their working career somewhere, the minimum wage ensured that those people are not being taken advantage off. Most people with any tpe of ambition wouldn’t stay on a minimum wage job anyway.

    You don’t have to be liberal to be
    humane. But it’s liberal, not just
    humane, to want the government, not
    just private charity, to support
    people in need. This is clearly what
    Paine had in mind and so he was
    indeed, in this respect at least, a
    liberal.

    Agreed, but where do we draw the line? When does government help become a crutch rather then a starting block?

    Thomas Paine like most people had good and bad ideas. I take good ideas regardless of where they come from.

    If socialist policies and government run economies would be succesful then most of the Eastern Bloc countries would be economic powerhouses and you and I would call each other comrades.

    History tells us otherwise. Centralized planning leads to failure.

    July 8, 2009
  748. Jerry Friedman said:

    Stephanie: Sorry for the delay in answering.

    A few years ago, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations published “Livestock’s Long Shadow” which claimed that all livestock, particularly cows, contribute about 12% of human-caused (anthropogenic) greenhouse gasses, particularly carbon dioxide and methane.

    According to Wiki, “The report states that the livestock sector is one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.”

    Also according to Wiki, “agricultural byproducts” are the source of 12% of human-caused greenhouse gasses. I’ve seen this number in other reports, such as the UN report, but I haven’t found Wiki’s source. By comparison, Wiki says that transportation emissions account for 14%. Note however that some transportation emissions come from the agricultural industry, and roughly 10% of agriculture grows plants for human consumption. Based on these sources, it’s safe to say that livestock greenhouse gasses, including transportation and excluding plant-only agriculture, is roughly around 12%.

    Last week, I spoke with a co-author of a yet-to-be-published article that claims the 12% number is too small. The article faults the UN report for not considering several important factors, such as the effect of returning rural land used for feeding cows to a natural state. Since land used for raising cows, including their food, occupies about 90% of all rural land, if we eliminate or drastically reduce eating cows, the gasses from cows will come out of the greenhouse equation and, as article explains, if we return all or a lot of the 90% of rural land back to its natural state, that land will absorb and breakdown even more greenhouse gasses. The UN report failed to consider restoring the unused rural land. The article also criticized the UN report for considering only CO2, when it should have also considered methane. The UN report failed to address other factors. Hence, if the article is correct, the 12% statistic is deceptively smaller than the real amount. (The article is expected to be published in the World Watch Magazine later this year.)

    Obviously there are a lot of politics involved. Returning rural land to its natural state, reducing or stopping humans consuming other animals, are not subjects taken lightly. If you want to discuss the data, that’s easy. If you want to discuss making it happen on a global scale, that’s a lot of work.

    Incidentally, it really doesn’t matter if corn-fed cows have more saturated fat. Eating animals increases the risk of all sorts of diseases. Focusing on a small change in saturated fat won’t make anyone safer from the several diseases that animal flesh causes. Shooting yourself with a slightly smaller bullet doesn’t really help your longevity.

    July 8, 2009
  749. Jerry Friedman said:

    I recall 12% from the FAO. Do you have a cite for the 18%?

    July 8, 2009
  750. Jerry Friedman said:

    Jane: We agree, but remember that the Democratic party also modifies the news for its own agenda. The Republicans have done so more outrageously, or so it seems, but both parties are guilty of doing it.

    July 9, 2009
  751. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: A few things. Assuming the current climate change is entirely natural, humans are still known to contribute to greenhouse gasses, so humans are aggravating the natural change. A natural increase of two degrees centigrade might be 2.1 or more because of humans. I don’t see that it matters what the ultimate cause is if humans are known to be contributing to it. Humans can also work to reverse natural climate change, such as to change a natural two degree increase to 1.9 degrees or less, instead.

    That only assumes that the increase is not caused by humans. The bulk of evidence is that humans are the cause. Maybe nature is increasing the temperature 0.1 degrees and humans are adding 1.9 on top of that.

    My second observation, which I think we discussed before, is how much change affects us? You have remarked that a 50% increase, from 2 to 3, does not seem like much. It doesn’t. But it doesn’t take much for problems to result. For example, it doesn’t take a pound of cyanide to kill a human, but a tiny fraction of a human’s mass is lethal. While cyanide might be a dramatic example, the point is that it doesn’t take a large percentage to threaten life on the planet. Slight changes cause the Earth to absorb more heat from the sun, and that energy will be released in more dramatic weather. It will directly kill organisms that are very sensitive to temperature, which affects the entire food chain. All this means that sustained small changes are bad.

    I enjoyed the Twilight Zone episode, “Midnight Sun”, which is about the Earth losing orbit around the sun and slowly plummeting into it. Please don’t wait for this type of crisis to act. Small changes may not seem to be that lethal, but if people respond en massé to small changes by ignoring them, the two will have a similar effect.

    Everyone can act now to stop and reverse climate change. Stop eating animals. Switch to zero or low emission vehicles (bicycle!) and avoid petroleum products whenever possible. Start a vegetable garden and buy local. Buy less packaging. Reduce is better than reuse, reuse is better than recycle, and recycle is better than trash. Let business owners know your preferences, so they can accommodate. Demand meaningful changes from your local, state and federal gov’ts. Advise your friends and neighbors to do the same.

    Small changes in our consuming habits is not enough, but think about the small things too. For example, I have stopped using straws with beverages. Straws are single-use petroleum products that are typically trashed. We should be deliberate consumers mindful of our role in the world, not passive consumers who rush to buy whatever the market wants to sell.

    July 9, 2009
  752. Paul Zorn said:

    Thanks, Peter, for the info on hybrid power plants. Sounds like a sensible idea to me, at least in principle. In fact, I believe that some existing power plants have been in this sense “hybrid” for many years — able to run on natural gas, oil, whatever’s cheapest at the moment. But adding ingredients like solar may be something new.

    Every serious analysis I’ve seen on greening up power generation requires a mix of energy sources and technologies — along with conservation and adoption of more efficient technologies by users. The particular mixture will change over time as we learn more about costs and benefits of different technologies, including established ones, like coal and oil.

    IMO public discussion on energy, climate change, and related issues usually needs more and clearer quantitative information. Words like “a lot” and “too expensive” and “skyrocketing” get buzz, but we really need to know things like “how big?” and “how expensive?” and “compared to what?”.

    Should homeowners install geothermal heating or rooftop solar panels? Either way, should they expect financial payback or do it for “green” reasons? Should power utilities build huge wind farms in remote places or smaller ones closer to the demand? What do different sources for electricity cost now, including implicit or explicit subsidies? What do we think they’ll cost 20 years from now?

    These are hard questions, and reasonable people will disagree (up to a point) on the answers. But a lot is known, if one is willing to look for it.

    An excellent resource, which I keep mentioning ad nauseam, is the freely downloadable book “Without Hot Air”

    http://www.withouthotair.com

    (or Google on the title) by the U. Cambridge physicist David MacKay. You don’t need to read the whole thing, though it’s interesting and fast-paced. MacKay seems to be a distinguished scientist, and for sure he’s a fine science writer. Start with the 10-page synopsis (downloadable from the same site).

    Quiz question: How much power — in all forms and for all purposes — does an average American use daily? Give your answer in kilowatt-hours (kWh). How much does an average Western European use?

    Hint: Xcel sells a kWh for about 10 cents.

    July 9, 2009
  753. Paul Zorn said:

    In case anyone’s still following the Mt-St-Helens-CO2 “debate” …

    I’m interested because I lived in Seattle in 1980, when the mountain blew, and deposited anything up to a foot of ash in a broad swath of Washington state. (Seattle itself mainly escaped, thanks to Mt Rainier being in the way.) There was concern then about the possibly dangerous chemistry of that ash. It certainly caused temporary problems, as would any fine particulate matter, but to my knowledge presented few long-term bad effects on soil chemistry.

    John George suggested that

    … Mt St. Helens spewed more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all mankind contributed in about the whole century before the event, if I remember the figures correctly.

    but this stat overestimates St Helen’s contribution by a factor of about 10,000, as Barry pointed out (and gave references for). Sulfur dioxide might been a (slightly) larger concern, but again nothing on the suggested scale.

    My point is not to dump on John G. There are tons of numerical factoids, mostly false or meaningless or misleading, flying around the Web, propelled largely by political spin (if we could harness that energy our problems would be over), and it’s hard to separate wheat from chaff. I’ve bit down on some stones myself.

    My point is that, difficult to verify or not, good numbers do matter — including numbers that estimate margins of error. Nature speaks to us in numbers (he said sententiously) and we ignore them at our peril (sententious again, but what the heck?).

    July 9, 2009
  754. john george said:

    Jerry- Good to have oyu back in the discussion, again. I hope your move went well.

    You said

    Everyone can act now to stop and
    reverse climate change.

    It is these types of claims that I question, just given the percentages. I really question whether we can actually reverse the changes we see going on. If our total contribution was a greater percentage, then I could believe it. I don’t think your analogy of a small percentage of cyanide being lethal is an accurate analogy to CO2. CO2 is inert in its interaction with our body systems. Cyanide certainly is not. The amount of CO2 concentration we would have to experience to be lethal is pretty high. I have not seen interpretations of the data that convince me that we can actually reverse the current changes. I offered some examples in an earlier post about predictions that were off. I’m not saying we should bury our heads in the sands of denial, and being more energy/polutant conservative has no harm. But I think there are better things to be considered in helping people to adapt to the climate changes. What happens when the temperature rises another few degrees and we then decide that all our efforts were a waste of time and money? Then we are caught with our pants down and it is too late for some populations to be able to adapt in their particular area. That is what I think needs more investigation.

    July 9, 2009
  755. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Good comment here

    if we could harness that energy our
    problems would be over

    I agree. Thanks for allowing me to try to separate the “wheat from the chaff.” That is what I hope to accomplish in following this blog. There are definitely more learned people than I out there who investigate these things, but I am still wary of the doomsdayers. I still think there is credible evidence of past climatic changes that have righted themselves. I think we men give ourselves too much credit.

    July 9, 2009
  756. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    This is in ref to #701.3 … it’s hard to navigate through these hundreds of messages, so I’m just appending this to the end of the scroll.

    You said, in reply to Jerry F:

    I really question whether we can actually reverse [my italics] the changes we see going on. If our total contribution was a greater percentage, then I could believe it.

    Again (see #702) I’m puzzled by your puzzlement: First, the science says quite clearly (including from sources, like NOAA, that you yourself have cited) that human contributions are significant, not tiny. Second, human contributions—even if relatively small—to a closely balanced system, like a leaky bathtub with a dripping faucet, can indeed accumulate over long periods to dangerous levels. Where’s the mystery?

    In any event, the question of whether we can literally reverse warming is interesting, but no more so, IMO, than whether we can slow warming or mitigate its effects. You seem to feel that nothing short of outright reversal is worthwhile, but I don’t follow the logic. Wouldn’t slowing GW, or halting its advance, at least buy us more time to learn to live with it?

    And then:

    … What happens when the temperature rises another few degrees and we then decide that all our efforts were a waste of time and money?

    Why would we decide such a thing? The GW ship already has momentum, so we can’t hope to turn it, much less stop it, on a dime. Perhaps our efforts, time, and money will buy us less global warming rather than none at all. That could still be well worthwhile.

    July 9, 2009
  757. Jerry Friedman said:

    John and Paul: I agree with Paul.

    From a practical standpoint, if we don’t know whether we can reverse climate change, shouldn’t we try? Nero sang while Rome burned. I would have rather he spend his time putting out the fire.

    July 9, 2009
  758. Paul Zorn said:

    Jerry F:

    You wrote:

    From a practical standpoint, if we don’t know whether we can reverse climate change, shouldn’t we try? Nero sang while Rome burned. I would have rather he spend his time putting out the fire.

    I’m always glad to agree with someone who agrees with me.

    I’d just add that, while we (or I, anyway) don’t know whether we can reasonably expect to reverse climate change at any bearable cost, I think the best science says that we can expect to mitigate the problem, perhaps quite substantially, at affordable cost. (Some “costs” might even prove negative, as new technologies and industries pop up.) So I’m a bit more optimistic for us than (with hindsight) for Rome.

    It’s always fair to ask where, among the several problems we face as a country, global warming belongs on our to-do list. Granted, we can’t do everything at once, but IMO and FWIW, the ROI on GW mitigation is attractive.

    July 10, 2009
  759. Jerry Friedman said:

    Paul: As you remarked, anthropogenic climate change was built up over many decades. If all climate-affecting industries stopped today, considering the 100-year half life of CO2*, it could take several hundred years for a complete reversal of human contributions to global warming.

    *The 100-year half life is misleading because of the role of C02 in biology, so it should take less than several hundreds of years. Nor would all climate-affecting industries stop their pollution today, so it should take much longer. Suffice to say, I don’t expect reversal in our lifetime.

    As far as ROI, FWIW I think that avoiding human extinction is fairly important. I don’t see how ROI can be debated if the consequence is so dire. And I challenge your claim that “we can’t do everything at once”. We can if the people want to. I don’t believe that we will do everything at once, but for argument’s sake, we can.

    July 10, 2009
  760. Paul Zorn said:

    Jerry:

    Re 722.1: I’m all over avoiding human extinction. Extinction is so … blah.

    But I stand by my “can’t do everything”. There are always more good things to do than can be done right now. Money and effort spent mitigating GW can’t be spent on improving schools, helping the poor, improving medical care coverage, etc. So in this sense it’s IMO and FWIW A-OK to think about ROI.

    My main point about ROI, in case it wasn’t clear, was to argue for, not against, serious investment in GW mitigation: I’m saying that this cause deserves support not only because it’s clearly a Good Thing in its own right, which few doubt, but also because we can reasonably expect an OK ROI.

    July 10, 2009
  761. Peter Millin said:

    For most people energy cost and ROI are important factors, because unlike governments people have limited budgets.

    Jerry,

    The situation might be serious, but I am pretty sure it will not be the end of mankind.

    Based on the latest G8 meeting it seems obvious that China and India really don’t want any part of the new statement in regards to climate change.
    Without their cooperation the whole climate goal as put forward in the G8 meeting is pretty useless.

    We better be careful in our complete exclusions of traditional energy sources.
    Why we put our own resources off limits Russia and China are exploring all the resources around the world.

    Cuba and China have plans to build oil plattforms in the Gulf Of Mexico. (IBD)

    July 10, 2009
  762. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Your comment in 722

    The GW ship already has momentum,
    so we can’t hope to turn it, much less
    stop it, on a dime.

    is, IMO, one of the most realistic comments I have read here in a while. The concept of “reversal” is not my idea. That is what is being bandied by Al Gore and some of the other reports I have read. That is why I question that kind of claim. I don’t think it is a realistic analysis of the data. I’m not saying we should do nothing about human CO2 contribution. If you look closely at my comments, I don’t think you will find that idea there. What I am encouraging is other preparation for the changes that we are already seeing. I just haven’t seen reports about what is being addressed on that plane. Perhaps it is a fault of the media and what can be referenced, but my concern is still that we are putting our eggs in one basket by investing only in alternative energy, lifestyle and transportation methods to only reduce CO2 contributions. What research is being done to help adapt to these climate changes?

    July 10, 2009
  763. john george said:

    Paul Z. & Jerry F.- I found that chart I was trying to find earlier that gives a graph of the global temperatures over the last couple millinia. Most charts I have found only date back to the early 1800’s. I didn’t try copying and pasting the link, but I think I have it correct.

    http://www.CO2science.org/articles/V11/N5/C1.php

    If you notice the cycle, there is a warm period in the middle ages that rivals what we are experiencing now. The thing we lack from that period is any recorded observations of what was going on. These temps can only be reconstructed through ice core evaluations and tree ring observations. There is also evidence that crops were grown at one time on both Greenland and Iceland. You can evaluate this however you like.

    There was another article on a site labeled Climate Skeptic, but I wasn’t impressed with the negative approach of the writer, even though he supports my precepts.

    July 10, 2009
  764. Paul Fried said:

    John: The fact that there WERE warming periods does not mean that the current warming is merely natural, and not human caused. In more than the last ten years, a group has surveyed climatologists on global warming, and it’s clear that there’s a growing consensus. It’s happening, and it’s human caused, mostly, this time. They also tend to believe (85%) that it’s at least a moderate threat, if not a great threat.

    The only people who believe otherwise, and are moving against the historic scientific consensus, are the Republicans, who are subject to more propaganda/disinformation, because of the conservative media they’re exposed to, and the friends they keep and listen to/ or emails they read (willing participation in the disinformation campaign). I’ll post some links to articles later.

    July 11, 2009
  765. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    In #724 you say:

    The concept of “reversal” is not my idea. That is what is being bandied by Al Gore and some of the other reports I have read. That is why I question that kind of claim. I don’t think it is a realistic analysis of the data.

    I’m dubious that Al Gore has “bandied” about the idea that GW will be easy or quick to reverse. Could you cite some instance of this?

    Then:

    … What I am encouraging is other preparation for the changes that we are already seeing. I just haven’t seen reports about what is being addressed on that plane. … my concern is still that we are putting our eggs in one basket by investing only in alternative energy, lifestyle and transportation methods to only reduce CO2 contributions. What research is being done to help adapt to these climate changes?

    I just don’t get this one-basket theme. For one thing, research is being done … I mentioned ICRISAT in an earlier message, for instance, as just one organization devoted to agriculture in the semi-arid tropics. That’s just one NGO I happen to know something about, and very probably not the best example. Moreover, energy, lifestyle, and transportation add up to at least three baskets, not one, and work in these areas will be useful whether or not we’re able literally to reduce atmospheric CO2.

    Finally, John, in #725 you allude to your “precepts” on climate. To me, “Precepts” suggests legal or divine authority, not openness to scientific investigation. Do you intend this? Either way, what are some of your “precepts”?

    July 12, 2009
  766. john george said:

    Paul Z.- My reference to the reversal of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the reference to Al Gore, is a direct response to your comment

    You seem to feel that nothing short of
    outright reversal is worthwhile,

    I’m not sure how I expressed this concept, because I do not advocate it, and I don’t even believe it is possible. I still urge caution in how much money we actually dedicate to trying to reverse CO2 build-up. It may be possible to maintain the current level, but it seems to me to actually reverse the accumulation is going to take more than just some government programs. It means the complete revamping of the lifestyle of every person in this country. I question 1) if this is even possible and 2) what the consequences to our economy and society will be.

    Paul F.- I will choose not to be offended by the not-so-veiled slam against conservatives and the Republican party as a whole in your post 726. You and I have discussed this issue before, and until you liberals come up with a poster boy other than Al Gore, who will actually live what he preaches, I will not soon be switching political alliances. I might add that there are a number of Phd. scientists who are questioning the track we are taking and urging caution in our approach rather than reactionism. As I said before, time will tell who is correct.

    July 12, 2009
  767. john george said:

    Paul Z.- In response to your comment above about precepts, you are exactly correct. I used the wrong word here. “Tenets” would have been a better word, or to have simply said “what I believe.” Thanks for the clarification. Also, I have not had time to read the references on the ICRASAT. It would be very nice if the media would pick up on some of this stuff and get it out before the public, but I suppose it does not have the newsworthiness of GW.

    July 12, 2009
  768. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Arguably, the single largest factor of greenhouse gasses can be eliminated without any expense. Stop eating animals.

    Eating only plants will make tremendous improvements to our health care system (most humans get sick and die prematurely from diet-related disease), to our environment, and it will reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

    You don’t have to wait for the government or anyone to tell you to do this. You can do it now.

    And according to Genesis and Isaiah, Biblegod would approve.

    July 12, 2009
  769. john george said:

    Jerry- If I stop eating animals, what will we do with the animals? It is the fact that they are living and functioning the way they were made to function that causes them to contribute so much greenhouse gases. For us to make any major change would require eliminating all the cows. I don’t think that will make the majority of them very happy, either. I think I would rather drive a Prius.

    July 12, 2009
  770. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: When there is a supply and demand issue, and the demand goes down, the supply tends to follow. Ideally, the demand for dead animals will go down and the supply will as well. It’s not like everyone will stop eating animals tomorrow, nor is it like everyone will trade in their car for a Prius tomorrow. Every person does what they can, and hopefully, eventually, when the new lifestyle becomes more popular, more people will follow.

    I can point to the whaling industry, how whaling was once popular but for the protection of whales it became illegal to kill them. There were plenty of upset people, suppliers and consumers, but it was best for society, best for the whales, and today nobody misses killing whales (except a very few people in a very few nations). This is how I believe we should do this in the U.S. We should recognize how killing other animals causes them immense suffering, how it turns our bodies into graveyards (paraphrasing George Bernard Shaw), how it increases human disease, how it pollutes our planet, how it causes world hunger among humans, and how it destroys our environment. When people recognize this, many of them will stop eating animals.

    It took me ten years to become vegan, from age 14 to 24, because for me it was a radical change. I understand that many people cannot imagine not eating animals. All I can say is that the data is there with many reasons to do so. I understand why some people are reluctant. I just keep pointing to the data.

    I read an article recently about an 87-year-old man who holds the world’s marathon record. Eighteen years before he was diagnosed with cancer. He stopped eating animals, got healthy, and now is a champion runner.

    http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2009/06/09/marathoner_0609.ART_ART_06-09-09_C2_69E4FLO.html

    What is wrong about something that increases our health, reduces others’ suffering, and helps reduce or reverse greenhouse gasses?

    July 13, 2009
  771. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: First, doing the right thing should not rely on others doing the right thing too. If the best thing for the animals, your health and the environment, among other benefits, is to stop eating animals, it really shouldn’t matter if others do.

    If you stop eating them, on average, 30 or more would no longer be killed each year. Some organizations estimate up to 95 would have their lives saved. Since there are around 10 billion animals killed each year for food and around 300 million U.S. residents, that divides out to 33 animals/year. This 33 number does not consider animals killed collaterally, such as the millions of fish killed in drift nets who are not then sold as human food… they just die, or the millions of male chicks killed by egg producers, etc. This number also does not consider the animals killed to feed to other animals, such as the practice of feeding chicken and fish to cows, etc. So the real number may be closer to 95 animals saved per year for every U.S. resident who stops eating animals.

    What would we do with the 30-95 animals? Many of them, like the collateral fish killings, would go about their lives. Otherwise, like any industry, when the demand goes down, the supply follows. Fewer animals would be purposefully bred as commodities to fill your plate. This is a gradual process. It’s not like tomorrow everyone will stop eating chickens and then we need to provide homes for 9 billion homeless hens. As demand goes down, we can solve any problems that arise step-by-step.

    I read recently about an 87-year-old man who holds the record for running a marathon in his age group. There is no record for 88-year-olds so he’s looking forward to being the first. He said that 18 years ago, he was diagnosed with cancer. He stopped eating all animal products the next day. Now, 18 years later, he’s in better shape than I am! You can Google him “At 87, Ohio man still running marathons”.

    It took me 10 years to change my diet, from age 14 to 24. I understand that most people are used to what they eat and are reluctant to change. Since animals suffer, since eating animals increases human disease, since eating animals increases greenhouse gasses, since eating animals increases world hunger … I hope that it does not take most people 10 years to change.

    July 13, 2009
  772. Peter Millin said:

    If it is really as serious a some of you claim it to be, how are we going to convince China, India and the third world to go along with the reduction Co2?
    Because if we don’t, it is not going to matter what we are doing.

    While we put our own natural resources off limits Russia, China, India and even Cuba are starting to go after the remaining resources worldwide.

    BTW,

    I smoked some great beef brisket with mesquite, for the fourth of July. It was fantastic.

    July 13, 2009
  773. Peter Millin said:

    Maybe we should put some money in to researching how to control exhaled human Co2.

    It would be great if we could design a mask for everybody to wear that diverts human Co2 in to a storage tank.
    Once your tank is full you can deposit it in to a centralized collection station. Which would then store the Co2 in underground storage vaults.

    As an incentive we should then issue carbon credits to all those that deposit their human Co2.

    Just imagine how much Co2 we could prevent from escaping in to the atmosphere. That ought to be enough in supporting the G8 goal? Right?

    July 13, 2009
  774. john george said:

    Jerry- I may be math challenged, but the figures you quote in 728.4 just don’t add up. Where do you get this data that one person eating red meat represents 30 animals? I grew up on a farm, and a 500# steer on the hoof yields about 200-225#’s of meat. I don’t eat that much in two years let alone, one year. Let’s look at a mix of chickens, hogs & beef. I personally consume about 1 1/2-2#’s per week. On the high side, that is about 104#’s per year. If I divide this amount equally (which it is probably 50% poultry and 25/25% beef & pork), it amounts to about 35#s of each kind of meat per year. Hmmmmm. One steer would feed me about 7 years at this rate, and if I remember the data correctly, it is ruminate animals specifically that contribute the most greenhouse gasses. Sorry, but it just doesn’t add up for me. Again, where did you get this data?

    Paul Z.- You are the mathmetician. Am I missing something here?

    Jerry- One more thing in regards to vegan diets, I do capitalize in raw vegetables because it really helps my diabetes. It is not recommended, though, that I do an exclusive vegan diet. A small amount of animal protien does help in my metabolism of carbohydrates.

    July 13, 2009
  775. Jerry Friedman said:

    John:

    The USDA cites that in 2000, 9.7 billion animals are killed in the U.S. for food annually. Let’s call that 10 billion. There are about 300 million U.S. residents. 10 billion divided by 300 million is 33.333 per person per year. Add to that the number of collateral animals killed, like inedible fish in drift nets, and the number of other animals killed, like the male chicks smothered at egg farms, and you’ll understand why some organizations claim the number is closer to 95 per person per year.

    http://www.upc-online.org/slaughter/2000slaughter_stats.html

    Since you have diabetes, you should know about the “Raw for 30 Days” video that follows several people with diabetes and their diets. Those who ate exclusively raw, vegan food had the best results.

    The Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine published peer-reviewed studies that showed that an all vegan diet is superior for diabetics than the recommended diet from the American Diabetic Association.

    I hope these make you curious enough to investigate further.

    I know two diabetics, both of whom switched to a vegan diet and their health improved.

    July 13, 2009
  776. john george said:

    Peter- That smoked brisket sounds really good! A number of years ago, my fishing buddy nand I made a fish smoker to smoke carp. It wasn’t very siccessful, though, ’cause we couldn’t agree on which one of use would hold the match and which one would draw on the carp.

    July 13, 2009
  777. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: Yours is loathsome humor.

    July 13, 2009
  778. Paul Zorn said:

    Jerry cites in 728.6 some interesting numbers (dated 2000) on animals killed yearly for meat. Some arithmetical (not really mathematical) thoughts:

    1. Of the total of around 9.7 billion, about 98% (9.55 billion) are birds; of these, about 97% are chickens. That works out to about 32 birds per American per year.

      1. About 160 million mammals are killed annually for food, according to these numbers. That’s a little more than half a mammal per person per year.

      2. Of the “food mammals”, about 2/3 are pigs. (News to me … .)

      3. Jerry’s stats don’t mention fish. I eat sardines and herring pretty regularly (nice to stay low on the food chain …), and their numbers would mount up pretty fast in any tally.

    I’m not arguing for any particular lesson from these numbers. Just cipherin’ .

    July 14, 2009
  779. john george said:

    Jerry- There are probably as many dietary opinions as there are dieticians. I know that my friend who had the digestive problem was 100% vegan for a number of years. She got a couple studies from her organizations a couple years ago recanting some of their earlier studies against consuming any animal protein. She now eats some in moderation. There are combinations of vegetables that our bodies can metabolize into complete proteins, so a diet restricted to only fruits and vegetables is certainly not unhealthy. I would agree that a diet of only meat is certainly not healthy. I think the concept here should be balance.

    But, getting back to your assertion that switching over to a vegan diet will help decrease the amount of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, I still think the measure does not have enough effect to make it a viable option. I would give more credence to alternative energy sources, as it is clear that there is a lot of CO2 emitted through burning fossil fuels.

    July 14, 2009
  780. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    Re #727, thanks for the clarification about “precepts” vs “tenets” or “beliefs” about global warming, CO2 levels, etc. To a certain degree, IMO, all of these nouns point to religious or religious-like approaches to a subject, as opposed to an approach that admits the possibility of evidence-based falsification. I’m not dissing religion here — just pointing to differences between it and science.

    As for “reversing” global warming, I think we agree that this is likely to be difficult, if indeed it’s possible. (As always, everything depends on careful definitions. If “reversing” is taken to mean “decreasing annual output” then that certainly is possible. Reversing in the sense of driving down accumulated greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will be much harder.)

    You’ve accused Al Gore of underestimating the difficulty of addressing global warming, but (unless I missed it among these hundreds of messages) you’ve not given any instances of this supposed transgression. Can you give any?

    July 14, 2009
  781. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Here is a summary of the PCRM and GWU study:

    A 2006 study, conducted by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine with the George Washington University and the University of Toronto, looked at the health benefits of a low-fat, unrefined, vegan diet (excluding all animal products) in people with type 2 diabetes. Portions of vegetables, grains, fruits, and legumes were unlimited. The vegan diet group was compared with a group following a diet based on American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines. The results of this 22-week study were astounding:

    + 43% percent of the vegan group and 26% of the ADA group reduced their diabetes medications. Among those whose medications remained constant, the vegan group lowered hemoglobin A1C, an index of long-term blood glucose control, by 1.2 points, three times the change in the ADA group.

    + The vegan group lost an average of about 13 pounds, compared with only about 9 pounds in the ADA group.

    + Among those participants who didn’t change their lipid-lowering medications, the vegan group also had more substantial decreases in their total and LDL cholesterol levels compared to the ADA group.

    This study illustrates that a plant-based diet can dramatically improve the health of people with diabetes. It also showed that people found this way of eating highly acceptable and easy to follow.

    http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/diabetes.html

    Also, as I said earlier, does it matter that everyone do everything that they can to solve climate change at the same time, or should each of us do what we can now? Is it wise to wait and see what happens, or should we take proactive measures now? As Paul Z. notes, it will take awhile to slow and reverse the effect on climate humans have caused. In my opinion, everyone should do more than buy a Prius. A Prius for everyone is a small piece of solving the problem. (And manufacturing cars is part of the problem, as their manufacture causes immense pollution.) Using the land more effectively, particularly for agriculture, is an extremely important piece. It reduces greenhouse gasses by our not producing cows and other animals that create these gasses, and returning land to its natural state will create areas that eliminate greenhouse gasses.

    And, as I said, the animals suffer when we eat them. Their suffering should also be stopped.

    July 14, 2009
  782. john george said:

    Paul Z.- I’m not sure I would classify my opinion of Al Gore as one of underestimation. I would lean toward overoptimistic, if there can be a differentiation between the two. My greatest beef with Gore is that he doesn’t live what he preaches. If we are going to decrease actual greenhouse gas contributions to the atmosphere, then it seems reasonable to expect one of the greatest proponents of this idea to actually be doing just that. It appears, by example of his lifestyle, that he is not doing this on a personal level. Buying carbon credits with his wealth just puts more burden on others to cut back on their contributions to make up for what he contributes. I really don’t care what political stripe he is, I just think he is being ethical about it.

    That does bring up one more point of mine in the politicalization of this climate change. There has been so much propaganda against anyone who would question the figures and ask for verification of direction without the hysteria that it has divided the country along political lines. There was much accusation against the past administration as being “anti-scientific”, some admittedly valid, others just political. I think it is interesting that George Bush actually lives the life of limiting greenhouse gas contributions. I don’t here anyone on the liberal side giving him any credit for setting this example. Why? My guess is that it comes out of political hatred rahter than honest evaluation. If we are going to be able to do anything about the climate change, it is going to take a united effort on all our parts, not a divisive disarray of accusations.

    One other point, I did see an article in the Strib on Sunday about crop research to develope disease, drought and insect resistant varieties through genetic engineering. This does give me hope that the eggs are being spread into more mthan one basket. I had not seen a report on this for a year or so, and the naysayers at that time were taking a position that if a bug won’t eat a plant, should a human? Good question. It appears that this is one of the focuses of the research. I will submit this anectdote that there are a lot of things bugs do eat that I would not.

    July 14, 2009
  783. john george said:

    Oops! Last line of first paragraph in 732.1 should read “unethical”, not ethical.

    July 14, 2009
  784. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    I’m not here to defend Gore’s lifestyle choices. And if GWB is indeed living a life of environmental virtue (no A/C? vegan chow?), then more power (no pun intended) to him. But AG’s and GWB’s personal lifestyles are not at issue here, interesting as they may be in another discussion.

    It was you, John, who complained that the concept of GW “reversal” was in some blameworthy way being “bandied by Al Gore and some of the other reports I have read.” We agree, I think, that GW reversal will be difficult, and that this should be acknowledged, so if indeed Al Gore is pretending otherwise then that’s bad. If you’re accusing him of this, then so be it, but I’d like some evidence before I convict.

    July 14, 2009
  785. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Perhaps we are cutting fine hairs here in how we define “reversal” of human contributions. As you said before, and I concure, if we can at least reduce the levels of human contribution, it will help. If you want to call this a reversal of the increases, then that is legitimate. Somewhere, in all the falderall, there was a goal reportedly set to return the human generated contrubutions to pre 50’s levels. I thought it was in Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, but I have not watched the movie, nor do I plan to, for that matter. In Peter’s link earlier, Gore did infer that the increases in greenhouse gasses over the last century or so was entirely man generated and it was a “settled science”. I question the veracity that assertion because 1) there are still scientists that have not jumped on that bandwagon, and 2) I just don’t think we have an accurate perspective to make that claim. I base this opinion upon 1) insuficient recorded observations of the atmosphic conditions occuring in the temperature cycles in the past couple mellinia and 2) inaccuricies in predictions of environmental responses to massive infusions of polutants in occurances over the recent past. Jerry has suggested that it is not wise to do nothing. I agree, but I think we need to use wisdom as to what we commit vast amounts of money.

    As far as George Bush, he lives in a 4000 sq. ft. house as opposed to Gore’s 10,000 sq. ft. house. It is both heated and cooled by a closed system geothermal unit. Gore’s home supposedly uses the amount of energy a small town uses. The rainwater is even collected off the roof and used for watering the lawn. I’m sure, being the Texan he is, he most likely eats beef, much to Jerry’s chagrin. There are other features of his home that are green innovative, but I don’t have the link handy.

    July 14, 2009
  786. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    Sounds like GWB has built a responsible and sensible house. Well done, George!

    As for Gore, let’s stipulate that he has a big, energy-hungry house. (But not as hungry as a “small town” … the sources you cite lay this canard to rest!)

    My point is not to split hairs over or idiosyncratically redefine “reversal”. I’m trying to understand the free-floating Gore-antipathy that so many conservatives evince. You’ve explained that you don’t like his house.

    But what about the science? You accuse Gore of various errors, such as having some scientists disagree with him on some matters, and having wrongly “bandied” ideas you find unconvincing. The first complaint may be accurate, but I’m not much shocked, as the same could be said of almost every other human.

    For the second complaint I’d still like some evidence commensurate with (what seems to me to be) the prevailing conservative view that Gore is at worst fraudulent and at best deeply mistaken. (Since you’ve ruled out seeing the movie, secondary sources may have to suffice.)

    July 14, 2009
  787. john george said:

    Paul Z.- There are a couple links I have tried to post, but they are evidently sucked into Griff’s spam filter. Try Googling “scientific evidence against ‘an inconvenient truth’.” One referenct is labeled business&media.org and one, clear to the bottom of the page, starts our ff.org/centers. It is a 57 page article by William Kininmonth, an Australian climatologist. If you can’t find them, perhaps Griff will free up the actual links by tomorrow.

    July 14, 2009
  788. john george said:

    Paul Z.- There are a couple links I have tried to post, but they are evidently sucked into Griff’s spam filter. Try Googling “scientific evidence against ‘an inconvenient truth’.” One reference is labeled business&media.org and one, clear to the bottom of the page, starts out ff.org/centers. It is a 57 page article by William Kininmonth, an Australian climatologist. If you can’t find them, perhaps Griff will free up the actual links by tomorrow.

    July 14, 2009
  789. David Henson said:

    The US spends $2.1 trillion on health annually. How can 50 million uninsured (some at the highest risk) be provided insurance for 10 years at a cost of only $1 trillion dollars (for 10 years)? This administration has to decide if the American people are stupid or not?

    July 15, 2009
  790. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    The CBO is independent of the administration. (Note how their assessments of earlier, very preliminary, Democratic health reform proposals came in with much bigger predicted price tags than the Democrats hoped.) Why not read the CBO’s report, and see how the numbers add up?

    Or, just wait a day, and see what happens when the various pundits pick it apart?

    July 15, 2009
  791. Scott Oney said:

    Is Obama fibbing about the number of uninsured Americans?

    For months, Obama and his crew have been throwing out the numbers “46 million,” “47 million,” and now (rounded up) “nearly 50 million Americans” without health insurance. But if you do a search on “50 million” and “uninsured,” you can find quite a few online sources that claim to debunk this number. They cite apparently credible Census Bureau data classifying about 10 million of the uninsured within the United States as “not a citizen.” (Full disclosure: I didn’t have health insurance when I traveled to Mexico in the 1970s, either, but I don’t believe I was ever mistaken for an “uninsured Mexican.” Lucky for me, I didn’t get sick.)

    The 10-million-person difference is hardly trivial. Assuming average annual health care costs of $4,500 per person, if we decided to borrow or print money to cover an extra 10 million people, we would be signing our children and grandchildren up to pay an extra $45 billion per year plus interest.

    July 15, 2009
  792. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    Good for you for questioning the numbers. But the $1 trillion over 10 years figure does not strike me as wildly unrealistic (and, as Patrick notes, the numbers are not really from the “administration”).

    The number likely to be covered by what’s proposed is, I think, around 40 million. At $7 grand per person-year this makes about $280 bn, which is indeed not the $100 bn that one might expect.

    But keep in mind that (i) the government already spends a ton of money on the uninsured; (ii) the newly insured would have to pay something themselves toward insurance; (iii) people with insured access might actually cost less than relying on emergency rooms. (I expect that (i) is a bigger factor, but don’t really know.)

    So $1 trillion in extra federal spending over 10 years seems imaginable to me.

    July 15, 2009
  793. john george said:

    Paul Z.- One trillion extra in federal spending is certainly different than a total price of one trillion. I agree with your differentiation.

    You touched on something that I have not heard any hard figures on, and that is how much providing medical care for the uninsured is actually costing the industry and us tax payers. There must be something out there on it. It does eeem reasonable to me that if there is universal participation in health care, there would be a better mechanism for tracking the actual costs. As it is right now, there are prices on services that are chaged for walk-in patients. There are contracted prices for those who have coverage through HMO’s large enough to have bargaining power, and there is medicare. How on earth we can actually come up with an accurate cost for medical care seems elusive, to me at least.

    July 15, 2009
  794. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, this Democrat health care plan is the worst one that could be drawn up. The plan leaves in place the employer sponsored coverage which is killing America’s competitiveness. Then hammers on small businesses in the US by trying to tax them into offering health insurance. And finally adds a huge tax on the lower middle class citizens through mandated health insurance. The insurance lobby must own the Democratic party as this plan just lines their pockets.

    The Republicans are not even touching this plan as they know the Democrats will be hoisted on their own petard.

    July 15, 2009
  795. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    The “Democrat health care plan” is hardly the worst imaginable, but I agree it has serious flaws, including excessive reliance on employers. Doing nothing has serious flaws too, IMO.

    Just curious: Do you think the government ought to have any role at all in delivering/financing/guaranteeing access to/mandating insurance for/ any part of our health care system? If so, how should this be paid for?

    July 16, 2009
  796. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I can understand your concerns about the “Democrat health plan.” I, too, am concerned about misuse of the English language. On the other hand, how do you feel about the various Democratic health plans, proposed by various legislative members of the Democratic Party?

    July 16, 2009
  797. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I can understand your concerns about the “Democrat health plan.” I, too, am concerned about misuse of the English language. On the other hand, how do you feel about the various Democratic health plans, proposed by various legislative members of the Democratic Party?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)

    http://www.democrats.org/

    July 16, 2009
  798. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I can understand your concerns about the “Democrat health plan.” I, too, am concerned about misuse of the English language. On the other hand, how do you feel about the various Democratic health plans, proposed by various legislative members of the Democratic Party?

    July 16, 2009
  799. Patrick Enders said:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)

    July 16, 2009
  800. john george said:

    Goodness, Patrick! What an icy post! Sorry, I just couldn’t resist!

    July 16, 2009
  801. David Henson said:

    Patrick, You are a big picture thinker.

    July 16, 2009
  802. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, Health care needs to deflate and innovate. I have already said a medical debit card system to give everyone a baseline of funding would ensure health care and bring much needed pricing pressure to the marketplace.

    This could get employers out of medicine and reduce the overall costs while improving services. The technology now exists to do things much differently than in the past and the current plan is just payback to special interest donors.

    July 16, 2009
  803. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    The fundamental flaw in your ‘debit card’ idea is that medical expenses vary immensely between individuals. Some people sail though life with no medical complications, and precious few doctor visits or treatments. Other persons are born with or develop many debilitating illnesses which are very difficult to treat/cure, and which require intense and/or ongoing treatments which can last a lifetime.

    Your debit card plan would work very well for people who are healthy, but would inevitably fail to cover the treatment needs of the very people who most need medical care.

    July 16, 2009
  804. john george said:

    Patrick- You are touching on a truth in your 738.7 that is a real life characteristic of medical care costs- each of us has differing needs. The costs of these needs are being distributed amongst all the participants of any particular health care plan. There is a basic cost for coverage that each of us pays whether we use the coverage or not. Right now this is being done through private enterprise, namely insurance companies. There are a number of people making big bucks with this system, and that seems to stick in the craw of a lot of people. If the government takes over the administration of this system, we will all still be paying for the total cost of care provided to participants whether we have medical needs or not, and there are still going to be people making big bucks through that system. The question for me is which system is the most cost effective. My experience out of the past is that government involvement in any particular enterprise adds to ineffeciencies and increases costs rather than alleviating them. The experiences of some of my relatives and friends in Canada bears this out. I personally don’t have much hope in any positive changes coming in federal beuracratic effeciency in the near future.

    July 16, 2009
  805. john george said:

    Patrick- I forgot to add this example to my post. The company I work for had a few employees with some large medical bills last year. That has caused my contribution to exactly double. We all pay eventually.

    July 16, 2009
  806. Mike Zenner said:

    Old big mouth Joe lays it out there for all to see!!

    The real reason for new health care reform plan is to bring new money chumps in to the current “Medicare/Federal health whatever” Ponzi scheme via a “New Plan” for all. Has nothing to do with covering the uninsured, its “financial health coverage” for the ailing and SOON bankrupt federal gov budget!!

    Joe Biden: ‘We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt’
    Thursday, July 16, 2009
    By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

    (CNSNews.com) – Vice President Joe Biden told people attending an AARP town hall meeting that unless the Democrat-supported health care plan becomes law the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.

    “And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.”

    “We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

    “Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.”

    The event, sponsored by the AARP – which supports the Obama administration’s plan – was attended by mostly AARP members who were bussed in for the meeting.

    Biden took time from answering questions to chat with a member of the audience, who were mostly members of the AARP.

    Biden told the group that the Obama health plan will not eliminate people’s ability to choose their health care insurance and that people who cannot afford insurance will be covered by the plan.

    “They’ll be a deal in there so there’s competition, so what you’ll have in there is you’ll have the ability to go in there and say, ‘Now look, this is the policy I want. This is the one,” Biden said.

    “And those people who can’t afford to get in there, up to a certain income, we’re going to subsidize them, you get in there and we’ll help you pay for it,” Biden said.

    After opening remarks by Biden and AARP CEO A. Barry Rand, the audience asked questions, which were fielded by Biden, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform.

    July 16, 2009
  807. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    In 738.6 and elsewhere you mention a medical debit card system. Sounds like an idea worth considering in principle — if such a system makes users more aware of the cost of their own care, that’s a good thing. But one wonders:

    • How much value would cards carry? Who would decide, and on what basis?
    • Where would the money to back up these debit cards come from? Income tax? Payroll tax? A dedicated tax?
    • How would serious illnesses with expensive care be accounted for?

    These are hard questions, but that’s normal around health care policy, and there might be good answers. What are yours?

    July 16, 2009
  808. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    In #741 you summarize rightly the principle of shared risk: In large groups it’s certain that some people will incur large expenses (medical costs, fire losses, … ) while most won’t. People agree willingly to share these risks, expecting (and hoping) that they’ll personally need to draw as little as possible from the communal pot.

    One vehicle for sharing risk is through private insurance companies. Another approach is for the entire society to be the risk pool, with some public (i.e., governmental) entity acting as the broker. We already do the latter in several areas, by the way, through agencies like the FDIC. And having a larger pool has its own advantages, including reducing the likelihood of the very situation you bemoan in 741.1.

    As you say, it’s fair to ask which system works “better”, in terms of efficiency, fairness, or other qualities one might value. You say, simply, that government involvement “in any enterprise” raises costs and breeds inefficiency … case closed.

    This is false — as your own allusion to the Canadian system suggests. Our great white northern neighbors spend much less than we do on medical care, both absolutely and as a percentage of their income. (I have friends there too.) Their system is not perfect (they may spend too little, in fact) as we hear ad nauseam but the rap of “increased cost” is bum. And all of the European systems, most of them far more government-dominated than ours or Canada’s, spend even less.

    Government inefficiency and bungling occurs, to be sure, but is it always worse than private bungling and inefficiency? I doubt it.

    Even if government involvement always sacrificed some efficiency (which I don’t concede), keep in mind that efficiency is not the single gauge or value out there. Fairness, adherence to national principles, due process, transparency, accessibility, and other Good Things may also be worth something. If value for money trumped everything, we could outsource our military to lower-wage nations and save a bundle.

    July 16, 2009
  809. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Your questions in 738.8 are applicable to whatever system we come up with. Having dealt with Medicare regarding some of my mother’s late life medical treatments, I’m not convinced that a government bureau is necessarily the most compassionate or relistic entity to make these decisions. The process reminds me of a question a newsman asked one of the first NASA Mercury astronauts about what he thought of riding a rocket into space. His answer was something like this- how would you like to be shot into space on top of a rocket built by the lowest bidder?

    July 16, 2009
  810. john george said:

    Paul Z.- You have pegged the talking point of providing health care squarely- which process is better? I’m not positive that a government administrated system will be less effecient than our present system, but I really have my doubts that it will be better. Your comment

    Fairness, adherence to national
    principles, due process, transparency,
    accessibility, and other Good Things

    is the very thing my relatives say doesn’t happen in the Canadian system. A case in point is my neice. A couple years ago, she developed problems with her gaul bladder. Surgery was the only option diagnosed for her to relieve the pain she was suffering. For her to stay in the system, she was going to have to wait 8 weeks for this. Through one of her inlaws, she was able to get in through a private pay plan within a couple days. My daughter just returned from Costa Rica. They have a socialized system there. She is about 8 months pregnant right now. While she was down there, she had a couple issues come up with her pregnancy. Fortunately, her sister-in-law is a nurse in an ob-gyn clinic, so she was able to get in right away for a check-up. Had she not had this connection, she would have been put on a waiting list to see a doctor through the government system, even though she has dual citizenship. When you and others make claims about how great these foreign socilized systems are, I have a hard time believing it, given the experiences of those I know.

    July 16, 2009
  811. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, do you think it is wrong for an individual to spend relatively more money at Just Foods on more expensive organic foods and a healthy diet and to spend relatively less on medical insurance?

    July 17, 2009
  812. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    You asked:

    Do you think it is wrong for an individual to spend relatively more money at Just Foods on more expensive organic foods and a healthy diet and to spend relatively less on medical insurance?

    No, at least if by “wrong” you mean immoral or illegal. (Full disclosure: I shop a lot at JF, though perhaps with less lofty motives.)

    Would such a plan be wise? It depends on the parameters. I’m no nutritionist but I suspect that eating better food does have some health benefits and so might indeed contribute to lower health maintenance costs. But the numbers matter: Does spending $1 more on food save $10 at the clinic, or is it the other way around? How much money do I have to spend on either purpose? Would an extra dollar spent on food buy more or fewer health benefits than the same dollar spent on running shoes? Stuff like that.

    Why do you ask?

    July 17, 2009
  813. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    Can somebody find out how this amendment fared? He projected the vote to be between 9-10 am today, eastern time.

    URGENT ACTION REQUEST: Healthcare

    Dear Friends,

    It is 6.30 am on Friday and we have just finished a 20 hour marathon committee markup of the health care bill, HR3200, during which I offered the amendment to enable states to pursue single payer health care plans.

    A recorded vote on my amendment will occur in the Labor and Education committee sometime between 9:15 am and 10:00 am EST.

    Your help is needed urgently. Please call committee members now and ask for their vote for the Kucinich Amendment.

    Thank you,

    Dennis

    July 17, 2009
  814. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    You say:

    When you and others make claims about how great these foreign soci[a]lized systems are, I have a hard time believing it, given the experiences of those I know.

    I can’t speak for others, but I don’t claim that “foreign socialized systems” are “great” in all respects. I don’t doubt the veracity of your anecdotes, but I can probably match them one for one with my own acquaintances’ and relatives’ experience in Canada, the UK, and Denmark. (It would be even easier to cite medical horror stories within our own borders.)

    Rather than duel with anecdotes, I’d rather compare systems — granting that no system is perfect, and even that what works well in, say, the UK may fit national conditions and character less well on this side of the pond.

    So much said, if government involvement with health care is as destructive as you seem to think, why don’t the Canadians, the Brits, and the Danes just vote it out? Those are free countries.

    July 17, 2009
  815. David Henson said:

    The US slaughter for beef is about 35 million head. There were about 30 million head of buffalo historically in the US. The buffalo are quite a bit larger. So eating beef is probably not the cause for global warming (assuming there actually is any warming).

    July 17, 2009
  816. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Your question

    why don’t the Canadians, the Brits,
    and the Danes just vote it out?

    is a good one. You tell me? I found the following quote in an article on epictimes.com. I thought it was interesting.

    As waitlists grow ever longer,
    surgical tourism has become an option
    for many Canadians who are in pain and
    frustrated with the country’s
    chronically overburdened medical
    system. Patients who travel to
    developing world countries for their
    surgical procedures are receiving
    top-notch medical care in plush
    hospitals, and enjoying a nice holiday
    in the process.

    I have read reports that the proposed US national health care system is being patterned after the Canadian system. Are these reports true or just fearmongering?

    I think what is at the basis of our discussion is what we believe to be true about our political convictions. I do not believe that big government is the answer to problems within a system. You apparently do, and that is your prerogative. I do not deny that changes need to be made in the whole medical care provision system. What those changes should be, I’m not sure. I have some opinions, but they are just that- opinions.

    July 17, 2009
  817. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: You make too many assumptions. You state that 35 million cows are killed each year, and at their peak, there were 30 million buffalo, therefore the five million extra cows couldn’t be said to be a substantial factor in global warming.

    Assumption 1: 35 million cows killed annually does not mean the cow population is 35 million. As cows are typically killed around age 6, there should be 210 million cows to sustain 35 million killed each year. (I am extrapolating these numbers, I don’t know the actual values.)

    Assumption 2: Buffalo lived on pristine lands, untouched by humans. Cows live on developed land, developed by humans for cows to use and developed by humans to grow food for the cows. The natural checks and balances (also called forests and rivers) that decayed buffalo “gasses” have been horribly changed by human innovation.

    So, what can I say, but try again…

    July 17, 2009
  818. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    Kucinich amendment passed in committee today, 29-17. If we can’t get universal single-payer yet nationally, at least we could do it state by state, if this amendment stays on the bill.

    July 18, 2009
  819. David Henson said:

    Jerry, rational thinking that becomes rationalization of all facts becomes another religion. One can see this transformation when all facts and contradictions are reflexively swept away as wrong because they do not fit the world view.

    July 18, 2009
  820. Peter Millin said:

    If we want a good health bill we should demand that our elected officials have to use the same plan.

    My question today is..Why are DC politicians excluded from the proposed changes to health care ??

    Patrick,

    I am a little surprised about your support for the current health care plan, because it will mean less income for you on the long run.
    It will also restrict you from using treatments that you prefer and support.

    Very strange indeed.

    July 18, 2009
  821. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Do you mean to say that when I shatter your assumptions with data, my opinion is a new religion and you were right all along?

    What I find remarkable is how your judgment of my perspective actually fits your own perspective. What if I said to you, “David, rational thinking that becomes rationalization of all facts becomes another religion. One can see this transformation when all facts and contradictions are reflexively swept away as wrong because they do not fit the world view.” Actually, I wish I had.

    July 18, 2009
  822. Peter Millin said:

    Jerry,

    You may find my attempt of humor “loathsome” ( Which I had to look up in the dictionary), but I am on your side.

    From my perspective being a vegan or a vegetarian has underlying belief system. Like all belief system I do grant you your right to practice it.

    Jut like I am choosing not to.

    Does the western culture consume too much meat? Yes. In comparison to other cultures we do. Does that mean we should all become vegans or vegetarians? Not in my opinion.
    From a nutritional perspective most people don’t need more than 100 grams of meat a day, which I feel is a good rule to live by. With the exception of Thanksgiving, 4th of July and Christmas…of course. :-).
    If man wouldn’t need meat, then animals wouldn’t be part of nature.

    You see we are not so far apart on this issue.

    July 18, 2009
  823. Peter Millin said:

    I am not sure why the Democrats don’t just go ahead and pass the health bill they surely have enough votes to do so.
    Turns out that a large group of Democrats aka Blue Dogs are not happy with the proposals. I wonder why? Could it be re-elections?

    Don’t forget, that most people have something to loose here and only the minority ha gains.

    If proposed plans get passed ( and they will) and it turns our economy upside down, then the Democrats have nobody they can pin it on.
    After all they are ruling all of DC now.

    Time to get the popcorn.

    July 18, 2009
  824. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: Loathsome humor is when someone tells their opinion about something in earnest, and another person makes fun of it. For example, you tell us that bald men suffer because of social stigma (“nobody likes bald men”), medical misinformation (“bald men have low testosterone”), and the hassle of keeping one’s head covered to protect one’s scalp from sun damage. After telling us these things, I tell a joke about a bald guy who lost his love because he had no hair. That would be loathsome of me to do.

    Aside from that, vegan/vegetarianism is not an insulated belief system. Many Jews and Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Jains, and atheists are veg’n. One could say the same about baseball fans, Republicans, and people who love spaghetti. I mean to say that you can characterize it as a belief system, and for some people you may be right, and for others you aren’t. If John George becomes vegan because it is better for his diabetes, it doesn’t mean that he joined a cult. U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich became vegan when he discovered it helped ameliorate his Crohn’s disease. I met a farmer who used to raise cows for slaughter, but he stopped when he determined that cows do actually suffer. He had not thought about it for most of his life.

    I take a rational approach to the issue. (1) Cows, chickens, and other animals used for food suffer when they are used for food. (2) Suffering is bad, and should be avoided. (3) There is no reason to think nonhuman suffering is better or worse than human suffering. (4) Humans get adequate or superior nutrition without eating animals. (5) The environment is greatly benefited when humans do not eat animals. (6) There is more food and water for humans when humans do not use that food and water to raise nonhumans. (7) With more food and water available, humans can feed other humans in need, in our country and others. (8) Eating animals conveys no benefit that cannot be received from another source.

    Considering these eight items, which do you disagree with and why?

    My position is simple. Eating animals increases human and nonhuman suffering. Why don’t people want to take an active part in decreasing suffering?

    I don’t understand your logic here, “If man wouldn’t need meat, then animals wouldn’t be part of nature.”

    July 18, 2009
  825. David Henson said:

    Jerry, if you think your reply included data then you are a believer. Certainly, you would have to admit that as far as CO2 production from animals in No Amercia that the buffalo would have generated some? And you have likely not factored it in to your assumptions (or any info that does not fit).

    July 18, 2009
  826. Peter Millin said:

    Jerry,

    People that believe in something are hard to convince, so any discussion will usually end up where it started.

    I respect your believes, but I don’t agree with them. I believe that animals are put here on this earth for man to consume.
    We should do this respectfully and minimize their suffering.
    Unfortunately the need for efficiency in raising livestock has led to practices which I don’t support. Never mind that the meat raised has lost some it’s quality during the process, which is very regrettable.

    The upside of that process is that meat stays affordable even for lower income people. As much as I would prefer for all livestock to be raised as free range, the truth is that those with limited income just couldn’t afford it.

    Human need to consume a certain amount of calories. A lot of that calorie intake is provided by meat, fish or other animal product.
    I wonder if we could sustain our population if all our calorie intake would come from plants?
    Maybe it will, but it would certainly put pressure on farming to keep up with the demand.
    Usually higher demand means higher prices. I would venture to say that most people here don’t have to worry about higher food prices, as much as others do.

    My philosophy about food is, that we should eat a balanced diet.Too much of one thing can’t be good for your body.

    I prefer meat in moderation and vegetables, starches and salads to balance out the diet.

    July 18, 2009
  827. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: It can be hard to convince some people. It took me ten years to change my diet, from ages 14 to 24. Some people go to a slaughterhouse once and stop eating animals.

    You said that you believe animals were put here for humans to consume. Why? The Bible doesn’t say that.

    Even if you’re right, do you factor in the harm they suffer, other humans suffer, and the damage to the environment, or do these things mean nothing? I mean, did whomever put animals here to suffer? What do you think about their suffering?

    Humans can get abundant calories from plants. There are medal-winning athletes who are vegan, like bodybuilder Bill Pearl — who trained and mentored Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    If humans stopped using agricultural land for raising animals, there would be around ten times more land available for growing grains, fruits and vegetables for humans. Not only would there be more calories for humans, but there would be more humans fed on fewer resources.

    If athletes can be well fed on plants alone, there cannot be a nutritional reason to eat animals.

    July 18, 2009
  828. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: You claimed 35 million cows in the U.S. This site (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_cows_are_there_in_the_world) claims 98 million in the U.S. and 1.53 billion worldwide.

    Do you think that 1.53 billion cows produce more greenhouse gasses than 30 million buffalo? Then, as I said, also factor in the land humans converted from forest to agriculture. This means more gas produced and less gas decays.

    The same site claims 19.5 billion chickens worldwide. Chickens also produce gas, and converted land also reduces gas decay.

    Can you cite your numbers? If not,I hope you pause to think about these that I’ve supplied — in only a few seconds’ of searching.

    July 19, 2009
  829. Peter Millin said:

    Jerry,

    You said that you believe animals were
    put here for humans to consume. Why?
    The Bible doesn’t say that

    I don’t know, because I am not as well versed than others here, on the text of the bible.

    Nature has created man and animals. Nature has given man the ability to hunt and eat animals. To make things easier man decided to cultivate animals for eating. It seems like a natural process to me?

    I don’t support needless suffering of animals, that’s why (whenever I can) I buy free range meat.

    I honestly support your concerns about needless animal suffering.

    I just wish we would put the same concerns on unborn babies. (Yeah, I know here we go again), but we can’t be selective about life.

    July 19, 2009
  830. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, you asked earlier about a health debit card. I would take everything the government now spends on health care add to it the tax from the employer deduction for health benefits (ending this) divide it up and put it on a health debit cards for citizens to spend as they see fit. Simple and easy and let people manage their own affairs. I know liberals want to reflexively say there will be all these problems and my answer would be deal with the real problems as they occur and not every imagined one in advance. If the number ends up being $5000 then at say $20,000 saved up I would let the citizens spend overage how ever they choose. This plan would bring true market dynamics to health care and benefit everyone including the industry (as phone deregulation did). If you need heart surgery and can go to Tiawan and get it done for $2500. then go for it … imagine the savings!

    July 19, 2009
  831. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: The Bible is clear. “And God said [to Adam], Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” -Gen 1:29, KJV. After Biblegod creates the Earth, Adam, and animals, Biblegod tells Adam to eat plants. Therefore, no one can argue that Biblegod made nonhuman animals for humans to eat.

    You had said earlier that animals were “put” here to eat. I believe I’ve shown you, at least from a Christian perspective, that animals were not put here to eat.

    Now you say it’s “natural” for humans to eat animals. Actually it’s not. Our knack for hunting does not make it natural just as our knack for building bombs, eating cake, or driving cars does not make them natural. Because we are able to do something does not make it natural to do so. Frankly, it’s natural for lions, tigers and bears to hunt and eat animals based on their anatomy. Comparatively, humans are very poor hunters based on our anatomy. We make knives, spears and bullets to make up for our physical shortcomings. We run a high risk of getting sick if we eat raw flesh, unlike true predators, and our lifespans are shorter if we eat animals, unlike true predators. There is nothing “natural” about humans eating nonhuman animals.

    Yes, I appreciate your desire for a kinder, gentler killing. As one Minnesotan told me, his motto for cows is “Good life, good death.” We just differ on application. To me, good life is a free life. Good death is old age. To him, good life is a controlled life. Good death is painless but 30 years premature.

    I don’t feel much better when people say that killing nonhumans, when there is no need, when doing so hurts humans and nonhumans, is OK. It’s not OK. Sure, if an innocent will inevitably be killed, it should be painless, but I’d rather that innocents not be killed at all. Nonhuman animals are innocent.

    We do have the same concerns with unborn babies. Tell me, do you feel better about the unborn having a painless death, or would you rather they not be killed at all? Can you relate to my position with nonhumans? If suffering is wrong, it does not matter who is suffering.

    There are two differences with the unborn. First, when do they have the capacity to suffer. From my readings, at 10 weeks they start to have brain activity, so they cannot suffer before a brain is there to interpret pain. Some doctors believe that suffering can’t occur until much, much later. For me, using the 10-week mark and adding a few weeks (it takes more than simple brain activity before the brain can interpret suffering), I have no reservations about abortion in the first trimester. If the unborn baby has no functioning brain, thus she has no mind, the baby cannot suffer. The second difference is the obligation of a mother to carry an unwanted child. Regardless of how one concludes, a mother definitely controls her own body, so regarding abortions, the baby has an life interest and the mother has a life interest (birthing can cause death). This is not the case with killing animals for food. The animals have a life interest, people who want to eat them have no life interest because they can eat plants.

    In summary, there are similarities, but because young embryos cannot suffer and because mothers have an interest in their own body, one cannot compare the absolute unreasonableness of killing animals for food with the arguments for and against abortion.

    July 19, 2009
  832. I wonder if we could sustain our population if all our calorie intake would come from plants?

    Peter, what do you think the animals are eating to build the bodies to provide these calories? Granted, they’re different (lower-grade) plants, but they still require the same agricultural process to create. We’d have a much more efficient process if we didn’t create countless lives simply to kill and eat them, if we instead ate the plant calories directly.

    July 19, 2009
  833. Jerry Friedman said:

    Sean: They aren’t always ‘lower-grade’ plants. As Stephanie commented earlier, many cows are fed corn. Cows are also fed human-grade grains such as wheat, and other vegetables such as soy.

    Most of the land that is used for feeding cows ‘lower-grade’ plants could instead be used to grow human-grade food. Doing so would end hunger among humans.

    If 1.53 billion cows are presently sustained on farmland, how many humans could that same farmland sustain?

    July 19, 2009
  834. Peter Millin said:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124786946165760369.html

    Do as I say not as I do…or something like that.

    If the public health care plan is that good and cheap, shouldn’t we require our elected officials to participate?

    Seems like they are all very eager to put us in to the plan, but reject to do it for themselves.

    Here is what Judd Greg had to say about joining the public plan, he is a Republican from NH

    “will be so bad that I don’t think
    anyone should be forced to join.”

    Priceless.and all the lemmings go “We want health care”..LOL.

    July 19, 2009
  835. Jerry, you wrote, “Most of the land that is used for feeding cows ‘lower-grade’ plants could instead be used to grow human-grade food,” which exactly what I meant when I said “but they still require the same agricultural process to create.” The food still has the inputs of water, soil nutrition, sun, and farming energy. I use the term “lower grade” because a common rebuttal is that it’s not suitable for humans to eat cow feed. I’m not suggesting that and nor are you.

    July 19, 2009
  836. Jerry Friedman said:

    I went to New Mexico State Univ. back in the day, to study large animal biology on my way to a veterinary degree. Even there, we learned that very little land used to raise cows, etc., could not be used to produce food for humans.

    At first, I’m surprised that anyone would tell you differently. If my pro-livestock vet school taught it, it isn’t controversial. Then after a bit, I understand why people would assert otherwise. They want to eat with a clear conscience, so they make things up.

    July 19, 2009
  837. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    I appreciate your thoughts on animal suffering, Jerry. You started out studying to be a veterinarian? It happens that Sen. Steve Dille (R-Dassel), one of the most aggressive members of the State Legislature on livestock issues, is a veterinarian. That gives him authority to push his issues. According to him, we need manure for fertilizer, the more the merrier.

    Dille had a U of M ag economist devise a new “animal unit” chart which ended up benefiting hog and turkey growers, in the calculations. These calculations are in conflict with numbers used by EPA for federal permits. State MPCA permits are handled under the new calculations, and federal under the old ones. Confusing for everybody, not to mention expensive to administer.

    The most inhumane aspect of livestock raising, to me, is the confinement system. Veterinarians vary in their opinions on this, but few speak out against it.

    July 19, 2009
  838. Jerry Friedman said:

    Stephanie: I had great affinity for (human and) nonhuman animals as a child. I had many pets, enjoyed zoos, even circuses. At age 10 I decided to become a vet. I dropped out after seeing a few things that did not agree with why I wanted to be a vet, which was to make the animals healthy. I was being taught how to make them healthy enough for slaughter. Big difference.

    The “animal science” professor came to class once with the uterus of a slaughtered cow. He opened the uterus to reveal a football-sized calf. I thought, “Couldn’t they have waited for the calf to be born?” Another time, students were instructed to get a sperm sample from a ram. They have a device called an anal electro-ejaculator. What I witnessed was several students raping a ram. These are my most severe memories of pre-vet school. I have many more bad memories. My passion for the subject dried up and I dropped out at age 21.

    In hindsight, it was a mistake for me to go to an agricultural vet school. I should have gone to a dog & cat school. Yet, on the other hand, New Mexico State taught me more about the human relationship with nonhumans than any other three-year period of my life. To business, nonhumans are objects. To the market, they are no different than suitcases. They are economic units. They are slaves.

    After I dropped out, I wrestled with societal norms against my thoughts and feelings. I became vegetarian around age 23 and vegan around age 24. I didn’t want to be part of their suffering. To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, I didn’t want my body to be a graveyard.

    As with most things, vets come in two camps. One camp believes nonhumans are objects, another camp believe they are persons. The object-vets are in the vast majority. This reflects the general human population, so it’s no surprise. I’m sad to think that vets, or any doctors, use their diplomas to keep nonhumans as victims. It’s important to remember the vets’ self-interest. As many vets have told me, if nonhumans are freed from humans, the vets will be unemployed.

    July 19, 2009
  839. Jerry Friedman said:

    P.S.: I’ve said a few times that it took 10 years to change my diet, but I just posted above that I was vegetarian at 23 and vegan at 24. At age 14, I stopped eating mammals. During pre-vet school (ages 17-21), my flesh consumption plummeted. I stopped eating flesh at 23, making me a vegetarian, and I stopped eating animal-anything at age 24.

    July 19, 2009
  840. Anthony Pierre said:

    republicans say govt doesn’t work, then get elected and prove it.

    July 20, 2009
  841. Jerry Friedman said:

    You’re saying: they’re all prophets.

    July 20, 2009
  842. Jerry Friedman said:

    John and others: This article summarizes my position on environmental reasons to stop eating animals. There are moral reasons as well, as I’ve already mentioned.

    How Veganism Can Prevent an Unprecedented Global Tragedy
    by Richard H. Schwartz, Ph.D.

    It may seem naïve to argue that dietary shifts can make a major difference in responding to today’s many crises, but if we stopped raising the current 60 billion farmed animals that are slaughtered annually worldwide, it can make a tremendous difference with regard to many, if not all, of today’s current problems. Let us consider how.

    First, it is important to recognize that the world is rapidly heading toward an unprecedented catastrophe from global warming and other environmental threats. There are almost daily reports of severe droughts, heat waves, storms, flooding, wildfires and meltings of polar icecaps and glaciers. While these events have occurred due to an average temperature increase of less than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 100 years, global climate scientists, including these with the Nobel Prize- winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are projecting an increase of from 3 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years, which could result in an end of civilization as we know it.

    And we are talking about threats that must be addressed very soon. Some climate scientists. Including James Hansen, director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies, are warning that global warming could reach a tipping point and spin out of control within a few years, with disastrous consequences, unless major changes soon occur. Scientists at the February 2009 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science indicated that global warming will likely increase more rapidly than expected because greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) have increased faster than recent predictions and increased temperatures are setting off self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems.

    There is increasing awareness of the need to make major changes in many phases of society to reduce global climate change. However, most lists of recommendations ignore or give little attention to the impact of our diets on GHGs. However, a landmark 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization estimated that livestock production globally is responsible for more GHGs (in CO2 equivalents) than the world’s entire transportation sector. The report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” also projects that the world’s current population of about 60 billion farmed animals will double in 50 years if human population growth and dietary trends continue. The resulting increase in greenhouse gas emissions would largely negate reduction goals for GHG emissions from transportation, electricity and other, higher-profile sectors.

    Expert recognition of the importance of diet in preventing global warming is growing. In the fall of 2008, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2008, called on people in the developed world to “give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease [meat consumption] from there. More recently, James Hansen, the most prominent scientific advocate of aggressive action against global warming — told an interviewer:

    “… if you eat further down on the food chain rather than animals, which have produced many greenhouse gases, and used much energy in the process of growing that meat, you can actually make a bigger contribution in that way than just about anything. So, that, in terms of individual action, is perhaps the best thing you can do.”

    The reason that animal agriculture’s contribution is so great is that farmed animals, especially cattle, emit methane as part of their digestive and excretion processes and methane is about 23 times as potent as CO2 in producing global warming, when standard 100 year periods are considered. However, since methane is in the atmosphere for only 8-15 years, if a 15-year period is considered, methane is about 100 times as potent as carbon dioxide. By contrast, CO2 is in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and its impact is reduced by aerosols, also emitted by sources that emit CO2, which have a cooling effect.

    Hence, since methane contributes about half of GHGs (in CO2 equivalents) and since about half of the methane emitted by all sources come from farmed animals and their manure, and since methane is in the atmosphere for only a short time, a major societal shift to plant-based diets would have a major and very rapid effect in reducing global climate change. Having major world leaders call for such a change, preferably after publicly announcing suitable changes in their own diets, could very dramatically increase awareness of the threats of global warming and the need for major dietary and other lifestyle changes. Such changes could provide some breathing space, during which other important changes could be made.

    Major shifts to vegan diets would also provide substantial relief to many other societal threats:

    • It is projected that half of the world’s people will live in areas chronically short of water by 2050. Some climate experts are calling this the “Century of Drought.” Many US regions have experienced a severe drought for the past few years. California’s drought has resulted in its governor reporting that the wild fire season, which used to last a few months, is now all year round. Parts of Australia have experienced drought for ten years. Israel is facing the worst drought in its history, one so severe that the level in the Sea of Galilee dropped to a level too low to have water pumped from it.

    The dietary connection is that it takes up to 14 times as much water for a person on a typical animals-based diet than for a person on a vegan diet. The amount of water necessary to raise one steer to maturity would float a naval destroyer. Also, as indicated above, animal-based agriculture contributes significantly to global warming which contributes to droughts and to the melting of glaciers and the reduced flow of rivers and streams and levels of lakes and ponds.

    • Widespread hunger is an increasingly important issue. A June 2009 UN Food and Agriculture report indicated that the number of chronically hungry people passed the one billion mark (more than one person in seven) for the first time. An estimated 20 million people, mostly children, die annually from hunger and its effects and many more suffer permanent physical or mental damage due to insufficient nutrition. Yet, over 70 percent of the grain produced in the United States and almost 40 percent worldwide are fed to animals raised to be slaughtered. The hunger situation is likely to become even more critical as world population continues to increase and droughts, reduced soil fertility, storms and other effects of global warming reduce food production.

    • A recent report by 11 retired US generals and admirals indicated that global warming is a multiplier effect for potential violence. They pointed out that there will be increasing numbers of desperate refugees fleeing floods, storms, droughts, wild fires, heat waves and other conditions caused or worsened by global climate change.

    • Species of plants and animals are disappearing at what many experts consider the fastest rate in history. One major reason is the rapid destruction of tropical rain forests (where over half of the species of plants and animals live) at a very rapid rate to create pasture land and land to raise feed crops for animals. One study indicated that 55 square feet of rain forest are destroyed for every quarter pound hamburger patty produced and exported for consumption in a fast food market. A recent report indicated that our oceans may be virtually free of fish by 2050, because huge trawlers put out very wide nets that capture all sea life in its area.

    • There is currently an epidemic of heart disease, various types of cancer and other chronic, degenerative diseases. Efforts to treat these diseases has resulted in soaring medical costs which have resulted in major deficits and other financial problems at national, state and local levels. Yet, there is little effort to inform people that well-balanced, nutritious vegan diets can prevent, alleviate and sometimes reverse these diseases.

    • Many more examples of problems made worse by animal-based agriculture can be given related to such issues as the destruction of tropical rain forests, the rapid extinction of species, soil erosion and depletion, animal wastes polluting our waters and animal-initiated diseases such as swine flu.

    In view of the above and more, the world’s people face a major choice. They can continue basically with current policies as the world continues on its increasingly rapid path to an unparalleled cataclysm. Or it can adopt healthy plant-based diets and other practices that can help shift our very imperiled world to a sustainable path.

    Richard H. Schwartz, Ph.D.
    Professor Emeritus, College of Staten Island

    July 20, 2009
  843. Anthony Pierre said:

    ya, and they suck at governing

    July 20, 2009
  844. Peter Millin said:

    I wish that we areall start to wake up and realize that the current crisis is not an issue between Republicans and Democrats.

    This deficit was started by GWB with his first bailout and now being made worse by the current people in power.
    In the end it won’t matter what partie you belong to, we still have to pay for the sins of Washington.

    It wasn’t to long ago that someone promised “Change” ” The end of partisanship” and “Yes we can”.

    So far:

    1) we are running a budget deficit of over a trillion dollars, just this year.

    2) Unemployment is at 9.5 %.

    3) Instead of discussing on how to save money, we spend it like there is no tomorrow.

    4) A good part of the current stimulus money has been wasted. It has NOT achieved it’s promised goal.

    Maybe instead of playing politics with health care and the environment, we should force our elected officials to get serious.

    Current CBO numbers clearly state that both of these programs will add to the deficit.

    WE DON”T HAVE ANY MONEY. Despite what Biden says..we can’t spend our way out of a deficit….even my youngest son knows this.

    While the current administartion has done a fabulous job in bailing out Wall Street, Banks, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
    They have done a poor job of taking care of the average citizen.

    July 20, 2009
  845. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    In ref to 754 and health debit cards …

    You wrote:

    I would take everything the government now spends on health care add to it the tax from the employer deduction for health benefits (ending this) divide it up and put it on a health debit cards for citizens to spend as they see fit. Simple and easy and let people manage their own affairs.

    Using debit cards as the (or a) payment mechanism could make sense. IMO people should have some incentive to economize on health care, and debit cards might help in that respect. So would relatively high-deductible insurance and perhaps some other mechanisms.

    And then:

    I know liberals want to reflexively say there will be all these problems and my answer would be deal with the real problems as they occur and not every imagined one in advance.

    Hmm …

    One might reply that conservatives too often (let’s avoid “reflexively” as a cheap shot) deny the complexity of real life situations. While your $5K/person debit card method might work well for basically healthy people, in a large population it’s certain (not “imagined”) that some minority of people will have much, much higher expenses, and so it’s just prudent, not “liberal”, to do some planning in advance.

    If the number ends up being $5000 then at say $20,000 saved up I would let the citizens spend overage how ever they choose. This plan would bring true market dynamics to health care and benefit everyone including the industry (as phone deregulation did). If you need heart surgery and can go to Taiwan and get it done for $2500. then go for it … imagine the savings!

    I’m all in favor of market dynamics helping to control costs. And I know people who’ve had good medical care in Singapore and India — this can work well in some cases.

    But … IMO you overstate the advantages market dynamics can offer (yes, there are some) for health care. I’m no trained economist, but it seems to me that market dynamics work best when consumers have real choices and useful, reliable information about these choices. This situation may obtain for, say, elective surgeries, including some serious ones, but it certainly doesn’t hold when you’ve been run over by a truck or your kid needs xrays for a possibly broken bone. Choosing a phone provider is a very different kettle of fish.

    July 21, 2009
  846. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter M:

    Re #760 …

    Sure, our economic and other problems are not entirely of Republican making. And indeed we’ll all pay for the “sins of Washington” — and benefit from some things “Washington” does well, or at least as well as the real world permits.

    Your bafflement at the idea of deficit spending baffles me. Sure, deficit spending can succeed or fail in practice, but it’s no more illogical than, say, surgery, in which docs slit you up in order to help you get better, or the practice of borrowing money to buy a house, where you go into serious debt. Surgery and house-buying are sometimes disastrous, to be sure, but there’s nothing illogical about them in principle.

    IMO our current big-time deficit spending may or may not prove successful in the longer run, and some things will doubtless work better than others. But it’s much too early to declare failure now. It’s no surprise that moving from an economy based on financial machinations to sustainable productivity will take time and money and effort and probably some failed experiments.

    As for real change … Obama has certainly had hard sledding, most of it not fairly attributable to him or his policies.

    But if we can decide as a country to do our best to ensure reasonable access to health care for all of our fellow citizens, that would be a real change I could believe in.

    July 21, 2009
  847. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, I did not mean that as a cheap shot as much as my fundamental belief that the means (controlling people) is more important to liberals than the goal (improving health). You offer big picture data about overall health to support a health plan (Sweden) … I think just giving people the debit card would achieve even greater overall health with more decentralized decision making and less overhead. Starting with healthy people (as any new system will have to adjust for the already chronically sick) they could use card to buy insurance if that was their choice. If they don’t get insurance and go fee for service but require more than the card has then they appeal to churches, or Masons or borrow a year forward, or best yet – negotiate the price down.

    The system would really give people a base line for their heath. Rich people, no matter what the system, will have access to some treatments that averages income people will not. What we need is a system that puts as much control and resources in the hands of consumers as possible while wasting as little as possible on overhead (Government, HMOs, etc.- bureaucrats of all stripes – which now suck out 30% of the money spent but never touch a bedpan)

    July 21, 2009
  848. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    You wrote:
    .

    I did not mean that [a reference to liberals’ supposed “reflexive” viewpoints] as a cheap shot as much as my fundamental belief that the means (controlling people) is more important to liberals than the goal (improving health).

    Uff da! If “reflexive” was just a cheap shot, this one’s a veritable barrage — ad hominem on steroids. Such a bum rap deserves no response.

    On the substance … As I’ve said, we agree that it’s good to give people more control over their health. For basically healthy and not desperately poor people a debit system could possibly work, and insurance might be one workable vehicle.

    But the system you propose for harder cases (charity, borrowing ahead, and bargaining) doesn’t work at all for me, both because it seems unworkable and because, IMO, the public, not private charities, should take main responsibility for caring for the unfortunate. (How will the abandoned infant in the NICU “negotiate the price down”, for instance?) It’s fine and admirable when private charities and individuals pitch in, but we should all do our part.

    July 21, 2009
  849. Patrick Enders said:

    Paul,
    Perhaps that abandoned baby could take out a loan against its future earnings.

    July 21, 2009
  850. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    Of course there is a need to go in to debt to invest in to the future. But there is a point where the amount of debt can criple any business.

    The current projected debt is on par with our debt created in WW2 !!
    In those days the US was a manufacturing powerhouse. Today we are losing more and more of our manufacturing base. This will be made worse by increasing the cost of manufacturing i.e. energy prices.

    I agree that we should allow access to health care for everybody. I don’t think anybody is aginst that….I just don;t think that a government run program is the right way to do it.

    Do we really need another social security debacle??

    July 21, 2009
  851. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    You say:

    Of course there is a need to go in to debt to invest in to the future. But there is a point where the amount of debt can cripple any business.

    A nation is not a business. But sure, there is such a thing as over-investment. Are we at that point? How do you know?

    The current projected debt is on par with our debt created in WW2 !!

    “On par” suggests you’re making some numerical comparison. In fact, our public debt now, measured as a percentage of GDP, is nowhere near what it was at the time of WW2. Look it up anywhere, such as Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

    You say:

    I agree that we should allow access to health care for everybody. I don’t think anybody is aginst that….I just don;t think that a government run program is the right way to do it.

    Yes, nobody opposes allowing everyone to access health care, but that’s not at issue. The live question concerns ensuring that everyone has reasonable access to health care. I see no way to do that with some governmental involvement. Do you?

    And then …

    Do we really need another social security debacle?

    In what sense, exactly, is Social Security a debacle? Do you really know how actuarially sound or unsound the system is?

    July 21, 2009
  852. john george said:

    Jerry- You speak of those things which you do not know. Your comment-

    I believe I’ve shown you, at least
    from a Christian perspective, that
    animals were not put here to eat.

    is not complete. Take a look at Gen. 9:3 NAS:Genesis
    {9:3} “Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
    2002 (C) Bible
    Also, see Deut. 12:15
    NAS:Deuteronomy
    {12:15} “However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your gates, whatever you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and the deer.
    2002 (C) Bible
    Also Rom 14:13&14, in referencing meat sacrificed to idols-
    NAS:Romans
    {14:13} Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this–not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way.
    2002 (C) Bible
    NAS:Romans
    {14:14} I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
    2002 (C) Bible
    Also I Tim. 4:3
    NAS:1 Timothy
    {4:3} men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
    2002 (C) Bible
    Peter was correct in his assertion that God gave us the animals to eat. You have handily overlooked the rest of the scriptures in your position.

    July 21, 2009
  853. john george said:

    Jerry- Your professor

    Richard H. Schwartz, Ph.D. Professor
    Emeritus, College of Staten Island

    happens to be professor emeritus of mathmatics (not to denegrate your field of study, Paul Z.). The book you have quoted is a study of the connection between Judaism and vegetarianism. It seems to me that this is not really a scientific study by a qualified Phd dietician. His positions are worthy of discussion, but I’m not sure it would be correct to use his publication as an authority to back a particular position.

    July 21, 2009
  854. john george said:

    Paul Z.- I appreciate your comment

    It’s no surprise that moving from an
    economy based on financial
    machinations to sustainable
    productivity will take time and money
    and effort and probably some failed
    experiments.

    How long did it take for the US economy to move from “sustainable productivity” to “financial machinations?” I think this turn around happened after WW II, but I may be incorrect. One of the reasons many people made it through the Depression was bacause they had a plot of land on which to grow food and they knew how to do it. Nowadays, it seems, if a person can’t micro-wave a frozen meal, they will go hungry. One of my great concerns with the economic downturn we are seeing is how people will be able to adapt. Here in Northfield, you don’t have to go very far to find some tillable soil. Those in the major urban areas are not so lucky.

    July 21, 2009
  855. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Not that it matters, but he’s not my professor.

    You’re circling around the “Appeal to False Authority” fallacy, but you’re off the mark.

    If I said, “Black holes exist because Albert Einstein claims that black holes exist,” that’s a fallacious Appeal to an Authority. Even though black holes are within Einstein’s field, I need to provide Einstein’s argument for it not to be fallacious.

    If I said, “Global warming exists because Einstein claims that global warming exists,” that is an Appeal to False Authority and should also be rejected. It’s not particularly important that global warming is outside of Einstein’s field, but that I am using Einstein’s credibility in physics to create credibility in climatology. However, if Einstein provided an argument for global warming, and I included that in what I said, then there is no fallacy.

    Anyone, even an 8-year old child, can argue for or against black holes and global warming. Their education doesn’t matter. Their argument does.

    No one, not me, not Dr. Schwartz, is trying to use his education in mathematics to create credibility for him in climatology. Instead, like all good philosophers, scientists and lawyers, Dr. Schwartz lays out an argument. His argument speaks for itself.

    Does that make sense? Read his arguments, ignore his credentials.

    Ironically perhaps, your criticism of Dr. Schwartz for being a mathematician and not a dietician is an Ad Hominem fallacy. What matters is his arguments. Why can’t a formally trained mathematician also learn about diet? Why dismiss someone simply because of no apparent formal training?

    July 22, 2009
  856. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I said quite clearly that “Therefore, no one can argue that Biblegod made nonhuman animals for humans to eat.”

    Your citations begin where Noah’s Flood ends, Gen. 9:3.

    Why do you cite purported events long after Creation, when I wrote specifically about Creation?

    Biblegod did not MAKE nonhuman animals for humans to eat. Centuries later, after Noah’s Flood, Biblegod changed the rules. The changed rules are irrelevant to the reason why Biblegod MADE nonhuman animals. The later passages you cite have no bearing on my statement.

    Consider my great generosity when I give you a Toyota Prius, and I say, “John, for you this car shall be for commuting.” Then after you lose your Edsel, I say, “John, you may use the Prius for any purpose.” Question: Did I give you the car to commute, or for any purpose?

    I urge you to think about the events around Gen. 9:3 and why Biblegod changed the rules. If Biblegod is immutable, why did the rules change?

    July 22, 2009
  857. William Siemers said:

    Peter…

    What is the social security debacle you mention? The system pays benefits to tens of millions of retired people in this country. It also pays benefits to millions of disabled people. You would scrap this system?

    Most estimates suggest the present system will be able to pay benefits for 30 to 40 years.

    Yes, then it would be insolvent. But the present system will be, and should be, changed over the the next 30 years to prevent insolvency. The age that benefits will first be paid will be slowly increased, as it should since people are healthier; living and working longer. The maximum earned income level on which the payroll tax can be charged may go up. The calculations for ‘maximum earner’ benefits may be indexed.

    In short these, and many other proposals, will be used to keep SSI solvent and this critical social safety net in place.

    Talk of the social security “debacle” and “bankruptcy” (another common right wing charge) are simple scare tactics. The system can, and will be fixed, to continue to pay benefits for generations to come.

    As for ‘government run’ health care: Just one link..

    link text

    July 22, 2009
  858. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter M:

    Re #764:

    William S. puts it well in #765 as regards Social Security as a “debacle”. Yes, some changes will need to be made to keep the system actuarially sound, but these changes would not be difficult as political changes go. (I tried to say some of this, though not as well as William, in an earlier posting that somehow got lost in the ether.)

    Also in #764 you said:

    Of course there is a need to go in to debt to invest in to the future. But there is a point where the amount of debt can cripple any business.

    The government is not a business. This doesn’t mean that government has no financial constraints, but they’re so fundamentally different from those of businesses that IMO the analogy so often drawn is more misleading than helpful.

    Still, I agree that there is some point at which debt can hurt a government, just as under-investment can hurt a government (or a business). Are we at that point? How do you know?

    More:

    The current projected debt is on par with our debt created in WW2 !!

    No. US public debt as a percentage of GDP is much lower now than it was at the end of WW2. Look it up anywhere, such as Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

    US debt may be bigger than you or I would like it to be, but that’s a milder point — and probably doesn’t deserve two exclamation points.

    July 22, 2009
  859. john george said:

    Jerry- That is why I said his positions are worthy of discussion. The way you presented his material appeared to me to be a support for your position. Perhaps I misunderstood why you cited him.

    July 22, 2009
  860. john george said:

    Jerry- I was responding specifically to your comment that you had offered the “Christian” perspective on the creation of animals. What you presented is not the “Christian” perspective. It is the perspective of original creation. When sin entered the world, everything changed. Now death has to be dealt with. No one really knows how the climate changed from pre- to post- flood, or why animal protein became a benefit in the human diet. But one thing I do know from scripture is that it is not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles him. It is what comes out of it. And, I now have the option of eating meat if I want to.

    July 22, 2009
  861. john george said:

    Jerry- Your comment about the amount of water it takes to raise a steer

    The amount of water necessary to raise
    one steer to maturity would float a
    naval destroyer.

    I’m assuming you intended this for the effect and not as a serious fact. A battleship displaces tens of thousands of tons of water. A steer drinks about 5 or 6 times it’s weight in water, much of which is returned to the environment.

    July 22, 2009
  862. Peter Millin said:

    William,

    You need to double check your numbers in regards to social security. Based on the latest numbers they will run out of money in 10 -20 years.

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9649/08-20-SocialSecurityUpdate.pdf

    This document also adresses the medicare issues, which makes the SS mess seem small.

    Happy reading

    Peter

    July 22, 2009
  863. Peter Millin said:

    William,

    CNN might be politicially tainted so i post this

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/canadian.health.care.system/

    If you want to know more just google “Shona Holmes”.

    Here experience confirms my own observations while living in Canada.

    The real question is: Where do we go once we have turned the US health care system in to a Canadian model???

    July 22, 2009
  864. Peter Millin said:

    William,

    FYI…I am not a Republican or a Democrat I am an American. Please don’t put me in to the right wing corner.

    Thanks

    July 22, 2009
  865. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    You wrote in #768, addressing William:

    You need to double check your numbers in regards to social security. Based on the latest numbers they will run out of money in 10 -20 years.

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9649/08-20-SocialSecurityUpdate.pdf

    I looked at this reference — and it supports William’s numbers. Here are some quotes:

    CBO projects that beginning in 2019, annual outlays for Social Security will exceed the program’s
    revenues …

    This means not that SS will “run out of money” in 2019 but that beginning then the rate of outflow will exceed the rate of inflow. But this doesn’t mean SS has “run out of money” — any more than the fact that SS now takes in more than it spends means that SS is in clover.

    The SS trust fund has accumulated huge surpluses over the years, which will suffice to keep SS outlays going, without any change to current rules and regs, until (to quote your link again)

    2049— CBO’s projected date for the trust funds’ exhaustion …

    That’s 40 years out — time enough to do something about the problem, or to plan not to do anything about if that seems a better idea.

    On one thing I do agree with you, Peter :

    … Medicare issues … make the SS mess seem small.

    Indeed, we face much more serious actuarial problems from Medicare than from Social Security. For me this is one of the many reasons we need to get serious about reforming our health care system — whatever form that reform might take.

    July 22, 2009
  866. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: We’re talking in circles. In 753.1, I said, “I believe I’ve shown [to Peter], at least from a Christian perspective, that animals were not put here to eat.” You continue to talk about events long after Christians believe nonhuman animals were put here. If this is not the case, why do you believe that Biblegod put nonhumans here?

    You said, “No one really knows how the climate changed from pre- to post- flood,” – This is because Noah’s Flood is a myth.

    “…or why animal protein became a benefit in the human diet.” – Animal protein is a benefit only when plant protein is not available. It is useful only to keep humans from protein-deficiency starvation. In all other ways, animal protein is inferior to plant protein.

    “But one thing I do know from scripture is that it is not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles him. It is what comes out of it.” – I don’t understand this. If a man wants to eat another human’s flesh, does that not defile him? If a man wants to take another man’s genitals into his mouth, doesn’t that defile him (from a Christian perspective)? If you hold fast to that quote of Yeshua, do you endorse cannibalism and oral sex among men?

    “And, I now have the option of eating meat if I want to.” – Of course you do. I am suggesting that for your health, for the environment, for world (human) hunger, and for the suffering of nonhuman animals, you should refuse the option. Having the option to do something does not mean that we should do something. And the conditions post-Flood cannot be compared to the conditions today. Changed conditions demand a new analysis.

    July 22, 2009
  867. Barry Cipra said:

    john, the steer-destroyer factoid you question is part of the excerpt from the article on veganism, so your beef (so to speak) is with Professor Emeritus Schwartz, not with Jerry. Googling on the sentence fragment “one steer to maturity would float a naval destroyer” takes one to an online version of the essay that includes footnotes, with that sentence citing an article in Newsweek magazine from 1981. It would be of mild interest to see how the source presented it. The comparison might refer to the amount of rainfall needed for whatever amount of land is required per head of cattle for grazing. (One inch of rain on an acre of land is about a hundred tons of water, if I’ve done the calculation correctly.)

    Your own counter-factoid misses the mark by about an order of magnitude: destroyers are much smaller than battleships.

    July 22, 2009
  868. David Henson said:

    Paul Z & Patrick, you have convinced me, we should base our whole public health policy for 300 million people around the needs of abandoned babies – very sensible. BTW: did that hypothetical baby buy its public insurance policy?

    July 22, 2009
  869. Patrick Enders said:

    That baby is covered by Medicaid.

    July 22, 2009
  870. Jerry Friedman said:

    Barry and John: I think it’s healthy to question such factoids on all sides of a debate. I am happy that John raised this.

    VegSource.com cites the Newsweek article in its own article, “How Much Water to Make One Pound of Beef?”

    To date, probably the most reliable and widely-accepted water estimate to produce a pound of beef is the figure of 2,500 gallons/pound. Newsweek once put it another way: “the water that goes into a 1,000 pound steer would float a destroyer.”

    John Robbins wrote in “Food Revolution”:

    + Water Required to produce one pound of U.S. beef: 2,500 gallons (per Dr. Georg Borgstrom, Chairman of Food Science and Human Nutrition Dept of College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University)

    + Water required to produce 1 pound of California beef: 2,464 gallons (per the Water Education Foundation)

    + Water required to produce 1 pound of California beef: 5,214 gallons (per the Soil and Water Specialists, University of California Agricultural Extension, working with livestock farm advisers)

    + Water required to produce 1 pound of beef: 12,009 gallons (per David Pimentel, Ph.D.,* Professor of Ecology and Agricultural Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York)

    I can’t certify the accuracy of any of their numbers, but 2,500 gallons is conservative among them. I expect the largest reason for variation is the food used to feed the cows. If cows are fed a more water-intensive diet, more water will be used to grow food for the cows to eat.

    Cows vary in weight before slaughter, based on species, age and gender. Assuming cows are killed on the light side, I’ll use 800# even though Newsweek used 1000#. Some cows are killed at 1600#. According to Wiki, the heaviest bull was around 3000#.

    For an 800# cow, that’s 2,000,000 gallons of water. Water weighs about 8.35#/gallon, so that’s 16,700,000# of water.

    A fully loaded destroyer weighs up to 18,400,000#.

    I’m not a hydrophysicist but it looks to me that 16 million pounds of water could float an 18 million pound ship, or at least two 800# cows could for a margin of error. Keep in mind I used a light cow and a fully loaded destroyer. Consider a common weight steer (1600#) and a destroyer with a lighter load (16,800,000#) and one heavy steer’s water could float two destroyers.

    Vegsource.com also gives these numbers for comparison.

    1 pound of lettuce = 23 gallons of water
    1 pound of tomatoes = 23 gallons of water
    1 pound of potatoes = 24 gallons of water
    1 pound of wheat = 25 gallons of water
    1 pound of carrots = 33 gallons of water
    1 pound of apples = 49 gallons of water
    1 pound of chicken = 815 gallons of water
    1 pound of pork = 1630 gallons of water

    When looking at water loss, it is entirely unreasonable to grow food for growing cows. Humans should use water on edible plants for human to consume directly.

    I cited earlier that there are 1.53 billion cows worldwide, which amounts to 3.825 quadrillion (3,825,000,000,000,000) gallons of water for them to mature over 15-20 years. No wonder why there’s water shortages worldwide. California keeps competing with other states over rights to the Colorado River, in part because California is a big cow state. If people would stop eating cows, the Colorado River would be plentiful for everyone.

    Water is one measure of loss. There are other measures, such as the increased pesticide use to spray on cow food, increased loss of land to grow cow food, increased use of gasoline to harvest cow food, increased use of antibiotics to reduce disease among cows, ad nauseum.

    If we had unlimited resources, this would not be a concern. Our resources are limited.

    *According to Vegsource.com: Pimentel is a celebrated professor of ecology and agricultural science at Cornell University, who has published over 500 scientific articles, 20 books and overseen scores of important studies.

    July 22, 2009
  871. john george said:

    Jerry- The point I am trying to make is that the whole concept of eating meat or not has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Chritianity has to do with the condition of a man’s soul and spirit in relationship to God. If you look at Yeshua’s comments about what comes out of a person’s mouth, you will find that His focus was on the condition of the man’s heart, not his digestive system. Since you do not believe in any of these things, I find it interesting that you would quote Genesis to support your position. In fact, your direction of restricting a person’s diet has more the appearance of a religion of man than it does Christianity, fortunately.

    July 22, 2009
  872. mike zenner said:

    Paul,

    As with any Ponzi scheme it gets into trouble when the inflowing money at the bottom is less than the amount going out on top!

    If I recall correctly, the SS trust fund “surplus” is a large stack of government IOU’s, also known as US treasury bonds. There are no vaults full of cash or gold. To fully meet payout needs after 2019, SS will have to start selling these bonds to get cash to pay SS recipients. These bonds of coarse will be competing with ongoing treasury debt issues, unless taxes are raised on the remaining working stiffs to buy these bonds back. If the Chinese and Japanese have had their fill of buying US bonds we will be in big trouble. Also, once these bonds are sold they will no longer be collecting interest money for the SS fund which will further diminish fund inflows.

    July 22, 2009
  873. john george said:

    Barry- I looked up a reference from an agriculture college that gave average daily consumption of water by a steer. If the total life of the steer from birth to maturity is about 3 years, then his total consumption of water during this period is about 53 tons, give or take a few hundred pounds. A destroyer displaces quite a bit more water than that. If this is just an exageration to illustrate a point, such as “I think the world of that person”, then I have no problem with it. I sometimes get confused as to whether a figure is being presented as fact or illustration.

    July 22, 2009
  874. david henson said:

    The baby was abandoned because the parents gave up after the government fined them $1000. for not buying mandated insurance.

    July 22, 2009
  875. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: You have to factor in the water that the cows drink, and the extra water required to grow their food.

    If a human eats a pound of tomatoes, it takes 23 gallons of water.

    If a human eats a pound of cows, it takes 2500+ gallons of water to grow food for the cow for the cow to grow to maturity, plus the water the cow drinks directly.

    Cows eat and drink a lot.

    About Christianity and eating animals, I thought that compassion was a major component of Christianity. I thought service to other humans was a component. I thought that ameliorating others’ suffering reveals a lot of character in a person’s heart and “soul”. Recognizing that nonhuman animals can suffer helps explain why Biblegod originally said that they are not for humans to eat, and why in Isaiah 11:6-9, lions eat straw like oxen. How is a Christian full of love and compassion if they eat other animals without need, and when eating other animals causes human and nonhuman suffering?

    If the relationship between human and Biblegod is paramount, I would wish for Christians to back off from criticizing homosexuals. If obeying Biblegod’s express orders is paramount, Genesis 1:29 is still relevant to Christians. Is the relationship with Biblegod more important or obeying Biblegod more important?

    About my use of the Bible, if you use the Bible to defend or explain your views, am I not allowed to use the Bible to show an alternative point-of-view, one that incidentally has been endorsed by Christians? Or are mathematicians disallowed to talk about diet and atheists disallowed to talk about Genesis?

    July 22, 2009
  876. john george said:

    Jerry- Here is the link I found my information on-
    http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/livestoc/as954w.htm
    The average over the year, according to the table, is about 11.83 gal./day. Usually, a steer takes about 3 years to finish to 1000#, so this figures out to about 12,957 gal, @8.3 lbs./gal., or about 53.77 tons. That is where I got my figures. Now, let’s see if Griff’s filter will allow the html. to go through.

    July 22, 2009
  877. john george said:

    Jerry- I forgot to add on the figures to float a destroyer. I looked up several classes, but the newest ones appear to displace 8000 to 9000 tons of water. On the conservative side (8000 tons), it would take about 148 steers to accomplish this in 3 years. On the higher side, it would take about 166, so a large herd of, say, 1000 head could probably float 6 or 7 destroyers.

    July 22, 2009
  878. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Your calculations neglect the water it takes to grow food for the cow to maturity.

    July 22, 2009
  879. john george said:

    Jerry- The water it takes to grow crops is a constant, unless you are talking about crops irrigated with ground water. The natural rain taken up by the plants that cows eat would fall on that land no matter who ate the plants. I have no figures for irrigation. I’ll see if I can find some, but being able to coorelate the relationship will be pretty tricky. I still say your contentions about reducing the consumption of beef having any effect on global warming is really not viable.

    July 22, 2009
  880. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: It would be splendid to see if you come up with different numbers than the people I cited in 759.6.

    Incidentally, I thought the point behind irrigation was that rain is not dependable, especially in deserts like most of cow-country California.

    July 22, 2009
  881. john george said:

    Jerry- The figures of what cows drink are above. They drink about 54 tons of water per cow over their lifetime, but, as I pointed out, some of this is directly returned to the environment.

    As far as your use of scriptures in the past, you seem to have used them to denegrate Christianity and present them as falible myths. You have the freedom to do this. I also have the freedom to point out to you those things of which you do not have any revelation or understanding. Your big beef in our past dialogues has been centered around your perception of human rights, such as slavery, and how you are displeased that God does not specifically condemn this. Even though I know some things about the Catholic church, I would have insufficient understanding to be a spokesperson of it. I can only relate those things which I have seen and heard in my own life.

    You asked this question

    How is a Christian full of love and
    compassion if they eat other animals
    without need, and when eating other
    animals causes human and nonhuman
    suffering?

    and I was reminded of something I heard an evangelist say years ago. There are countless homeless children in this world, but there are still people who will spend thousands of dollars to mother a mutt. Your perception of suffering caused to non-human animals by eating them seems kind of shallow when you still contend that it is a woman’s right to destroy her embrio because the brain cells are not developed sufficiently for the embrio to realize suffering. This is in light of Ps. 139, where God says he knows our unformed substance and writes the days He has ordained for us in His book before there is even one of them. I do not read anything in your opinions that strikes me as an “Ah ha!” You seem to think you lay out some serious discrepencies in your writings, but I only see your lack of revelation and understanding of Christianity. It is too bad you moved to California, as I would have liked to spend more time with you. I believe you have studued Christianity enough. You need to see it demonstrated to you. I trust that Father will arrange that in your life in the future.

    As far as what you might wish from Christians, I highly doubt that we will back away from those things we know as true just to please you. I do not need a shamman to interpret the scriptures for me. I also am confident to stand before God in my convictions, as I know each one of us will do on that day. I am convinced that if I lack in anything, God will reveal that to me, also, and I will keep living by that standard to which I have attained, as is written in Phil 3:15&16.

    July 22, 2009
  882. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Again your number neglects the water used to grow food for the cows. You could start your research on this number with some of the experts I cited. Maybe they overlooked something.

    Several weeks ago, I pointed out that there is a permanent divide in our perspectives. You trust the Bible, I do not. You believe in the supernatural, I do not. This means we will probably not agree on several things. I hope, from time to time, we agree on other things.

    One thing you mentioned piqued my attention:

    “There are countless homeless children in this world, but there are still people who will spend thousands of dollars to mother a mutt.”

    There are also countless starving children in this world. When we grow food and give it to cows and other animals, we are wasting that food. That food should go to starving children, starving adults, and surely the juveniles in between. With a surplus of food (by no longer giving it to cows), food prices would plummet. With better diets, healthcare prices would plummet. Methane emissions would plummet. Foreign oil demand would drop. Anyway, why do you suppose some religious people, not only Christians, would rather waste food on cows rather than use our resources more wisely and feed children? For the taste of a cow’s flesh, or a chicken’s, or a pig’s? This sounds to me like a problem for those who want to present themselves as humble to Biblegod.

    You say that homeless humans should be given shelter, not mutts.

    I say that starving humans should be given food, not cows.

    Sure, let’s give humans priority. Stop eating cows and more humans will be fed.

    Incidentally, I’d open my home to homeless people if I was assured safety and if the person would only nominally or not at all affect my finances. I am not prejudiced on species, but I am on safety and bankruptcy.

    July 22, 2009
  883. john george said:

    Jerry- I have searched several pages of links related to irrigation and cattle feed production. I saw this trend in all of them- they are either linked to the beef industry or the vegetarian lifestyle, neither of which do I trust to give an accurate evaluation or neutral report of statistics. One thing about the internet, a person can find some link to support just about any particular opinion they happen to have.

    In your last post, here, I think you are touching upon what I call the basis of the problem. What we face is the enequity in the distribution system. We produce so much grain in this country that we can’t find enough markets for it. Much of the farm program money is used to pay farmers not to grow anything at all on their land. Even the surpluses sent overseas with good intentions of going to people become waylaid and mired down in graft and greed in just about every country represented. You and I will always probably differ in what we see as the remedy to this problem, but I think we could agree on this one point- the problems lie with the people involved in the distribution system, not the production system.

    July 23, 2009
  884. john george said:

    Oops! I meant to respond to this last comment you made-

    Incidentally, I’d open my home to
    homeless people if I was assured
    safety and if the person would only
    nominally or not at all affect my
    finances. I am not prejudiced on
    species, but I am on safety and
    bankruptcy.

    I have opened my home to homeless people,and it has cost me something. There is this one scripture- he who gives to the poor lends to God, and God will repay him. I think it was King David who said- how can I give anything to God that has not cost me something? This is where you and I differ in our response. I know I cannot outgive God’s provision for me. If He could feed thousands of people with a few fish and a couple loaves of bread, He can certainly multiply the paltry sum that I command. It is just this principle that I have seen Him do in our lives. As it is written, the angel of the Lord encamps around about those that fear Him, and delivers them. This is not to be naive in the process, but I have confidence to step out into the situations God sets before me.

    July 23, 2009
  885. William Siemers said:

    Peter and Mike…

    Please read the report and social security’s own report(which does not vary much from the CBO’s). And thank you Paul for your comments.

    The fact is that changes will be made to SS to ensure its long term viability. Calling SS a ‘ponzi scheme’ or a ‘debacle’, is just a lie and does nothing to advance the debate.

    Changes need to be made to medicare. Some have been made and others will be made in the future. This enormously popular program (see the link in my previous post) will continue to serve the needs of older citizens for years to come.

    Peter, regarding your links to Canadian health care problems… What do your links have to do with??? The current debate in congress does not include a solution that is any thing close to the Canadian system, (personally I think it should…but it doesn’t.) Millions of Canadians are happy with their system. In fact, a couple of the links that you provide give a balanced picture of that system.

    This country needs health care reform, that is almost universally accepted. Let’s focus on the horror stories that our system creates and give support to our representatives that are trying to eliminate them.

    July 23, 2009
  886. Paul Zorn said:

    Mike Z (good to hear from more of us end-of-alphabet people):

    How seriously do you intend your reference to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme? If it’s just rhetorical overkill, so be it.

    But if you really intend the epithet, please explain, with reference to some accepted definition of “Ponzi scheme”.

    July 23, 2009
  887. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    You wrote:

    The baby was abandoned because the parents gave up after the government fined them $1000. for not buying mandated insurance.

    Haha.

    If we could get serious again, I’d like to hear more ideas about how a debit card system might work, as I think the idea has some possibilities. So far you’ve seemed to attribute questions about details and hard cases to nitpicking, or reflexive controlling liberalism, or some other nefarious motive. Perhaps we could move on.

    In some settings hard cases do make bad law, and I agree that the basic outline of a health coverage plan is most important. But health is special in that a large fraction of health care effort and cost are associated to hard cases, spectacular injuries, serious illnesses that used to be fatal, etc. A lot of infants survive nowadays, for instance, who wouldn’t have made it even 20 years ago. That’s a good thing — but it makes for lots of situations that are nowhere near average.

    So IMO responsibilty dictates that any proposed system needs to take these hard — but not really unusual — cases into account.

    July 23, 2009
  888. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, First off, logic would suggest designing a health plan for people currently healthy and those not yet in existence, leaving those currently sick to be handled separately. Those currently sick are VERY important but a much different actuarial problem. Would you agree? Perhaps defining the currently sick as those who have incurred over $5000.00 in health expenses within a 12 month period during past 3 years (or such).

    July 23, 2009
  889. Peter Millin said:

    William,

    Millions of Canadians are happy with
    their system.

    No they are not, after living there for nearly five years I can promise you that this is not true.

    Fixing medicare will mean “throw more money at it”, this is about the only solution for it.

    If people perceive something to be free the tendency for abuse goes way up. This is human nature.

    The proposed public option by our government is the first step of nationalizing health care. What would be the incentive for a private business to offer health insurance when there is a tax funded public option?

    I can’t believe how missinformed most Americans are on the “virtues” of single payer health insurance.
    Most European nations have started out that way, only to find out that this option is not sustainable.

    France and England have now for years cut back the public option to let more private businesses come in. They realized that a one payer system just can’t maintain the services of a private sector business at the same cost.

    Obama is lying when he says that his plan will reduce healtcare cost. If that would really happen the US would be the only country in the world to pull it off.

    A few more words on Canada. The basic option offered does not cover all needs. Pretty much everybody has a supplementary insurance, for which you have to pay extra.
    Unlike in Germany in Canada you can’t tell how much of your paycheck goes to cover health care costs.

    So here are some numbers outside of that: My tax rate in Canada was 42%. You pay a VAT of 14% on anything you buy. There is no mortgage deduction on your house.

    If we as country want to have a single payer system I wish Obama would be honest about the true cost. he isn’t because he knows that once the real numbers became known, most Americans wouldn’t play along.

    Germany has consistently struggled with healthcare costs and paying for the government run pension.
    In all budget debattes pensions are the number one item.
    It is true that people in Germany have universal access to health care, but it is not cheaper then here in the US. In general healthcare costs about 8% of your gross salary.

    Paul Z,

    You know that these projections are subject to change. Especially in light of current increases in debt.

    The SS “Lockbox” is nothing more then a box full of IOU’s. Which government uses to finance other programs.
    It is pretty much a pay as you go system. With the recent increase in debt and the interest payments that go with it, that money available for SS will become less and less.
    I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that date will come sooner rather then later.

    At the end of the day we have a finite amount of money and it is nothing more then accounting gimmicks on how you project it and spend it.

    July 23, 2009
  890. David Henson said:

    Peter, I would not get too worked up the congress has already put off health reform into the future. The public does not support a socialistic health plan and the elected officals know this.

    July 23, 2009
  891. mike zenner said:

    William and Paul Z,

    I think take because all the years of sitting in the back of the classroom, I feel a need to spout some rhetorical hyperbole to get noticed:)

    Seriously, I don’t have a problem will the SS system, is a matter of fact the survivor benefits are what paid my way through college. Also, My parents and in laws are both current recipients of the system, so I have no issues with paying into it.

    My single issue Paul is the quote:

    The SS trust fund has accumulated huge surpluses over the years

    This statement implies that there is a big pile of money to draw on in the future which of coarse is not the case,. Rather it is a big pile of government IOU’s (special bonds) from the general fund. Now a pile of treasury bonds might be a good investment/asset for you or I or China but I don’t think of it as an asset for the US government. How can the government borrow from itself?

    If the fund was all cash then it would be a huge surplus. However, since it is government IOU’s in reality it is a part of what is referred to as the governments $54Til Unfunded liability.

    We are going to have hard choices to make in the future about what gets funded, and I don’t think the political class has the will to make hard choices. If these choices are not made very very soon then I firmly believe the the US government will either default or hyper inflate the economy (no hyperbole here).

    What effect this has on the SS fund who knows. I know for sure that we as a nation will be poorer in the future, how much will depend I believe on the hard choices we make or not make. I know this because of the poor choices we’ve made for the last 30 yrs.

    July 23, 2009
  892. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    Re #777:

    You make quantitative claims that don’t hold up. For instance, William S remarks that “millions of Canadians” are happy with their health care, and Patrick cites numbers from — of all places — Fox News which support this point. Yet you assert that your own time of Canada belies all these numerical data.

    Perhaps you really meant that “many Canadians are dissatisfied” with their health care. Such a qualitative assertion might be believable, but that’s not what you claimed.

    Re Social Security, you made the quantitative claim that money would run out in 10-20 years, and cited a government web site. But that very source pointed to something more like 40 years. Again, you might make the qualitative claim that Social Security needs actuarial attention, but that’s not what you said.

    Yet another quantitative claim (my italics):

    It is true that people in Germany have universal access to health care, but it is not cheaper then [sic] here in the US. In general health care costs about 8% of your gross salary …

    Per capita spending on Germany is much lower than here; the comparison seems to be something like 10% of GDP in Germany vs 16% here. Look it up anywhere. Again, there might be some defensible qualitative point kicking around here (health care isn’t perfect in Germany, or whatever) but that’s not what you said.

    Please be more careful with the numbers. (Some of mine might be wrong, to be sure … let me know.)

    July 23, 2009
  893. mike zenner said:

    Paul see 776.1 below for response

    July 23, 2009
  894. Paul Zorn said:

    Mike Z:

    Whether the Social Security trust fund (SSTF) is real or an accounting fiction is an interesting question. (FWIW, this was a point of disagreement, by the way, between former Pres GWB and Alan Greenspan.) This question is taken seriously and discussed at some length at

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

    The fact that the SSTF is not literally a money bin a la Scrooge McDuck is, IMO, neither here nor there. In the real world the SSTF needs to put its money to work (and to earn interest … which it does). Given the needed investment scale there are probably few alternatives to US treasury bonds.

    It’s fair to ask whether the US treasury will in fact be able to redeem these bonds (which are guaranteed by the “full faith and credit of the US government”) as they come due. But keep in mind that the same issues arise for US treasury bonds sold to individuals, foundations, endowments. In other words, if you really regards US treasury bonds as worthless then a lot of people, foreign governments, and other entities will be living in caves a few decades ahead. I don’t think so …

    I agree that it’s time for our elected representatives to make some hard choices, many of which have been put off for too long. But I don’t fully share your certainty that the nation “will be poorer in the future”, partly because we can’t really know the future and partly because some of our recent prosperity has been more apparent than real.

    July 23, 2009
  895. mike zenner said:

    Guys,

    Tell me whats wrong with this idea.

    To help our politicians with making the hard choices, we could have a section on the bottom of the 1040 tax form that you can designate which programs you want to increase or decrease funding.

    So say each gov program will show last years percent of total government spending and from that basis you could have an adjustment of say +/- 3%. So for example say social security fund was 15% of total budget so, you could assign to adjust it down to 12% or up to 18%. In the end obviously all allocations would have to balance to say 99%, due to the fact that total spending needs to be reduced. From this gov must abide by the average of all tax payers input and fund next fiscal year accordingly.

    Would this be fair? Would citizens make the right choices and not be self serving in voting benefits for themselves or neglect critical services? Would this cause people to take more of an interest in the way Gov is funded?

    Or maybe like this is a dumbest idea I ever heard!!

    July 23, 2009
  896. William Siemers said:

    I just listened to the head of the Mayo clinic, Denis Cortese, on health care reform. He does not favor the public option as currently proposed in the house bill. He does favor insuring all Americans. His opinion is that there are already 5 or 6 ‘government’ health plans, if it has to be a public option, let the uninsured get access to an existing plan. Still, in general, Mayo, seems to endorse a system that requires mandatory private insurance.

    Paying for reform: He does not take issue with the President’s opinion that around 700 billion of savings can be made through changes (that need not negatively effect outcomes) to medicare and medicaid.

    He also said that there are, amongst the many proposals currently being debated in congress, elements that could meet the standards of Mayo’s “Principles of Health Care Reform”:

    Creating Value
    Coordinated Care
    Payment Reform
    Health Insurance for All

    Another point he made in regard to Medicare: It is essential to get the proposed Medicare advisory council in place to begin to change the way Medicare makes decisions on providing coverage. That is, to begin to move emphasis away from fee for service, to fees for results. He made an interesting side note…Medicare spends $16,000 a year per medicare enrollee in Miami and $5000 per year, per enrollee in Hawaii, with no difference in outcomes. Clearly Hawaii is doing something right!

    July 23, 2009
  897. David Henson said:

    One has to be a bit skeptical of citing doctors and the Mayo’s support for more universal health care reform. This is like Hostess agreeing that all kids have a right to Twinkies – the outcome puts a bunch of money in their pockets.

    William, is the 700 billion in “savings” a result of mandating insurance payments from the lower middle class. Which effectively takes $700 billion out of their pockets – “so everyone is paying their fair share.” To my mind all mandated payments are just a “tax” where the government has outsourced the “tax collection” to private companies.

    July 24, 2009
  898. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Mayo Clinic is distinct from many other medical providers in ways which make it’s opinion somewhat more valuable than you assert:

    1) It is a nonprofit business.

    2) Mayo is an innovator in providing better health outcomes at a lower cost.

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1905340,00.html

    http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/07/05/mayo_health_care_cost_control/

    You should like the Mayo Clinic. They are a private sector innovator.

    July 24, 2009
  899. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: The comparison of the Mayo clinic with for-profit providers helps to qualify David’s reasoning.

    July 24, 2009
  900. It’s not reasonable to put Mayo on a pedestal as a “non-profit” when MOST are “non-profits.” Look at Allina, right there in Northfield. Just because they’re “non-profits” does NOT mean they’re not making money. Take a look at salaries at the top.

    July 24, 2009
  901. William Siemers said:

    david…

    The majority of the savings come from changes in the way medicare and medicade approach health care (let’s say for example the Hawaii model or for that matter the mayo clinic model), not by mandating insurance payments.

    There will need to be additional revenues, but I don’t know that requiring insurance will add much, if anything, to the net revenues needed. Personally I think we should tax the value of all insurance premiums beyond those of a basic, high deductible plan. But that doesn’t look like it is going to happen.

    I would be happy with mandatory insurance provided it is coupled with changes in the way health care is delivered. Just a couple examples…End of life care for terminally ill patients in the hospital? Or worse yet in the ICU? Ridiculous. Emergency rooms as neighborhood clinics for the uninsured? That’s nuts. Unnecessary ‘follow-up’ visits? Duplication of tests and ‘over testing’. There are other issues, like drugs that cost 10’s of thousands of dollars that at best add a couple of months to a terminal patient’s life. Yes…that opens the ‘rationing’ question, but don’t we have to begin talking about cost/benefit rations in health care? In any case, we are rationing health care now, society just finds it hard to admit.

    Regarding Mayo’s self interest in promoting insurance for all. This is from Mayo’s mission statement:

    “Operate in a manner intended not to create wealth but to provide a financial return sufficient for present and future needs.”

    Mayo doctors are salaried. They do not make more money by doing more ‘services’. The president has cited Mayo and the Cleveland Clinic as examples of where reform should head.

    July 24, 2009
  902. Patrick Enders said:

    Carol,
    The non-profit was a separate point, but actually, Mayo – to my understanding – actually does a fair bit to discourage high incomes for doctors and administration.

    I don’t have time to dig up the facts one way or the other on that matter today (company’s visiting), but I know many physicians who have left the Mayo system because they can make far more money outside of Mayo Clinic rather than in it.

    July 24, 2009
  903. David Henson said:

    I think the Taj Mahal is also a non-profit

    July 24, 2009
  904. Yes, Mr. Siemers, that’s much more artful and specific. Mayo does put doctors on salary to remove profit incentive, and I hope that they have restrictions regarding doctors owning other associated facilities and referring patients to them. But as above, the issue is CARE, not insurance. And again, as one who has not had health care cost coverage of any sort and is paying out-of-pocket, I will greatly resent being forced to pay for “insurance” out of my pocket if my “out-of-pocket” health care costs will not be covered. Without removing the insurance companies from this mix, without removing all their overhead costs, I don’t see health care improving anytime soon. And there’s a distinction between “non-profit” and “revenue generation.” Most of our health care expenses go to “non-profits” and are at end of life, if it’s nursing home costs, that’s typically not covered by insurance. As one who also yesterday was rejoicing that my mother’s nursing home bill for the month was “ONLY” $4,155, due to a new case mix, rather than $7,500 as the prior three months, and watching their overuse of service and overprescribing, knowing that a one time emergency room dose of morphine on admission meant a case mix that cost $2,500 more monthly thereafter (no broken hip, no IV, just maintenance care), $2,500/mo for three months, $7,500 more, for the same care, because of that one hospital ER room dose of morphine, this is insanity. Scheduling MRIs at the drop of a hat, prescribing oral antibiotics for, literally, a pimple. And yes, the nursing home is a “non-profit,” but I see revenue generation at every turn. When most of the “health care” dollars are spent in the last years of life, and now that boomers are seeing how that goes, there’s some motivation — we must alter this.

    July 24, 2009
  905. Peter Millin said:

    Funny you should mention the Mayo Clinic

    http://healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.org/2009/07/16/mayo-clinic%E2%80%99s-reaction-to-house-tri-committee-bill/

    Although there are some positive
    provisions in the current House
    Tri-Committee bill – including
    insurance for all and payment reform
    demonstration projects – the proposed
    legislation misses the opportunity to
    help create higher-quality, more
    affordable health care for patients.
    In fact, it will do the opposite.

    July 24, 2009
  906. Peter Millin said:

    Paul Z..(sigh)

    I ahve posted this before, but hee we go again. NPR did a study on European health care.

    Basing premiums on a
    percentage-of-salary means that the
    less people make, the less they have
    to pay. The more money they make, the
    more they pay. This principle is at
    the heart of the system. Germans call
    it “solidarity.” The idea is that
    everybody’s in it together, and nobody
    should be without health insurance.

    “If I don’t make a lot of money, I
    don’t have to pay a lot of money for
    health insurance,” Sabina says. “But I
    have the same access to health care
    that someone who makes more money
    has.”

    But she acknowledges that nearly 8
    percent of her salary is a sizable
    bite.

    “Yes, it’s expensive. You know, it’s a
    big chunk of your monthly income,”
    Sabina says. “But considering what you
    can get for it, it’s worth it.”

    Nobody, that includes me, denies that we need health care reform. I just don’t believe that government running it is a good idea.

    Based on their track record with medicare or SS it just doesn’t make sense.

    We can argue about symantics or exact dates on when the money will run out. Fact is they will run out. Fact is the only way it can be fixed is by raising taxes.
    Truth is that agood portion of that money doesn’t exist in reality.
    Truth is, that we all the other obligation we have agreed to, we will cripple our ability to be efficent.

    Paul, when time comes..guess who they are coming to see to get the money from?

    I hope nobody here relies on SS for their retirement. Even if funded it won’t be nearly enough.
    That is no different in Germany or here.

    July 24, 2009
  907. Patrick Enders said:

    Yes,
    And if you are following these things, you’d know that Mayo is in favor of an amendment/option that Obama is pressing to have included in the overall package, which would shift much of Congress’s ability to micromanage fee structures to an expert panel.

    Mayo spokespeople have expressed some support of that as a way to use this reform process to drive down costs.

    July 24, 2009
  908. Patrick Enders said:

    Carol, you wrote:
    “I hope that they have restrictions regarding doctors owning other associated facilities and referring patients to them.”

    Mayo does not tolerate those practices.

    I really suggest reading the New Yorker article I linked to above (and that was first brought to my attention by Paul Zorn). It talks a lot about those types of schemes, and how Mayo’s model is fundamentally different from (and better than, and cheaper than) that.

    July 24, 2009
  909. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    No need to keep reposting the same stuff about the German system. My point, which none of this addresses, was your assertion that the German system is more expensive than ours.

    It isn’t.

    July 24, 2009
  910. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    Do you pay 8% of your salary for health care? I don’t.

    July 24, 2009
  911. Anthony Pierre said:

    Healthcare spending as a percentage of income, for those earning less than $20,000 per year: 15.5 percent

    For those earning between $55,000 and $70,000: 5.1 percent

    For those earning more than $70,000: 3 percent

    Average increase in employer-based health insurance premiums since 1999: 120 percent

    from here

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Trouble-With-Healthcare-usnews-1498528740.html?x=0

    July 24, 2009
  912. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    No, I don’t pay 8% of my salary for health insurance, at least not directly, but that’s not diagnostic (no pun intended).

    The proper measure of what health care costs a society is not what’s deducted from your paycheck, or mine. That figure, whatever it is, is only part of what health care really costs. What’s deducted also reflects all sorts of accidents, such as the ages of one’s children, the employment status of one’s spouse, the particulars of one’s health care plan (if any … ), the amount one’s employer pays (if any … ) and more. Nor does this figure include what one pays in deductibles, for health care that’s not covered, etc.

    The right way, IMO, to measure health care costs to a society is to add up all health-related costs and divide by the number of people in the society. For the US that calculation leads to about $7000 per person per year. In Germany the figure is something closer to $4000. In neither society is that cost paid entirely through payroll deductions, but we still all pay it one way or another, through things like higher deductibles, reduced takehome pay, higher prices for everything, etc.

    Any way you cut it, Germans spends less on health care than we Yanks do. This may be good or bad, but it’s a fact.

    July 24, 2009
  913. Paul Zorn said:

    Anthony,

    I saw these numbers you cite at the URL you included, but they don’t make much sense to me. As a society we spend about $7K per person per year on health care, and this would be a lot more than 15% of salary for someone earning 20K/year. (That 15% would amount to about 3K/person.)

    The numbers US News cites may reflect only typical health insurance costs, or something. But there’s something missing in the picture.

    July 24, 2009
  914. mike zenner said:

    I thought maybe a little read on the history of health care in America may help in understanding how we got where we are today. Article tends to slam the “for profit” health system, and perhaps for good reason.

    The slate article is summarizing Jonathan Cohn, a senior editor at the New Republic his book ” Sick: The Untold Story of America’s Health Care Crisis—And the People Who Paid the Price”.

    I like the Idea of the old blue cross/blue shield from the 1920’s

    http://www.slate.com/id/2161736/

    July 25, 2009
  915. Jerry Friedman said:

    I’m actually starting to favor the for-profit idea for health care. I think all things should become for profit, like the police and fire departments… even the courts.

    With a profit incentive, all things get better. Competition is the capitalist ideal. Let’s try it out.

    July 25, 2009
  916. David Henson said:

    William, I can tell you form personal knowledge that many, many fortunes have been made in the medical field in Rochester, MN. The Mayo’s main innovation was being the first hospital to add a marketing department (they were the first to start going around and telling everyone they were the best – smart and effective). One only need to walk around and look at the facilities to know medicine in Rochester is not cheap – the wealthy Arabs are not thought of as penny pinchers (they choose Mayo). My guess is the Mayo is marketing a cost accounting vision that does not reflect reality – like maybe they isolate out the 100s of millions in gifts they are given.

    July 25, 2009
  917. mike zenner said:

    Paul Z,

    To 776.2. The fact is treasury bonds are debt instruments and DEBT is the whole problem that we face currently an even more so in the future.

    When you pull back the lens and look at Americas big economic picture (current recession, SS funding, health care reform etc) the root problems are too much Debt and an aging Demographic! As we boomers start retiring it will require more draw down of assets that really do not exist. Boomers will be cashing in their treasury bonds(IOU’S) from their 401ks/IRA’s along with the SS fund cashing in their IOU’S. China also cannot be depended on to be always a net buyer of treasuries, they are already trying to diversify away from t-bonds!

    The support of funding the cashing in of all these IOU’s falls on an ever shrinking younger population. The health care system with an increasing older population will pile on ever more demand on the smaller group of workers. This is why we will be poorer in the future.

    There will be so much assets directed toward debt servicing that the economy will have little or no money to put toward capital formation to grow the economy, further deteriorating the debt servicing capability. I noticed in the CBO report on the SS fund that they were skewing their projections on funding the system based on a larger immigration rate(more worker bees to keep the economy from sinking faster). I am convinced this is also the reason why very little is being done about illegal immigration.

    July 25, 2009
  918. mike zenner said:

    Paul,

    I forgot to add the other major deficit facing us, oil deficit. Future capital for fuel will be sent off to the tune of $360bil(at today’s price) every year!! This is triple the $100bil/yr we’re arguing about over health care under the proposed health care plan!

    July 25, 2009
  919. Paul Zorn said:

    Mike Z:

    Re #795, I agree that as a country we’ve been profligate about debt. IMO the Republicans bear a disproportionate share (but not all) of the guilt for this, because their adamant opposition to taxes was never matched by a proportional willingness to reduce government spending. Full disclosure: I think we underinvest in public goods, like education, so I’m not here to starve the government. My point is that we need to pay for the stuff we want, or go without. By cutting taxes but still spending (not necessarily on the things that Democrats would prefer) Republican administrations have given the perverse message that we can have big government goodies and small government rhetoric (and taxes) at the same time. Wrong.

    Democrats are not blameless, IMO, but it’s too soon to blame them much for messes they mainly inherited. Cleaning up messes, no matter their source, in a responsible way is the incumbent party’s responsibility, like it or not, and it remains to be seen how this will work out.

    Your demographic forecast (more geezers like me coming along, fewer earners like my kids) seems qualitatively right. But I’m not ready to panic until I see more quantitative data. For instance, what are the economic pros and cons of increased immigration, and how do they balance each other out? What would the economic effects be of people retiring somewhat later, on average, than they did 50 years ago? What technology innovations might improve (or degrade) our economy in the next 50 years? Stuff like that.

    Re the CBO report on SS, you wrote:

    I noticed in the CBO report on the SS fund that they were skewing their projections on funding the system based on a larger immigration rate …

    Do you mean to imply some nefarious intent? If so, who’s hoodwinking whom? (I couldn’t trace the antecedent of “they” above.)

    July 25, 2009
  920. mike zenner said:

    Jerry,

    quote from the Slate article:

    The overall trend—the gift of an increasingly market-driven health-care system—is to undermine the very idea that the cost of illness should be spread out among the general population, healthy and unhealthy alike. In this sense, the private health-care market is too efficient. Assigning health care costs to sick people is what the market wants to do.

    The pursuit of higher profits will always drive the sick population up in cost and out of the insurance system due to their higher cost! As the article pointed out more then once, every time the “for profits” jumped into the insurance system the ill were price up and eventually out of the system.

    Unfortunately, People are not widgets, our population aging health costs can’t be reversed by a new cost effective manufacturing process or methodology, only perhaps slowed down by newer technology, which ironically, is actually driving more cost into the system.

    July 25, 2009
  921. mike zenner said:

    Paul,

    here’s a quantitative number from SS. currently 3.3 workers for every 1 retiree. Projection for 2030( most likely including assumed future immigrants) 2.0 workers per 1 retiree!

    the “They” is from the CBO study you referenced in #773 above:

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9649/08-20-SocialSecurityUpdate.pdf

    see bottom paragraph of page 39.

    July 25, 2009
  922. Jerry Friedman said:

    Mike: I understand. It reminds me of the play, “Oliver”, where England’s rich and poor were at extremes, and the whole society suffered so that the very rich could live luxuriously. The way I see it, the more health care costs, the more the relatively wealthy won’t notice and the more the relatively poor will suffer.

    Bill Maher and others have complained that we used to do well without profit being a factor in health care. Now hospitals are big business, health insurance executives are among the best paid in the world, and health care costs (pecuniary and other) have been a constant problem since before Hillary Clinton tried to fix it.

    Yet, I find the capitalist argument most persuasive. Competition makes better products and service. Profit incentives help to guarantee that the very best people will rise to the top. This is why I think we should change our courts, and police and fire depts. to the same capitalistic model. The prisons are already on that path.

    I think that for every criminal who is convicted, the courts, prosecutors and police who actually earned the conviction should get a bonus from our tax money. For every cop who pulls me over for a traffic infraction and lets me go, because I’m innocent, will get a tip. If I make a 911 call, I’ll tip whomever shows up. This will only cost me a few hundred per year if I’m lucky. I am not wealthy but I can afford paying for better police and fire service. What does it matter to me if the poor can’t afford a few hundred per year?

    Seriously, I would like to see health care’s profit motive shattered. I think doctors, nurses and middle-men should be paid a reasonable salary based on their geography, no more. I don’t have a particular gripe with most doctors and nurses, but the middle-men. To me, this is like the $10,000 hammers that the Pentagon used to buy. Profit motives are destroying the industry, our economy, and those in need are tossed to the side.

    I’d also like to see everyone better informed on the link between diet and disease. The most common diseases are related to diet. Society doesn’t like paying lung cancer costs to smokers; why does it acquiesce to heart attack costs to those who eat the standard American diet?

    July 25, 2009
  923. David Henson said:

    Mike, you are on the problem. And when the ratio hits 2 workers to 1 retiree in a socialistic state then capital and talent will flee the country fast making the problem worse.

    July 25, 2009
  924. Paul Zorn said:

    Mike,

    Thanks for the numbers. They help put things in context. As you say, what we send away for oil every year is way bigger than the estimated additional governmental cost of the health care bill. For reference, $360 billion is something like 3% of our GDP, and the $100b billion is less than 1%. Of course what really matters for health care is the total cost, private and governmental, totals something over 15% of our GDP.

    The decreasing number of workers per retiree is also striking, but sorting out its quantitative implications for Social Security would take more information. I was a bit surprised, for instance, to read in the source you cited that even 75 years from now the CBO projects, without any changes from present policy, a difference of only 1% of GDP between Social Security income and outflow. That’s a lot of money (1% of a huge number is still a big number) but I’m still not ready to panic (on the SS account, anyway).

    July 25, 2009
  925. mike zenner said:

    Paul,

    I don’t want to Panic you but there is one large omission it SS CBO report. They don’t state any GDP growth rate numbers for the what the whole report is based on! So I found this other CBO report on the GDP growth rate that was put out this last January.

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9967/01-27-StateofEconomy_Testimony.pdf

    Basically they are assuming about 5.7% growth rate with the current recession ending this fall and the GDP start growing again early 2010. Looking at their graphs it looks like they just took a ruler and took the heady trajectory of the housing bubble and projected it continuing into the future.

    Now what happens if the growth rate is only 2% on average. What if, and in all likelihood we will, experience the Japanese lost decade now going on 19 yrs, with basically 0% or negative growth. What if its a MINUS 5% for the next 10 years? This will raise real hell with the SS % of GDP ratios.

    July 26, 2009
  926. William Siemers said:

    Mike…that seems like a pretty high real growth rate for the GDP, since it hasn’t been above 5% for 10 years and averaged a little over 3%.

    July 27, 2009
  927. Paul Zorn said:

    Mike Z:

    I’m still not panicking about Social Security, and IMO nobody needs to.

    You write:

    Basically they [CBO, I think … PZ] are assuming about 5.7% growth rate with the current recession ending this fall and the GDP start growing again early 2010.

    Maybe I missed something, but I don’t see anything like the 5.7% assumption anywhere in the CBO report you mention. How did you compute this? I’m dubious …

    The closest thing to a GDP growth rate projection I found in [a few minutes of scanning] the report is a 2.4% projection for real GDP rise in 2015-19.

    Looking at their graphs it looks like they just took a ruler and took the heady trajectory of the housing bubble and projected it continuing into the future.

    If you mean the graph titled Gross Domestic Product 2005-2015, then it is indeed projected outward as a straight line … but note that this actually corresponds to a decreasing rate of annual growth. (A constant rate of annual growth would produce an exponential curve, which turns up.)

    Now what happens if the growth rate is only 2% on average. What if, and in all likelihood we will, experience the Japanese lost decade now going on 19 yrs, with basically 0% or negative growth. What if its a MINUS 5% for the next 10 years? This will raise real hell with the SS % of GDP ratios.

    Yes, lower (or higher) growth rates have consequences. Is that “in all likelihood” a probabilistic estimate, or just a general fear? If the former, what did you calculate?

    July 27, 2009
  928. mike zenner said:

    Paul,

    I took the Nominal GDP rate of 5.7% from table 1 for years 2011-2014, or 4% real GDP. It is this high rate that they are using to get back on the potential GDP line in fig 1 chart. Now this may very well be likely, but I feel it will be all inflation where the PCE price index deflector will likely be 5.7% instead of 1.7% leaving the real GDP at 0 or negative.

    It is easy to come to this conclusion when there are no longer a housing bubble or financial bubble to drive the economy positive. Once these bubbles are fully deflated we will be able to clearly see the hollowed out real economy(Real wealth production economy).

    We have probably about $20Til+ that needs to be paid down or liquidated in the future, we will not be able to grow anything till this is done. I believe the chart below is all one needs to see to explain our difficult future. This chart does NOT include the Governments $57Til of unfunded liabilities of SS and Medical:

    http://www.comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000%5C292.pdf

    No real growth until til we payoff our credit card economy going back to the start with Our Keynesian “Trickle down economics” starting in 1982.

    July 27, 2009
  929. Paul Zorn said:

    Mike Z:

    OK, I see the number 5.7 in the table, but by no means is the CBO anticipating anything like such a rate of real growth over many years.

    As for whether GDP growth will be “all inflation”, I guess I’ll reserve judgment … to my knowledge, admittedly incomplete, your “feeling” on this is not a widely held view among economists — who can be wrong, to be sure.

    The idea that we can’t have any real growth until we pay down or liquidate the federal debt strikes me as another novel economic view, on which I’ll reserve judgment for now. And the chart you cite looks scary enough, but I don’t think any single chart can be “all one needs to see to explain our difficult future.”

    Still not panicking over SS.

    July 27, 2009
  930. mike zenner said:

    Paul Z,

    I guess the chart I gave does not make clear what it is showing but it is a ratio of debt both public and private(corporations and private citizens). Of coarse it doesn’t include some of the over the counter derivatives etc, or recent bailout and stimulus money.

    Basically, the chart implies that the economy is driven largely by credit (debt). for every dollar of GDP created required 3.3 dollars borrowed from the future. At some point in time, which I feel is right now, the economy can no longer service this debt at which point the debt level must be lowered. Back in the 1950’s it took $1.3 debt to $1 GDP.

    The link below is to a good article about the debt to GDP ratio. It slams the current administration’s policies on economic stimulus, but I believe it to be honest and nonpartisan.

    http://www.drawbridgeleaders.com/blog/tag/debt-to-gdp-ratio/

    Again, I am not saying SS is going to go bankrupt, it will still be there in the future. However, I feel the benefits, in real terms will be much less as they are for the recipients today, and costing our kids a lot more.

    Most of my understanding and what I spout of economics comes from the Austrian School of economics(free market). Unlike Keynesian economics that is espoused by almost all of today’s economists. Most economists today do not know of any other way of thinking about the economy other than in Keynesian terms, because that is all they have ever seen and have been taught. This is also why most economists never foresaw the trouble we are now in! Keynesian economics can work to some degree in an economy that has a REAL economy and a government that can balance it’s budget in the economic expansion yrs, as opposed to increased spending on special interest groups, and increased social programs.

    Today’s government stimulus packages are straight Keynesian playbook, government steps in to be buyer of last resort by deficit spending to get the economy back on it’s feet. The problem with Keynesian-ism now is that the government has been doing this deficit spending since the early 1980’s, along with the larger economy and it’s private debt borrowing, a large portion of which was spent on consumption as opposed to investment in capital, infrastructure and domestic energy source development.
    Inflation will spring forth if we continue the spending on consumption and wealth transfer as opposed to investment.

    July 28, 2009
  931. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    I skimmed the item at the link you mention in #801 and found it badly unbalanced, even paranoid. “Hitler”, “Stalin”, and “diabolical” are all in the first paragraph, and much more in this vein follows. (The really scary people, “government bureaucrats”, show up a few lines later.)

    Do you subscribe to this line, John? Do you, like the author, see the whole health care reform impetus as a Trojan horse for mass euthanasia? (I’m not asking whether euthanasia is good or bad, but whether you see it as reform proponents’ hidden agenda.)

    July 30, 2009
  932. Paul Zorn said:

    Mike,

    Yes, government spending, perhaps especially of the Keynesian stimulus-driven sort, should be (or encourage) investment, not just consumption. I’d just add that one person’s prudent investment can be another’s “wasteful government spending.” (I’d like to see more government investment in things like education and infrastructure — with or without a Keynesian impetus — so you can see which side I’m usually on.

    Thanks for the pointer to the Austrian school of economics. How would you summarize (in 25 words or fewer) what’s distinctive about the Austrian view? You mentioned free markets, but surely this isn’t unique to the Viennese.

    July 30, 2009
  933. john george said:

    Paul- I referenced this link as something out of the non-denominational Christian stream of articles out there, so I don’t expect it to be balanced. It is on the extreme side. I do not agree with all the points given, just as you do not agree with all the points given in some of your links. I am concerned about the whole prospect of beauracracy deciding what level of care can be given to whom, whether it be an insurance company or the government. There was a comment in an article some time back (I think it was in the Strib) that said something about how we Americans need to take another look at how much medical treatment we demand for whom. This attitude causes me pause, and I think it is creeping into the level of acceptable thinking.

    July 30, 2009
  934. William Siemers said:

    John…How much ‘medical treatment we demand for whom’ needs to have ‘another look’…particularly when someone else ends up paying for it, either in the form of insurance premiums or taxes. Medical treatment has a cost/benefit ratio just like any other kind of spending.

    For example…a patient has, in the best estimation of medical professionals, no more than six months to live. How much should ‘we’ spend on a drug that ‘may’ allow this patient to extend their life by no more than two months? $10,000? $25,000? $50,000? $100,000?
    In Great Britain the National Medical Service decided not to provide just such a drug (that cost $50,000) to terminally ill kidney cancer patients.

    In this country, terminally ill patients rountinely end up hospitalized in intensive care units to be ‘stabilized’ after their disease takes a turn for the worse. This can easily cost $10,000 a day. Maybe they gain a month of life, maybe not. And when there they are not generally comfortable, anything but. Poked, prodded, rolled out of bed, into bed, woken up every few hours for another set of tests, hooked up to machines…even sometimes one to keep them breathing. This is not ‘valueing’ life. It is inhumane, misdirected, and unnecessarily expensive.

    There is not an unlimited amount of money available for health care. How many breast cancer screening mamograms could be provided for that $50,000 of drug money? How many doses of a generic high blood pressure prescription medicine? How many counseling sessions for obese children?

    Tens of millions of Americans do not have adequate health care. Millions have been economically ruined by medical expenses. We can not afford to continue to provide care that gives little, if any, benefit to the patient while costing society dearly.

    We are already on the slippery slope of rationing. We need to get our footing, admit it and begin to change our system in a humane, rational and realistic way.

    July 31, 2009
  935. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, I think any reasonable person would have to see a socialist health plan, “cash for clunkers”, etc as closer to the German Socialist Workers Party (Nazis) vision than to a Jeffersonian view of constitutional rights and limited government. Don’t you agree? I think it is ok intellectually to be against the ideals our country was founded upon but just admit it. Don’t try and interpret communistic programs as an extension of individual liberty.

    July 31, 2009
  936. Peter Millin said:

    William,

    Who will be deciding on who gets a treatment and who isn’t?

    When I lived in Canada I was diagnosed with a potentially life ending disease. The only drug available was considered experimental and not covered by the national health plan.

    The cost of the treatment was $30000 over 18 month and had a 70% chance of success.

    As luck will have it my business venture came to an end and we moved back in to the USA.

    Here the drug was given to me for the cost of the copay in my plan.
    The treatment was successfull and I have been free of the disease for over a year now.

    Following your logic William the only option I would have had is to mortgage my house…or die???

    Our health care system is expensive and needs some reform around the edges, but it is the best darn system in the world.

    Giving the responsibility of running it to a faceless bureaucracy is not the solution.

    We need to empower individuals to make health care decisions for themselves, by giving them the power of cash and the free market.

    If my mom ever comes in to the predicament of being terminally ill, it should be up to me and her on how we move on. Not some bean counter in DC.

    It is my sincere hope that you will be allowed to make your own decisions as well, both for yourself and your family.

    July 31, 2009
  937. kiffi summa said:

    ‘s 803 and 804 express the dichotomy of coverage for everyone, universally provided, and the elements of specificity relevant to certain cases or choices.

    Although I haven’t been contributing to this thread, I have read it with interest. Can the discussion focus a bit on the quandry presented in the above?

    July 31, 2009
  938. William Siemers said:

    Peter…I think your personal experience is somewhat far afield from the examples I gave. In any case…the ‘cost’ of the drug you received was not just your co-pay…it was $30,000 (or perhaps twice that much given the disparity in prescription drug cost between the US and Canada).

    So Peter…If your mother was terminally ill, and she (or you) was paying the cost of treatment, would the decisions be made without regard to cost? Would she want you to mortgage your house, use your children’s college funds, or every bit of her estate, to perhaps gain a month or two of life?

    There needs to be more of a focus on the real costs of health care for society as a whole, not just our own personal plan. The fact is we pay nearly twice as much for health care (as a % of GDP) as any other industrialized country. This is economically unsustainable for individuals and our society.

    We don’t need reform ‘around the edges’. We need real reform that leads to universal coverage, coverage that is affordable regardless of pre-existing condition and coverage that can’t be dropped. And perhaps most importanty, we need coverage that focuses on health outcomes, not on services provided. And we need to realize that coverage is and always will be ‘rationed’, so let’s ration it a way that makes the most sense.

    July 31, 2009
  939. john george said:

    Kiffi- You are exactly correct about the dichotomy in directions here. I don’t have an answer for it, either. But, as I am coming up on the age where I will most likely require more medical treatments to live, it does have some importance to me.

    William- I think it is interesting that we have some of the most prestigious medical instititions in the world, for instance, Mayo Clinic, that people from all over the world flock to for treatment. There have been billions of dollars invested in research over the last few decades to devise innovative treatments to ease people’s suffering and lengthen their lives. What do we do with all this developement if the only ones who can afford it are the oil sheiks from the Middle East? It just doesn’t ring true with me. When My grandparents were living, they hardly ever even went to a doctor. When they became ill, they used home remedies, and when those didn’t work, then they died. Advancements in medical science have gotten us to where we are. Is it really progress to start down the road of limiting treatment only to those who can contribute to society? Do we really value life for the sake of life? James wrote that for him who knows to do right and doesn’t do it, to him it is a sin. I know this is in reference to behavior, but when we have it in our power to provide medical treatment and we withold it out of financial concerns, it just doesn’t stike me as ethical. If we are not willing to extend medical advancements to those in need, then lets stop advancing and revert back to the pattern we had at the turn of the century. Perhaps all those medical R & D dollars could be diverted to alternative energy developement.

    July 31, 2009
  940. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    Re #807 …

    Questions of who should get expensive medical treatments are hard, and reasonable people will differ. People may disagree even on the “facts” of any particular case: What’s the likelihood of success? How much will it cost? Who will pay?

    But people are even likelier to differ on how facts should be “weighed”: Is an extra year of life worth more for 17-year-old than for a 59-year-old? Is palliative care that improves rather than extends life better or worse than heroic measures that extend life, but degrade its quality? These aren’t questions that can be settled like a calculus problem, because the outcomes have different weights to different, equally well-meaning, people.

    One place I question your question (not your values), John, is here:

    … Is it really progress to start down the road of limiting treatment only to those who can contribute to society?

    No, this wouldn’t be progress. But is it actually occurring? Seems to me that huge financial investments are now made at the beginning and end of life, rather than on people who are actively contributing to society, as you put it. So is the bad outcome you mention really on the horizon?

    Later you say:

    James wrote that for him who knows to do right and doesn’t do it, to him it is a sin. I know this is in reference to behavior, but when we have it in our power to provide medical treatment and we withhold it out of financial concerns, it just doesn’t strike me as ethical.

    Fair comments, but I think you dismiss “financial concerns” too easily. In fact, there’s never enough money to do everything possible to provide medical treatment. It wouldn’t take any newfangled medical technology, for example, for the rich world to assure that all poor-world children are properly vaccinated, have access to clean water, etc. But it would take money and effort and political will, which are always in limited supply.

    So is it indeed obviously “ethical” to spend $500K on heroic care for one person in Northfield when the same money might protect thousands of poor kids from malaria or dehydration or malnutrition?

    I don’t say the answer is obvious, and I claim no personal moral high ground. I’m just saying that the matter of “withholding” care because of “financial concerns” is more complicated than you seem to allow.

    July 31, 2009
  941. Peter Millin said:

    William,

    You are missing my point.

    The point is, that a bureaucrat in Canada decided that this medication didn’t deserve to be offered to those that are in need
    In essence the bureaucrat told me, that my condition didn’t deserve health coverage..despite “universal coverage”.
    I was potentially goimg to die and he said…too bad. I am lucky enough and probably would have been able to come up with the $ 30000, but how about those that can’t???
    Just be aware that in any nationalized healthcare scheme, those that have money will always have better care.
    We should demand from our elected officials, that any public option that is being passed, politicians have to participate in and give up their current coverage.
    Fat chance of that ever to happen.

    Even in Canada the rich (a lot of them are politicians) go either to a private clinic or go to the US.

    You think that this is fair??

    Isn’t the whole “schtick” of the current powers to be : “We are compassionate” “We want health care for everybody” and “We care about the little guy?”

    Rationing of health care flies in the face of those statements.

    I do agree that some “elective” procedures should not be funded, which in my mind includes abortion, but to deny a potentially life saving medication is not why what I would support.

    A case like this clearly illustrates that a centralized health care plan is not the way to go.

    I agree that focussing on deductibility clouds the picture. I propose that this focus has led to an inflation in cost, because people don’t know what the true cost is.
    This fact will be made worse by a single payer plan. I can’t tell you how many people in Canada told me “We have free healthcare”.

    To truly control cost we need to make people aware of them, the current system doesn’t allow that, but neither does a single payer plan.

    The other issue that has been absent from the current discussion is tort reform.
    The amount of malpractice insurance doctors have to pay is obscene..and we as patients are paying for it.
    The reason why nobody discusses tort reform is that most politicians in power are lawyers.

    One of the strongest contributors to politicians are lawyers..just go to Opensecrets.org and see for yourself.

    July 31, 2009
  942. john george said:

    Paul- I agree with you here

    I’m just saying that the matter of
    “withholding” care because of
    “financial concerns” is more
    complicated than you seem to allow.

    and my intent was not to oversimplify it. In fact, when it comes to medical treatments, the likelyhood of the same treatment always having the same outcome is just not probable. As Kiffi said, there are “elements of specificity.” I think it is interesting that you cite the age associations with the major treatments provided. Once a person has gotten past the first few months of life, they usually grow without a whole lot of extra expense. Part of this is due, I think, to the better lifestyles we have adopted over the last 50 years. In spite of what some news articles might say, I believe we, as a general populace, eat and exercise better than we did, say, in the ’50’s. Preventive care has a lot to be said for it. The other end of life, which seems to be getting extended by the general increase in healthy lifestyles, is opening up the other layer of concern. How do you develope a policy that can objectively and universally evaluate what treatments are worth it and which are not?

    I am reacting to some of the comments I have read about changing our thinking regarding need for treatment and how that might be evaluated. What I have read is the cost/benefit ratio. This does cause me some concern, because the value/benefit of a real person is pretty subjective. I don’t know how to make this an objective decision. What I have read seems to reference the value to contributions to society.

    July 31, 2009
  943. mike zenner said:

    Paul,

    Austrian economics I believe recognize that:

    “The Capitalist system is inherently unstable naturally swinging between boom and bust, which are driven to the extremes by human emotion of greed and fear.”

    This is unlike Keynesian which tries using government intervention to stabilize the economy for continuous growth. The bust part of the cycle is necessary thing to clear the economy of inefficient businesses (read GM) and greed and bad decisions (read Wall Street).

    Today government intervention and size is choking the life out of the free capitalist economy it is supposed to be helping with excessive regulation and taxes. 100 years ago total government took just 6% of GDP. Today total government is pushing into 40%+ of GDP. At the rate we are it won’t be long til gov is 51%. At that point we will be a Communist command and control system, and we saw how that system ended!

    July 31, 2009
  944. Peter Millin said:

    This does cause me some concern,
    because the value/benefit of a real
    person is pretty subjective. I don’t
    know how to make this an objective
    decision.

    John G

    That’s why it is absolutely necessary that we as a society leave these types of decisions are made by the people involved.
    That’s why any health care reform should be focused on giving the patient as much power as possible, so he can make these types of decisions.

    The mot effective way to achieve this is education and the power of the purse.

    The current cost of medical care is high due to the fact that someone is paying the cost for it.

    William S. was right on this..most people don’t know the real cost of it, because a third entity is paying for it. There is no correlation between care received and the price of it.

    August 1, 2009
  945. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    You said:

    I referenced this link as something out of the non-denominational Christian stream of articles out there, so I don’t expect it to be balanced. It is on the extreme side. I do not agree with all the points given, just as you do not agree with all the points given in some of your links.

    Fair enough — up to a point. But you gave us no sense of which parts of the link you saw as persuasive, which parts questionable, which parts crazy, etc. All you said is that the viewpoint was conservative Christian. Shall we take this in future as a general warning of low tares-to-wheat ratio?

    Concerning, again, the link’s (IMO) utterly crazy charge that health care reform is just a fig leaf for euthanasia. Have you seen Snopes’s report on this? See the link below, or Google on snopes euthanasia :

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp

    August 1, 2009
  946. Paul Zorn said:

    Oops. My reference in 802.2 to low tares-to-wheat ratio should have been high tares-to-wheat ratio.

    And I’m the one who keeps badgering others about math. Embarrassing.

    August 1, 2009
  947. john george said:

    Peter- Yep. I agree.

    August 1, 2009
  948. john george said:

    Paul Z.- The issue this link addresses is how and who makes the decisions of who gets treated and who does not. That is what I was refering to. I actually addressed this link to Peter, because I thought he might connect with some of the things addressed in it. I haven’t heard back from him as to whether he has read it or not. I would not refer this article to you, or Kiffi, or Patrick, or probably William, as I think it would be offensive to you folks. I just have that much respect for you that I really don’t want to offend you. You are certainly free to read it, but I would not want to use a link like this to prove any of my points to you.

    Also, concerning the Snopes link, I did not see any reference to this particular article in it, and I did not recognize the author of the article. I don’t agree with the accusation that euthanasia is a direct effect of this legislation. I do hear hints of this idea in some opinions I have read, and my concern is that the idea of euthanasia is being subliminally introduced into our thinking, kind of like a frog in a boiling pot.

    August 1, 2009
  949. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    Anybody see Bill Moyers’ interview of that top man in an insurance company (Crockett?) Friday night? He is retired, so can speak out, though he did try to tell colleagues that what they were doing was wrong. He said administrative costs and profits had gone from 5% to 20% now, with no controls on how much the companies can raise rates from year to year. And the inhumane attitude, disallowing certain surgeries resulting in people’s deaths. That is happening NOW and the joke of it is that the ads threaten people that this could happen under Obama plan.

    Bill McGrath had an opinion piece in Saturday paper worth looking at. He is self-employed with no health insurance.

    August 2, 2009
  950. David Henson said:

    Stephanie, I saw the program. I am not politically aligned with Bill Moyer but I do think he is one of the few serious journalists on network TV (or podcasts). I thought the insurance guy was interesting but his proposed solution is a better centralized system … I would say a better decentralized system.

    August 2, 2009
  951. Peter Millin said:

    Now for something completely different.

    During the war in Iraq the press and the leftist media was obsessed with the body count.
    Not a day went by when another dead soldier was mentioned in the press.

    Anyone seen one of those from Afghanistan lately? Where is the body count? Where are the pictures of coffins draped in the flag coming from Afghanistan??

    What a difference an election makes…LOL

    August 2, 2009
  952. Jane Moline said:

    Peter: It is certainly interesting what you think is funny. I guess you must not read the newspaper, so you miss out on the serious coverage of the terrible tragedy in Afghanistan–all the result of incompetent Republican leadership where they concentrated their military efforts on a country that did NOT attack us on 9/11, did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, did NOT have a radical religious jihadist government. (I am referring to Iraq, of course.) Please check out normal news sources. You will see plenty of coverage of the war–many times on page 3 or 4, just like during the Bush administration. I agree with you that the media has done a terrible job of focusing on the important stories–but they are still reporting them.

    Regarding health care reform–I agree with Stephanie that everyone should read Bill McGrath’s column in the Northfield News. Reality is that we have inconsistent health care in the United States–the worst health system in any developed country–we rank 30th in infant survival–primarily due to lack of prenatal health care. We rank way down in mortality–you will live longer in a country where there is socialized health.

    Unfortunately some people have bought into the propaganda that somehow we have a great health care system. Perhaps you are fooled beacause Minnesota does better than most states–but the reality is that between 40 and 50 million US citizens have no insurance and 50 million more are under-insured–if they actually have to see a doctor, they cannot afford their co-pay or deductible amount, and they will have to file for bankruptcy if they have a major illness. As a result, our babies die at a higher rate than ANY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION. Tens of millions of children live without health insurance and the their parents avoid regular, preventive care because they cannot afford it. Parents turn to radical religious methods for curing treating their children instead of medical professionals.

    My husband and I are both self-employed. Health insurance for us and our 3 kids is $1000 per month, plus our deductible of about $4000–totalling $16000 per year. The premium and the deductible go up every year–and we are buying from a not-for-profit–BCBS Minnesota. In the United States, people file for bankruptcy due to health care costs that they are unable to pay. What kind of country are we, where we cannot take care of basic health care for our citizens?

    We have socialized police forces, fire protection and schools. Why shouldn’t health care be socialized? We can do it better than any other country in the world–if we just get to it.

    August 2, 2009
  953. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    Your posting #804 takes Godwin’s law to new levels. Hitler and Nazis usually turn up a little later in a discussion thread, but you’ve brought them in right at the beginning.

    If your question is serious, please clarify for all of us the special relevance here of the Nazis. If you’re using them to illustrate the generic evils of socialism, so be it, but you’ve chosen a poor example. The Nazis, despite the name, were anything but socialist or communist by modern definitions, despite some rhetoric. They had much more in common with Mussolini’s Fascists.

    If you’re Nazi reference has something to do with their propensity for genocide and crackpot racial theory, then I really need to know where you’re going with this.

    August 3, 2009
  954. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, the question is pretty straight forward and in was a reply to your questioning of John’s referenced article earlier. I think we all know which societal vision of the two above that Obama’s plans most resemble. Personally, I think all socialism leads to fascism as it fails to deliver on promises (have to blame something or someone) but I know you disagree.

    August 3, 2009
  955. David Henson said:

    WASHINGTON – The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation’s plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab.

    The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/ap_on_bi_ge/us_plummeting_taxes

    August 3, 2009
  956. Peter Millin said:

    Jane ….(sigh)

    I don’t think that soldiers dying is funny..not even close.

    What I do think is funny that when Bush went to war the leftist media every day reported another dead soldier.
    Now that P-BO is our commander and chief..deaths of soldiers are nothing more then a footnote.

    Remmeber the uproar about not releasing photos of coffins drapped with the flag coming back from Iraq?

    Have you heard any outrage over this lately? Have we shown those coffins from Iraq??

    LOL..talk about double standard…

    August 3, 2009
  957. Peter Millin said:

    ..and Jane…have you heard from Cindy Sheehan lately??

    Is she camping out on P-BO’s lawn in Chicago now??

    August 3, 2009
  958. Patrick Enders said:

    My TV news report of choice – PBS’s NewsHour – has been memorializing every death since the start of war. No different before or after the change in administrations. Probably – if my memory is correct – no different than in previous conflicts since the show began.

    Also – again not being a watcher, I can’t speak to CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS or FOX – NPR has frequently had news reports on the increase in soldier deaths in Afghanistan following the Obama buildup and offensive in the last several weeks.

    I think that you are seeing the news broadcasts through red-tinted glasses.

    August 3, 2009
  959. Peter Millin said:

    Patrick,

    PBS is the notable exception.

    I usually watch Fox and they don’t have memorials either.

    August 4, 2009
  960. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter,
    Perhaps watching Fox is contributing to your distress.

    August 4, 2009
  961. Scott Oney said:

    Jane: You might think about getting a higher deductible. We have BC&BS with $10,000, which is a much better deal. Even if you make it to $10,000 once in a while, say one year out of three or four on average, you still come out way ahead, assuming you don’t get anywhere near the $4,000 in the other two or three years in that period, which has been my experience.

    I can think of things I’d rather spend my money on than insurance and medical care, but I don’t resent having to pay my own way. It’s just part of being a responsible adult. As far as socialized medicine goes, I think it’s really up to those who want it to explain why they think it’s better, and also why they think hardworking Americans who are already taking responsibility for themselves should be forced to pay the costs of care for people who may not be as careful with their money as they should be, or who just don’t feel like paying. (Americans who truly can’t afford health insurance are already covered by Medicaid.)

    But to answer your question, I can offer a good reason for not socializing medicine. The free market is known for supplying more and better products at ever lower prices. Just look at how cell phones have evolved over the past 15 years. Government enterprises, on the other hand, don’t have such a good track record. Seriously, what image would come to mind if you heard someone describe a business as being “about as well run as a big-city school system”?

    August 4, 2009
  962. Peter Millin said:

    Patrick,

    Sometimes you are just so predictable…LOL

    I usually listen to NPR on my way to and from work and watch O’Reilly from 7 to 8.

    He is certainly more balanced than any of the other pundits these days.

    August 4, 2009
  963. Jane Moline said:

    Scott: you replied to my post and I like to follow the string rather than continually going back. In your post you suggest I should have a higher-deductible plan so it would be more affordable. I have hit my deductible in 4 of the last 5 years–so my out-of-pocket before being covered by insurance was in the $4000 to $4500 range–making my deductible $10,000 means I am still out-of-pocket. My guess is that in 2008 we would have made a $10,000 deductible due to two surgeries. My point was that insurance is not affordable for most people and the system is NOT working right now. Peter Millin told his story of coming to America to be covered for $30,000 of life-saving drug treatment denied for him in Canada. Well, that is one of the “good” stories. There are millions in the United States who are being denied life-saving therapies, or just do not have access to that therepy because they are unable to afford insurance. There are many more with high-deductibles, who are doing everything to avoid health expenses–and in the end are denying themselves preventitive therapies and having to deal with terrible medical problems that may have been avoided if they just had an annual checkup.

    And as for being proud of paying my own way–don’t be fooled. We are all paying for our broken health care system–we support a public hospital in Northfield that treats every patient that comes to the door–regardless of their ability to pay. So when they don’t have insurance or can’t pay their bill, we get to pay it. And since these people do not have access to regular health care, they show up needing more expensive treatment than if they had regular health care access to normal diagnostic tests.

    We are paying higher premiums to the insurance companises who pay higher costs at the hospitals due to the cost of covering the un-able-to pay.

    US Citizens with mental health or chronic health problems are regularly denied insurance. Their health issues may make them unemployable–or if they get a marginal job–they lose any “welfare” based health care.

    Frankly, the privileged men who are commenting on this post do not have a clue about what they are talking about. You cannot begin to understand that problem if all you are worried about is that we are socializing medicine. Our citizens are literally dying because we will not address the problems of sky-rocketing health costs. The health insurance industry has bought congress, and they are throwing billions of dollars at convincing everyone that we will all hate single payer health.

    Bring it on. It is time we get single-payer, universal health care. It is time we tell overpaid insurance executives that denying care or denying insurance based on their profit motive is wrong–they all need to get a new job.

    Our health care is currently rationed–just based on what a face-less bureaucrat in an insurance company decides. It is time for us to take back our health care and we should get to be in control–not the health insurance industry or some Wall Street broker or some Washington lobbying group.

    Our health care system is completly dysfunctional by any measure–adult mortality, infant mortality, infants and children illnesses or by cost–by per capita cost, by percentange of GNP, or by any other measure. We pay the most for the least. Just because your coverage is working does not make it so for most of the country.

    72% of US want substantial health care reform. But the noisy,nasty minority is working in cahoots with the bought-and-paid-for in Washington to knock it down.

    We have socialized police forces, socialized fire protection, socialized sewer-treatment, socialized education–and they are good schools–socialized highway and freeway and county and city and township roads. We have a Social Security system that has worked for decades to keep the elderly out of poverty, and we have a medicare system that has the lowest percentage of management costs and covers more people than any other health insurance system. None of these socialized systems are perfect, but they are pretty darn good, and better than anything that any private company has done when you compare the number of particpants (or miles of roads, etc.)

    We need to fix health care and we need to do it now. You all have ignored the obvious failures of our system, instead claiming how you individually are better off keeping everything the same–what about everybody else? What about dying babies? What about children sick with prevenatble illnesses? What about adults filing for bankruptcy because their insurance runs out or because they are not eligible? What about poor people who cannot afford insurance, or sick people or young sick people? What about drug-addicts and alcoholics? Is it just the fault of the sick baby born to poor parents? Or the 8-year-old with the mentally-ill mom who does not notice the festering sores on her childs arms and legs? We are not talking about middle-class people who buy an ipod and a phone instead of paying for health insurance (although they are there, too.) We are talking about mostly everybody else. 45 million uninsured. 50 million or more with inadequater insurance. At least 95 million need help.

    And what do we here from the rabble-rousing, thug minority? They want us to leave health care alone so profit-based companies, who have figured out that covering sick people is not good for their bottom line-continue to deny coverage or refuse coverage. This is one area where economic realities of profit-versus-providing care becomes a conflict that makes the free market become the greed market. We need government intervention, because the big boys refuse to play nice. They are too focused on their bottom line and their compensation package and their bonuses. What is good for their stock holders is terrible for their policy owners.

    But most of all this is about doing the right thing. And the right thing is universal coverage. It works in many countries all over the world. I had one satistician tell me that he spoke with a Britich physician who claimed that if the doctor had a cancer problem he would not trust the British system–he would go to France for treatment–one socialized system to another. And we can do it better than any of these countries–we have to get serious about making it work.

    But, again, if we don’t… if we do the wrong thing, we will erode the social fabric of the U.S., increasing a class split where we will eventually have to wall ourselves up in our gated compounds to keep out the sick and meddlesome lower classes. You all know from history what comes after that—riot, anarchy, and revolution. Let them eat cake.

    August 4, 2009
  964. Mike Zenner said:

    Peter,

    You need to take off the rosy(red) colored glasses and see what America has become, and not what it used to be. Creeping stat-ism has displaced the Republic over the last 100 yrs. The quotes below pretty much sums up where we are today.

    “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” – Ben Franklin

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been about 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.” – Alexander Fraser Tytler

    The Stat-ism train is picking up speed quickly, and it has no brakes! Currently, we are moving fast through the apathy to dependence stage.

    August 4, 2009
  965. Mike Zenner said:

    So Jane,

    How do you know for sure that when we replace the “face-less bureaucrat” at the insurance company with a “face-less bureaucrat” on the national health review board that you will get the health care coverage you need?

    How can you be assured that our health care dollars going to Washington will be spent on Health care and not on say, a Global War of Terror? Just like where the Social Security “Trust” fund dollars are currently going to!

    August 4, 2009
  966. David Henson said:

    Mike, I think your spirit is in the right place (for sure!). But, I disagree, I think the US system will correct itself back to smaller limited government ~ maybe 1/4 of today’s size. WWII and demographics got us way off course. The baby boom was such a big demographic following a smaller one that it gave the appearance that socialism works. Now the baby boomers are aging and the system is faltering and must be shrunk. Support for all government programs is falling (now 46% only support health reform – what ever that actually is – which we are not told). I do not sense any belief among young people in government solutions. Obama gave us a new “look” and next time around I expect we will see some “new ideas” and I look forward to that happening. I think something like a negative income tax and a RADICAL trimming of government will be the way out of the woods.

    August 5, 2009
  967. Paul Zorn said:

    Scott: You said:

    As far as socialized medicine goes, I think it’s really up to those who want it to explain why they think it’s better …

    What do you mean, exactly, by “socialized medicine”? Like other buzz-phrases, this one is used to mean quite different things, ranging from something like the French or Swiss system of regulated private insurance to the British system in which doctors are essentially civil servants. As a careful writer you probably mean something specific along this spectrum. If so, please explain.

    So much said, here are some reasons why I think health care could be better addressed at the societal level than in the patchwork way it is (or isn’t) addressed now.

    The biggest problem, IMO, is that very substantial health care costs are, in practice, often accrued by people who are very old or very sick (or very irresponsible) and hence least able to pay heavy costs, or to shop around as one might for a better cell phone service. In our society (to our credit) we aren’t usually willing simply to let these people suffer or die, and so, like it or not, we all pay these costs, often indirectly.

    Changing to any other system of payment won’t magically heal these people or dramatically reduce the costs they accrue, but it could help assure that these costs are spread more equitably around the society. This could be accomplished in various ways, with or without the involvement of private insurance (which I don’t think of as automatically blameworthy or immoral, by the way), but I don’t see any way to accomplish it without some element of public (i.e., governmental) regulation or requirement. If that counts as socialized medicine, so be it.

    Other advantages of a society-level commitment could include de-coupling health insurance from jobs (that’s gotta be good) and some economies of scale. There could be disadvantages, too, such as lack of flexibility or vulnerability to political maneuvering, but IMO the advantages outweigh the faults.

    You continued:

    … and also why they think hardworking Americans who are already taking responsibility for themselves should be forced to pay the costs of care for people who may not be as careful with their money as they should be, or who just don’t feel like paying.

    My answer is that these Americans you describe (like yourself, apparently) are already paying the costs you fear being forced to assume. In a public-based system people who “just don’t feel like paying” their share wouldn’t get the chance to shirk responsibility, just as people who don’t feel like paying taxes don’t (ideally) get indulged forever.

    A completely free market won’t IMO, ever work well for health care because, as noted above, the people who need (not just want) the most expensive “products” are unable, actuarially, to pay for them. Whether through insurance market regulation or subsidies or direct governmental participation, a society has to play some role — or so it seems in the real world. Can you cite any counterexamples?

    Cell phone improvements are indeed impressive, and I’m certainly not pressing for a governmental phone plan. But I find the analogy with health care unpersuasive, given that cell phone buyers have much more information, many more choices, and much more ability to bargain than do very sick patients.

    Health care and big-city schools may pose somewhat more comparable problems. Is there a clear comparative track record of private success vs. public failure?

    August 5, 2009
  968. William Siemers said:

    Mike…Re the Tytler quote, with which I assume you agree,…The first sentence is, “A democracy can not exist as a permanent form of government”. This would not have been an unusual sentiment for a Scottish lord to have in 1790. Particularly since ‘the colonies’ had just tossed out the King and the decidedly undemocratic system he (and Tytler) embodied.

    As for…”the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury…”, history has shown that to be untrue. Whether in the USA, or in other world democracies, there are periods of leftward movement and rightward. The people, whose judgement you seem to disdain, have been quite willing to vote for ‘corrections’ in the political course when they deem fit.

    Regarding the 200 year sequence…Since the USA has passed this milestone, would you suggest that we are now in bondage?

    August 5, 2009
  969. Barry Cipra said:

    William & Mike, as some sage once put it, Never trust an unsourced quote. There is no evidence Franklin ever said or wrote the words Mike attributed to him. As for the Tytler excerpt, there is a nice bit of scholarship by a guy named Loren Collins (www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html) trying to trace its origins. The evidence points to it being cobbled together out of two texts, neither of which predates the twentieth century.

    Does any of this matter? I think Collins puts it well, in assessing what he calls the “vice of misattribution”:

    “Perhaps the words speak the truth of democratic governments; or perhaps they do not. But either way, attributing the words to a scholar who never spoke them is to lend to them an authority and reliability that they do not deserve. Anonymous quotes, which these almost certainly are, should not be given fictitious attributions merely to lend credence to the messages they impart. To do so is to favor persuasiveness over accuracy, and to sacrifice truth for the sake of image.”

    August 5, 2009
  970. Peter Millin said:

    Patrick,

    So people that disagree with P-BO and his plans are now intimidating???

    If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

    August 5, 2009
  971. Peter Millin said:

    And what do we here from the
    rabble-rousing, thug minority?

    Jane, this is un-called for and I hope the moderator steps in.
    Just because i am not agreeing with single payer health care makes me a “thug”.

    Jane, with all due respect you know absolutely nothing about government run health care. You never lived anywhere else then in the US. You might have take vacation in a foreign country…but that’s not the same.

    I have lived in Germany, Holland, Hungary, Canada and the USA… Iknow first hand what I am talking about….you don’t.

    All you have is promises and campaign slogans….

    August 5, 2009
  972. Scott Oney said:

    Paul: When I referred to socialized medicine, I was replying to Jane’s post, where she had used the term. I assumed we understood each other, and meant pretty much the dictionary definition of the term. (Just to save you the trouble of looking it up, Webster’s 11th has “socialized medicine” as being “medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group [as a state agency] and paid for from funds obtained usu. by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation.”) Jane expands on the notion below, in #821, so it turns out that we were both talking about the same thing. (Thanks, Jane, for clarification.) The term would cover the system they have in the UK; I have no idea what they do in France, which is beside the point anyway.

    Insurance is a different concept. It’s a way of spreading out risk among members of a group. To keep it simple, suppose you had a 1 in 10 chance of getting sick and needing $1,000 dollars worth of treatment this year. You could just set aside $1,000, which you might end up not needing, or you could go out and find nine similarly situated people (also with a 1 in 10 chance of getting sick) who were willing to chip in $100 each. Then, the 1 person out of the 10 in the pool who, predictably, gets sick is the “winner,” so to speak. That’s basically how insurance works, which seems fair to me.

    Private insurance wouldn’t work for the poor, but they’re already covered under Medicaid, so that’s really not an issue here.

    August 5, 2009
  973. Scott Oney said:

    Jane: How would you feel about health insurance companies that were owned by the insured, the way many life insurance companies are set up now? That would eliminate the problem of the greedy owners altogether. On the other hand, those advocating state-run plans, in many cases, seem driven by greed and envy: They obsess over how much doctors and insurance guys make, and whose health plan is better than who else’s, and so forth. There’s often a dash of sloth thrown in as well: “Why shouldn’t I get top-flight medical care just because I don’t work half as hard as my doctor?”

    August 5, 2009
  974. Barry Cipra said:

    This is just a little follow-up to my own posting (823.1). I based what I said about the Franklin quote on a comment at a Wikiquote discussion site. In general Wikiquote does an extremely good job of distinguishing sourced from unsourced (or misattributed) quotations. If the “vote themselves money” quote really came from Franklin, it’s likely someone would have ferreted out the source; as it is, the earliest attribution to Franklin anyone came across dates back only to 1988.

    After posting, I thought I’d check a little further to see if the source of the quote was discussed elsewhere. I didn’t find anything significant along those lines, but I did come across one interesting item: a column from last week by FoxNews bloviator Bill O’Reilly, headlined “President Obama Versus Benjamin Franklin.” In it O’Reilly trots out the spurious quote and concludes with an exhortation to “remember” that “Benjamin Franklin would not have supported national health care.” This is an excellent example of what Loren Collins described as the vice of misattribution!

    August 5, 2009
  975. Jane Moline said:

    Peter: I was referring to the tactics of the Republican lobbying groups. They have distributed “talking points” and instructions to people to disrupt meetings intended to allow congress to hear from their constituents regarding health-care reform. They use thug-tactics to shout down the congress person and not allow them to discuss anything or answer questions-to shout down anyone who speaks for single payer or government choice, and cheer their own questions while not allowing any answer or discussions. If you had seen any of the coverage (on news channels other than Faux News) you would know exactly what I am talking about.

    And Peter, you attempt the same tactic–you claim doom and gloom if the US makes any attempt to nationalize health. You claim that you are the authority having lived through several countries terrible socialized health systems. But you are living proof that it does not kill you. And statistics show that just about everybody is doing a better job than the good ol’ USA–you do not hear of excessive mortality rates in other countries. Unfortunately we continually hear special stories of how bad the system is in Canada or the UK or France or Italy–but you are not listening to the tragedies in the United States, where life-saving treatment is not available to millions of Americans.

    And there is an elitism in the the argument against national health–that somehow some lazy person may benefit and get health coverage. So–what about the lazy person’s children–should they be denied good health because they have lazy parents? Because that is what we are doing right now.

    Scott, you suggested I go to a higher deductible, which I cannot afford right now either. What it means in real terms is that I am not going in for my annual mammogram because I cannot afford to pay for it–which I would since I have not reached my deductible. I have insurance, but I am taking the risk of missing a diagnostic test that is recommended for women my age on an annual basis. And I am one of millions who are insured but cannot afford to get sick. Our system is terrible. It is expensive and encourages procedure upon procedure rather than preventitive medicine.

    Scott, I would love to see any system, including Mutual Insurance, if that would eliminate the current profit-motive in health insurance. Eliminating rewarding shareholders and executives would save money. I have long believed that if insurance companies were forced to ensure a certain segment of the population–without an ability to deny them insurance or deny coverage, they MIGHT be able to change direction and start working on improving the health of their group rather than selecting the healthy people they prefer to cover.

    There are problems with socialized health systems–but they have been working in other countries for decades. What is wrong with studying the systems in place and coming up with a better system?

    August 5, 2009
  976. David Henson said:

    Jane, what if you (and everyone) just got a health debit card for your family for $30,000 per year to spend how you saw fit (an insurance pool, fee for service)? Then when the amount exceeded some threshold the annual funds would be freed up to use any way you saw fit.

    August 5, 2009
  977. Jane Moline said:

    David: Sounds kinda good in theory, but you are not covering the people who would sell their card for drugs or, especially, the big big problem of the way for-profit doctoring works, which is to steer the patient to the doctor-owned x-ray-cat scan-mri-etc facility and potentially over procedure the patient. I happen to be a tough patient who GRILLS my doctor on any test or procedure before I agree, but I am in the minority–most people who go to a doctor follow what the doctor decides.

    We have not even begun to scratch the surface regarding the cost issues–and this is where we can see real savings. But as long as you have for-profit –insurance providers, etc. buying congress, we will have a hard time controlling costs. We still need to try.

    In Minnesota we have a comparitively efficient system–but we are punished for this by lower Medicare reimbursement schedules–nationally, if we became as efficient as Minnesota we would save BILLIONS. However, it would also mean that doctors in California, Texas and Florida would make a bit less–so they are against us too.

    And Scott, the poor are not covered by Medicaid. The very very poor are covered by Medicaid. We have millions of working poor who are not insured and are not covered by any insurance. There are 45 million not covered by insurance. But we have many more with high deductibles that cannot afford to use the medical facilities because they cannot afford their deductible. In Minnesota, people file for bankruptcy due to health care costs. These are not the poor people, who have nothing and have no need of a bankruptcy filing–these people own their own homes and have been paying their mortgage and thought they would be retiring with a modest retirement–until an accident or aging bodies caused a health crisis that tips them into bankruptcy. This is a national scandal.

    August 5, 2009
  978. Mike Zenner said:

    William,

    I’ve heard the quotes many times, but I did not check the source accuracy of them. You may object to the color selections I use to paint today’s reality, but I still feel the depiction to be accurate. I feel you give way to much credit to the “Rightward” swings of the pendulum. The federal deficits of the last 30yrs point to a lack of economic balance.

    In the larger context, my point is no empire reins forever. What should we expect for America, 1000yrs. 200 years is only saying we’re on the back side of the mean.

    All civilizations raise and fall due to depletion of resources, overextended military, and mis-allocation of wealth at home. Currently America is hitting home runs in all these categories with no cutting back in sight.

    It appears that wealth is shifting rather swiftly from the western world to the eastern world.

    David H, I wish I could share your optimism. I am sure there will be a newer smaller America in the future, but we’re going to have to thread the camel through the eye of the needle to get there, and I feel it will be a very painful process!

    August 5, 2009
  979. David Henson said:

    Jane, it is tough to rip off people that don’t have much money and comparatively easy to rip off bureaucrats. And tough customers like you could drive down costs fast. We need a system that will but downward pressure on insurance and health providers. The health landscape would look different quickly -$10.00 swabs at “Sore Throats are Us”

    August 5, 2009
  980. Paul Zorn said:

    Scott:

    Thanks for explaining what you mean by “socialized medicine”. Indeed, the British system deserves the moniker under any reasonable interpretation. I mentioned the French and Swiss systems not to advocate for or against them, but to illustrate that real-world examples exist of systems that might be called “socialized” but differ considerably from the UK model in that these governments are involved mainly or exclusively in health care insurance, not in health care provision. Given the possibility of such variety under the “socialized medicine” umbrella I think it’s important to clarify what’s meant when we argue pro or con.

    Re the insurance principle, I agree with your summary as far as it goes. And I agree that high deductibles make good sense (up to the point that one can afford them). But in health matters the orders of magnitude can be much larger than your example suggests. Serious injuries or illnesses that rack up bills of $500K or $1 million or more are, unfortunately, not all that uncommon. It makes sense to me to spread the risk of these immense costs among very large numbers of risk-takers. One way (not the only one) to do this is through one huge risk pool — the society itself. Public money collected for health care is then a lot like an insurance premium: In return for (possibly painful) tax payments you’re protected against the risk of (possibly catastrophic) financial loss.

    About the poor you say this:

    Private insurance wouldn’t work for the poor, but they’re already covered under Medicaid, so that’s really not an issue here.

    Not so, IMO. Wikipedia quotes from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website: “Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups.” The same Wikipedia article estimates that 60% of poor Americans are not covered by Medicaid.

    Perhaps Medicaid coverage should be extended, but we’re not there yet.

    August 6, 2009
  981. Scott Oney said:

    Paul: It’s true that having a low income is not enough to make someone eligible for Medicaid. Rules differ from state to state, but generally the system also takes other assets and resources into account. For example, in New York State, if your spouse needs care and your household income drops to zero, you still may not be eligible. Say your house is paid for and you have $150,000 in the bank or in other accounts. You get to keep the house, but before your ill spouse can tap into Medicaid, you have to spend down some of your own assets; the limit of what they let you keep was, at least recently, $93,000. So you have to spend $57,000 of your own money before the system kicks in. I’m not sure how “poor” you would consider someone with a nice house and a spouse with $93,000 in the bank, but in New York, they’re poor enough for Medicaid, which seems fair to me.

    Medicaid doesn’t cover illegal aliens, who account for about a third of the 47 million uninsured “Americans” we keep hearing about. But except for a few on the hard left, no one is really trying to make a case for covering illegals at this point. The Democrats keep trying to reassure us that their plan won’t cover illegals, although many on the right, who’ve actually read the proposed legislation, think they’re fibbing.

    August 6, 2009
  982. Anthony Pierre said:

    Peter

    I have lived in Germany, Holland,
    Hungary, Canada and the USA… Iknow
    first hand what I am talking
    about….you don’t.

    What did those countries do to your hand that you are so upset about?

    August 6, 2009
  983. john george said:

    Paul & Scott- Spreading the cost of medical coverage over the entire populace only addresses one side of the problem- funding. Unfortunately, the whole populacee is not an inexhaustive supply of money. Unless something is done on the cost side of providing care, we will still run out of money, just like the Cash For Clunkers program. Who would have thought we could burn through a billion dollars in a week on a program like this? In fact, one lawmaker (I don’t have the quote or reference) said something like they didn’t have any idea how much need or demand there was out there. Is the same thing applicable to health care coverage? Does the Congress really have any idea how much demand is actually out there? And what are the specifics to reduce rising costs?

    August 6, 2009
  984. Paul Zorn said:

    Scott:

    Re 814.5 … you discuss income criteria for Medicaid, and whether they really amount to poverty by a reasonable definition. Fair enough — but note, again, that Medicaid eligibility is not just about poverty, whatever definition one uses. The program is really designed to cover low-income children, pregnant women, parents of eligible children, and people with disabilities. An income test, in other words, is a necessary but not a sufficient test for coverage.

    Re illegal aliens, your figure of about 16 million is considerably higher than estimates of around 11 million (still big, to be sure) that one sees in sources like the NY Times, Wikipedia, etc. Granted, this figure would be hard to assess accurately, but can you cite sources?

    Whether illegals should have the same health insurance entitlements (and requirements) as others is an interesting question in the abstract, but it’s only in the abstract at least for now, since Pres. Obama has explicitly ruled it out, and to all appearances such coverage is politically infeasible.

    Whether it’s a good idea is another question. IMO, it probably is, as it might encourage illegals to seek health care through less expensive channels. But it’s not in the cards in any event.

    In 814.6 John writes:

    Spreading the cost of medical coverage over the entire populace only addresses one side of the problem- funding. Unfortunately, the whole populace is not an inexhaustive supply of money.

    Indeed our money is not inexhaustible — for health insurance as for anything else. The whole point of this exercise is to work toward a system in which as many people as possible have reasonable coverage at a price the society can afford. Our present system does this very badly indeed, and I think it’s reasonable to hope for significant improvements. We need only look around at other rich countries’ experience to see that better (not perfect, but better) ways exist.

    August 8, 2009
  985. David Henson said:

    If you choose to stick with the US then New Hampshire is probably one of the most libertarian states. Economically they have no sales tax, and no state or local income tax. Socially the gun laws are relatively lax, car insurance is not mandatory, there is no helmet or seat belt law for adults, and kindergarten is not mandatory. The general population is probably more in favor of small government than in most states and libertarian minded politicians can have some success.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/71wyp/what_countries_small_or_large_have_the_most/

    I am putting the following information out as some contrary evidence that the Euro health model praised by some (which I suspect as being more statistical than real). New Hampshire ranks very well on the health scale. Top 10 in the USA in almost every health category except spending money on health care

    http://www.statemaster.com/red/state/NH-new-hampshire/hea-health&all=1

    August 8, 2009
  986. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    There are two ads running on MSNBC or CNN designed to incite a riot –one on healthcare and one on energy. Asks you to call an 800 number and join their group. I must not have written it right. Anybody got the number??

    The wealthy and well-connected are obviously behind these ads, pretending to be looking out for the common people. Hypocrisy in the extreme.

    I remember a prominent person in Bridgewater admitting to me that he was voting for Bush for a second term. “I have to,” he said. “I am in the upper income bracket and the Democrats will raise my taxes.”

    August 9, 2009
  987. Ray Cox said:

    Folks, as far as groups trying to work for an outcome in our political process, that is nothing new. It has been going on forever. We have unions, religious groups, associations of just about every trade group, etc all working to see that they are heard. If there are organized efforts to get people to show up at town hall meetings, I’m not sure why other people are getting upset. We have Acorn, America Coming Together, MoveOn, and all sorts of liberal/left groups that have been doing this for ages. Now the other side is doing some of it and we have ourtrage? People need to lighten up about individual showing up at political forums.

    Regarding health care, one thing that does not seem to be talked about is a plan where everyone would be responsible for the first portion of health care each year….say 10% of your income, then the government would take over all costs after that. If you have no income, then the government would essentially provide total health care. Using a sliding scale like this seems to make sense to me. And it gets the consumer back in the picture for health care. We have a society that seems to be leaning more and more to the idea that they shouldn’t ‘have to pay for heath’ care. We all know that if the government pays for it, they take the resources from the taxpayers, so we do pay for it. Why not move to a system that lets people be in charge of their health care, and be responsible for a set amount of their income, than go to government help?

    August 9, 2009
  988. Mike Zenner said:

    Clipped from Ron Paul link below:

    Make no mistake, government control and micromanagement of healthcare will hurt, not help healthcare in this country. However, if for a moment, we allowed the assumption that it really would accomplish all they claim, paying for it would still plunge the country into poverty. This solves nothing. The government, like any household struggling with bills to pay, should prioritize its budget. If the administration is serious about supporting healthcare without contributing to our skyrocketing deficits, they should fulfill promises to reduce our overseas commitments and use some of those savings to take care of Americans at home instead of killing foreigners abroad.

    The leadership in Washington persists in a fantasy world of unlimited money to spend on unlimited programs and wars to garner unlimited control. But there is a fast-approaching limit to our ability to borrow, steal, and print. Acknowledging this reality is not mean-spirited or cruel. On the contrary, it could be the only thing that saves us from complete and total economic meltdown.

    Posted by Ron Paul (08-03-2009, 02:06 PM) filed under Healthcare

    http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20found,ID=090803_3078,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml

    August 9, 2009
  989. Patrick Enders said:
    August 9, 2009
  990. william siemers said:

    Whether honest outrage, or ‘bought and paid for’ protest, dems would be best served by explaining their health reform plan(s)and pointing out that the protesters do not have a coherent alternative, much like congressional republicans.

    What really surprises me is the percentage of old folks among theses ‘protesters’. They have ‘government run health care’, and polling suggests thay they are considerably happier with medicare than younger Americans are with their health care situation. So what are they protesting??? Maybe it is the ‘threat’ of euthanasia contained in democratic proposals. Republicans seemed to have planted that misinformation with success. The fact that the bills just call for more quality of life and end of life discussions between doctors and patients, seems to have been lost on the public.

    Here’s hoping that democrats start doing a better job of explaining their propsals or the only reform we’ll get is what the insurance companies want to give us.

    August 10, 2009
  991. David Henson said:

    Ray, what is wrong with the idea of a negative income tax? So if someone has an income below a certain minimum threshold (to cover health, housing, etc) then they get a check to raise them to that level and above that level people are taxed. With this type of system the nation could radically cut the government overhead and get bureaucrats back into productive wealth building work. All current government solutions, to help one person, seem to pull 3 people out of trucking, manufacturing, farming, and services (becoming dead overhead for everyone else).

    August 10, 2009
  992. Scott Oney said:

    Paul: The lower figures you’ve seen are arrived at based on census bureau data. I think Jeffrey Passel is the source of them. I had in mind the Bear Stearns report from four years ago (by Robert Justich and Betty Ng, available at http://bearstearns.com/bscportal/pdfs/underground.pdf), which gives an explanation of the problems with the census methods and then offers a revised estimate of closer to 20 million. When I said “about a third” I was speaking loosely. I could have said “almost half,” but I guess I went with what sounded like a more conservative choice.

    August 10, 2009
  993. Scott Oney said:

    William: There are already a few proposals out there for consumer-driven health care reform, and there was McCain’s $5,000 tax credit proposal, but it really isn’t fair to place the burden on those opposed to Obamacare come up with a “coherent alternative.” A lot of us are already happy with our health care providers and our insurance, and would prefer no change to any of the alternatives proposed by the Democrats.

    August 10, 2009
  994. Barry Cipra said:

    Ray, I think there’s a lot to recommend your sliding-scale proposal for health care. For one, it respects the marxist principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” That is, the wealthier you are, the more you should be prepared to pay toward your health care costs, but society at large (in the form of government) should step in when the need arises. I like it! (And who among us would ever call Ray Cox a socialist?)

    Your proposal overlooks a couple of considerations, however. First, where is the government going to get the funds to pay for the healthcare costs in excess of the 10% threshold? I assume you have some form of tax in mind (as opposed to good old deficit spending), perhaps increasing the current Medicare payroll tax from 2.9% to, say 8%. (Government-offered health care, after all, is not much more than Medicare without the age-65 restriction. If we’re all going into the pool, it makes sense for premiums to increase. Making premiums proportional to income, again, makes good marxist sense.)

    Second, what do you propose to rein in healthcare costs? Any government-offered plan will be subject to the twisted objections of the rabble-rousing thugs. (Euthanasia! Faceless bureaucrats! Born in Kenya!) Indeed, once someone crosses your 10% threshold, they’ll be more likely than ever to demand gold-plated treatment — and just about any major illness or hospitalization is going to cross the threshold. What are your thoughts on this aspect of the problem?

    Finally, it’s not entirely clear that a set 10% (or whatever number is picked) threshold is fully in keeping with the “to each according to his need” part of the dictum. It assumes, for example, that a family of four living on $60,000 per year is prepared to absorb a $6000 hit, while a childless couple earning $100,000 per year will pony up the first $10,000 for their needs. But the latter is arguably far more likely to have the savings to cover their exposure; lower-income families often live much closer to the edge of their means. Maybe the threshold should be graduated in some “progressive” way, as is our income tax system. How about making the annual deductible (which is, in effect, what your 10% threshold amounts to) some fixed fraction (say a third) of your federal income tax obligation (from whatever awful line it is in Form 1040)?

    One last query: In your final sentence, did you mean “then” instead of “than”? What you’re suggesting, after all, is a system in which government help kicks in for big-ticket items after individuals have done their penny-pinching best to keep initial expenses under control.

    August 10, 2009
  995. Ray Cox said:

    Barry…you are right, I meant ‘then’ in my last sentence as in they then turn to the government to help with health care.

    The health care tax proposal is one way that one might raise funds. As Scott pointed out, McCain talked about this during the campaign. It seemed to be a non-starter, but it really should be looked at. For all the progressives out there, why should someone have top of the line heath care insurance, but not be taxed on the value? or at least above a set threshold as McCain talked about. The individual is getting goods worth something (medical care), and the goods lead to a better life style. It seems to be there is intrinsic value there, but the government doesn’t tax it…yet, or now. Not too long ago the government did just that. Most of my working life I had to have my accountant issue me a 1099-Misc to pick up the cost of my health insurance that my company paid for me. The cost of my workers health insurance was never disputed—it was fully deductible. But health insurance for me, as an owner, was not deductible at all; then partially; and now it is fully deductible. So the government has a track record of taxing health care—-just not on rank and file workers.

    Barry, in your post you made a comment..”likely to have the savings to cover their exposure” noting that some people have savings. We need to be careful about how we penalize people that are saving and taking care of their own needs. If things continue down the path of penalizing hard work, savings, etc we will end up in a position that no one wants to be in.

    August 10, 2009
  996. Barry Cipra said:

    Ray, how do you expect people to meet their 10%-of-income deductible under the system you suggest, except through money set aside for the contingency — the very definition of savings? Would you have them pay a visit to the neighborhood loan shark? All I was pointing out is that your proposal may still not solve one of the fundamental problems with the status quo, namely that a sudden, large medical expense can tip the scales of bankruptcy for families of limited means. This seems more likely to happen to a $60k family of four facing an unexpected $6000 bill than a $100k couple with a $10k hospital stay (unless, of course, the latter have all their wealth sunk into a Mayflower Hill McMansion and annual treks to Vegas). Perhaps the solution would be some form of optional secondary insurance, purchasing a lower deductible, giving people additional control over their healthcare expenses.

    August 10, 2009
  997. john george said:

    Throuh all these proposals and counter proposals, I still do not see how the reduction of the actual cost of health care is supposed to happen. Have I missed something someshere? It seems to me that if costs could be reduced, then the present system might actually work. I don’t understand how a redistribution of wealth is going to have any effect on the costs. Someone mentioned earlier, and I concure, that we do not have a limitless supply of taxable income to support these plans. This is especially true if a large portion of the population is provided with health care without contributing anything to the payments for it.

    August 10, 2009
  998. Ray Cox said:

    Barry, I forgot one item on payments for a percentage pay plan….employers would return the value of health insurance to the employees. This would put the health care dollars back into employees hands for the vast majority of Americans.

    August 12, 2009
  999. Ray Cox said:

    Barry, I think you’ve identified one way a consumer might not be ‘wiped’ out by a large medical bill, namely purchase an insurance product to help pay the bill. But I think the real issue is two-fold with the percent pay plan I identified.

    First, the consumer will be intimately involved in their health care, something this country has not seen in decades. We are starting to head that way with HSA type plan, and I think that is a good thing. I have an HSA and last year had knee surgery. I was on my own pay for the first $2,500, then the insurance kicked in. I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to pay for my own health care like that, and I’m comfortable with that level of deductible. Now I would not be comfortable with a $25,000 deductible, so I would make sure I had insurance to knock that down a notch to where I am comfortable.

    The second thing is the percent pay plan gets the public focused on the fact that health care is a private thing, and that people should be willing and ready to invest their own dollars in their own health care. I think that is a crucial part of any health care debate. I do not support the type of government paid-government run-government given health care as it removes personal responsibility and common sense from the equation. We all know people who decide they can purchase $200 shoes, and as Barry notes, trips to Las Vegas, but those same people will scream and yell if they have to fork over $150 for a medical test or procedure. It’s all about priorities.

    Finally, John is right in bringing up the cost issue. My take on the matter is that as long as the US is going to be the world leader in research and development for medical devices, procedures and care, we will probably have a more expensive system. And as long as we have a tort system that supports the practice of defensive medicine we will have a more expensive system. And as long as we have a system that does not inflict monetary ‘pain’ on people that are leading terribly unhealthy lifestyles, then we will have a more expensive system. Taken together, we have a good medical system that provides excellent care to a wide range of people. The question is can we reform it to reach out to more people without making it more expensive for all of us?

    August 12, 2009
  1000. Barry Cipra said:

    Ray, can you clarify what you mean by having employers “return the value” of health insurance to their employees? Let me hazard a guess, with a simplified, made-up example.

    Suppose you have an employer who currently pays an employee $40k in wages but kicks in another $8k for health insurance, matching the employee’s $4k premiums. In all, the employer shells out $48k in total compensation, while the employee sees $36k in post-premium, taxable wages. Let’s say the employee loses a quarter of these wages to taxes (federal, state, FICA, etc.). So his take-home pay is $27k. Let’s say his insurance policy pays all costs above a $2k deductible. (This is extremely simplified. I’m just trying to set up a general framework for comparing the status quo with a potential change.) If the worker stubs his toe and winds up in the hospital, he’s left with $25k in post-healthcare disposable income.

    Now suppose we somehow separate health insurance from employment and have the government provide it with the 10%-of-income deductible feature you suggested. I think what you mean by “return the value” is that the employer will simply now pay, as wages, the full $48k he previously split in two parts. After all, the employer doesn’t really care where the money goes once it leaves his pocket, he only cares that he’s kissed it goodbye. (I am, of course, ignoring all the bells and whistles of tax incentives, etc., that complicate the real world.) To pay for the government-provided insurance, let’s jack the poor wage-earner’s taxes from a quarter (on what used to be post-premium income of $36k) to a THIRD of his actual, total compensation of $48k. This increases his tax obligation from $9k to $16k, but leaves him with more take-home pay: $32k instead of $27k. However he now has a higher deductible. To keep the arithmetic simple, let’s round it from $4800 (10% of $48k) to $5k. When he now lands in the hospital after stubbing his toe, he’s out the $5k instead of a mere $2k (and some faceless bureaucrat in Washington, instead of some faceless bureaucrat at BlueCrossBlueShield, haggles with the hospital over the rest of the bill). Yet his final post-healthcare disposable income is now $27k, or slightly more than the $25k under the status-quo scenario.

    Obviously different numbers will produce different results (and I’m not suggesting any of the numbers I’ve used here, in particular the tax rates, as serious proposals — they are for simplified illustration purposes only). Sometimes the wage-earner comes out ahead, and sometimes he comes out behind. Almost any kind of change, even one that tries to be “revenue neutral,” is going to create “winners” and “losers.” The trick is to try to be fair about it (which, of course, is where a lot of the rancor sets in, people having differing ideas of what’s fair), and ultimately to produce a net benefit to society (which is also subject to debate, people having differing points view on what constitutes a net benefit). In a taxpayer-funded, government-provided system of health insurance, it’s to be expected that lower-income people will be the “winners” and higher-income people will be the “losers.” Exactly where the crossover occurs depends on how you set things up. And needless to say, the special-interest lobbyists will do what they always do, namely seek to insert little bells and whistles favorable to themselves. It’s not like the status quo doesn’t already have a cacophony of such features.

    I see one potential drawback to your return-of-value suggestion (if indeed I’ve interpreted it correctly). The example I made up just now is for, say, an employee who is married with family. Let’s say the employer has a second, single employee, also paid $40k, for whom the total insurance package is only $6k — $2k from the employee and $4k from the employer. Under the status quo, the employees think they’re being treated equally: They see themselves as each being paid $40k. But if you “return the value,” the single guy may object to being paid only $44k for the same work his married coworker is getting $48k for. Or would you just take the employer’s portion of the premium pot and divvy it up equally, paying each worker $46k?

    Finally, john george raises a good point, namely that none of this addresses the question of cost (i.e., the haggling done on our behalf by our faceless friends in the bureaucracy, be it public or private). But I disagree with the notion that our present system “might actually work” if costs were somehow reined in. What we need (IMO — here’s once place where the “net benefit” debate comes in) is a healthcare insurance system that makes affordable healthcare available to everyone, regardless of income. Given that even reined-in costs for hospitalizations and treatments of serious illnesses are still likely to run in the tens of thousands of dollars, we need to do something for the many millions of people who currently have no insurance at all — and, for that matter, the many millions more who are underinsured or at risk of losing their insurance. To expand on former President Bush’s famous dismissal of the problem, all you to do is go to the emergency room — and from there to bankruptcy court.

    August 12, 2009
  1001. Barry Cipra said:

    Ray, once again there is a lot to like in what you say. Now let me take issue with it, more or less point by point….

    First, I think you mean to say the sliding-scale plan will get consumers intimately involved in paying for their health care. People are already pretty intimately involved in the health care itself — I know I am whenever my doctor snaps on his rubber glove for my prostate exam. It’s worth stressing that there are four intimately related but nonetheless distinct aspects to what we’re considering: health, health care, healthcare costs, and healthcare insurance (and its costs). If you’re basically healthy, you don’t need health care (beyond check-ups, which you might be tempted to skip), so the cost of health care is irrelevant, and you might even not bother with insurance. You might call this the strapping-young-lad end of the spectrum. The problem, of course, is that even strapping young lads sometimes get deathly ill. And when people without adequate healthcare insurance get sick, they often either don’t get adequate health care, or they have horrendous problems paying for it, or both.

    The best — I daresay the only — way to get people intimately involved in paying for their health care (as opposed to paying for healthcare insurance, which is a separate issue) is through a sensible system of deductibles and co-pays. If I know that I’m on the hook for the first $X of an office visit and the first $Y of any tests or procedures, I can exercise judgment (either good or bad) on whether to have the doctor look at my hangnail, and may question the need for an Xray of it if I do go in. There is no reason a government-run insurance program can’t offer a sensible system of deductibles and co-pays; your sliding-scale proposal is one such possibility. As things are, our status-quo system of private insurance is often quite the opposite, at least for those of us with generous, gold-plated coverage. Co-pays are cheap, deductibles low, and the consumer often never sees a bill at all. (A couple of years ago I had a routine colonoscopy, which our insurance allows for at 100% coverage. The clinic never sent me any kind of statement, which made sense because they didn’t expect any money from me. It was only by chasing down the EOB, out of idle curiosity, that I saw how much things cost. When I saw the numbers, I nearly shit a brick. I was certainly glad to have had the insurance coverage.)

    I see the HSA (Health Savings Account) as a bit of red herring in this discussion. Once you have a sensible system of deductibles and co-pays, the individual can (sometimes with help) assess what he needs to set aside to cover his anticipated out-of-pocket healthcare costs. An HSA is just a place to park that money, usually with some sort of tax advantage to doing so. Can you explain how this helps make the consumer more cost-conscious when it comes to health care? I can imagine the opposite effect: “Hey, honey, we’ve got a bunch of bucks in our HSA. I think I’ll blow it on a knee operation….”

    (Along those lines, your mention of a $25,000 deductible, which I assume stems from our 10%-of-income discussion, implies you’re pulling in a well-earned quarter million dollars a year. This puts you in Joe-the-Plumber territory, and justifies any concerns you may have with Barack Hussein Obama’s tax-hiking designs on your wallet! But please remember, he only wants to get his hands on what comes after the quarter million, so it sounds like you’re still fairly safe.)

    Second, I agree that your percent-pay plan helps people focus on the fact that people should be willing and ready to invest their own dollars in their own health care (which is how I parse the grammar of the latter half of your sentence). It brings it front and center: The more you earn, the more willing and ready you should be to pay part of the costs of keeping yourself healthy or getting well if you do get sick. But I don’t follow what you say about “the type of government paid-government run-government given health care.” What type? The only way I can make grammatical sense of that sentence is to change the “as it” into a “that” — but in that case your objection such health care goes without saying. Did you mean something along the lines of “the type that some have suggested”? If so, who? I’m not aware of any serious suggestions for government-run, government-provided health care. Again, there is a difference between health care and healthcare insurance (and what’s the difference between run and provided, anyway?).

    Finally, I have nothing but quibbles, not worth going into here, regarding your assessment of some of the things that make our system more expensive than elsewhere. I agree that we have, in many ways, a good medical system that provide excellent care to those who can afford it. Whether that constitutes a “wide range” of people is a point-of-viewy kind of thing; as I said earlier, we have a problem not just with the uninsured, but also with the under-insured. And as to your wrap-up question, the answer is Yes.

    August 12, 2009
  1002. Ray Cox said:

    Barry, you’ve seem to caught what I essentially mean by employers returning the value of the health insurance to the employees. But there are no tax advantages to providing health care to an employer—it is simply something that is done to provide a decent set of benefits and retain workers. If, as in your example, I pay $8,000 in health care insurance costs for my employee, it is the same as if I paid $8,000 in wages….except that health care insurance cost is not subject to some of the payroll taxes, split equally between employees and employers.

    Your example of the gold standard heath care insurance coverage provided good support for taxing health care insurance benefits. When an employee gets such coverage for ‘free’ it can provide some extensive value to the employee. Makes me wonder if I couldn’t create an insurance product called ‘Life Sustenance’ and charge a premium to deliver food to my employees, and thereby get the food as a tax free benefit! That is essentially what is done with dental insurance. It pays for say two cleanings and a set of xrays each year…with the full understanding that is what you will use. So a big part of the premiums are essentially pre-paid dental payments.

    As far as HSA’s go I do believe it makes the consumer more aware of health care, health care costs and value received. The first dollars are paid by the individual. They may or may not have enough funds in their HSA to make the payment. Regardless, I think they have more discussions about what type of care to get from their medical providers. I know I had discussions when I had my knee problems and went through a series of ‘see if this works’ until I finally had surgery.
    And no, I am not anywhere near the Joe-the-Plumber wage territory. In fact 2008 was a ‘backwards’ year for me like it was for many, many people. But employer sponsored HSA’s have various deductible limits that can be set. Obviously the higher it is the less costly the insurance is, but there is a limit to what I would comfortably expose myself to. I used the $25,000 example as an amount where I would definitely want to have a secondary level of insurance to cover at least a portion of that amount. I can handle the $2,500 cost just barely.

    As far as government run health care plans, if you can figure out what they have going on in Washington, more power to you. It looks to me like we have a bunch of First Graders all piling on trying to out do each other. I believe we have at least 6 bills swirling around. I’m thinking that was the Dems plan so that their members could, with a reasonably straight face, tell constituents “no, that isn’t in the bill”. The problem is no one knows what bill is being talked about. This was handled in a very poor fashion. They jumped things on this in a rush to try and get a vote before the recess, and it has gone very badly. There is no reason to try and rush something of this magnitude. We should be able to have some decent bi-partisan support for a major overhaul of health care or health care insurance or whatever they are determined to overhaul. And everyone that is interested should be able to focus on one bill—-and read it.

    August 12, 2009
  1003. David Henson said:

    A contrary note to the government run system folks touting Sweden, etc. New Hampshire has no no-fault auto requirement, no seat belt laws, spends a middling amount on health care among the 50 states and ranks in the top 5 in most categories for good health. Either New Hampshire’s system is very good or they generally have a healthy population and the system makes no difference (which would be my guess in both the case of new Hampshire, Sweden and Denmark).

    August 13, 2009
  1004. Paul Zorn said:

    Hi, Ray,

    Like others, I admire the progressivity of your idea of capping a family’s health care expenditure based on income. (Whether your idea is socialist or Marxist or just good sense I leave to others to adjudicate. But it certainly doesn’t sound very Bush-Rove-ian … well done!) As Barry points out, there are all sorts of practical and policy ramifications that would have to be worked out, but some tie to income (whether through an explicit limit or through progressivity in the tax system) seems a no-brainer.

    Re this:

    As far as government run health care plans, if you can figure out what they have going on in Washington, more power to you. It looks to me like we have a bunch of First Graders all piling on trying to out do each other. I believe we have at least 6 bills swirling around. I’m thinking that was the Dems plan so that their members could, with a reasonably straight face, tell constituents “no, that isn’t in the bill”. The problem is no one knows what bill is being talked about. This was handled in a very poor fashion. They jumped things on this in a rush to try and get a vote before the recess, and it has gone very badly.

    I’m not here to defend the quality of discussion, but is it really surprising that a step as major as this would generate a lot of competing proposals, etc.? And your suggestions that “they” somehow stage-managed the confusion for cynical ends seems to me to give too much credit for method to what’s mainly a pretty random process.

    … We should be able to have some decent bi-partisan support for a major overhaul of health care or health care insurance or whatever they are determined to overhaul.

    There’s that “they” again … whom do you mean? But your main thought about bipartisan support is right on. But it takes two to do the bipartisan tango, and so far the R’s seem to be sitting around like wallflowers.

    And everyone that is interested should be able to focus on one bill—-and read it.

    Fair enough, but (a) isn’t it reasonable to expect a complex solution to a complex problem? (b) the present 1000-page bill (one of them, anyway) is less difficult to read (based on some skimming I’ve done) than might be supposed. Like some of my high school term papers, a lot of this is windy, double-spaced, and with wide margins.

    August 13, 2009
  1005. Ray Cox said:

    Paul, you are correct that there should be several ‘competing’ ideas in something as major as this health care reform. However, I do not think the best way to handle it is with many different bills moving through the process. The House has passed at least one bill, several more are in committee, the Senate has not passed a bill, etc. When Congress jumps too quickly there is high probability of things becoming a huge mess….which is what I believe we have right now. The public deserves better.

    We shouldn’t have the public wondering if their elected officials have read the bill. We shouldn’t have major competing bills all being discussed in various venues. It is much better to hold up on drafting a bill and let the committee process do its work, then craft a bill that is the result of thoughtful and careful deliberation. And I would certainly hope that we would see the final bill get bipartisan support.

    As far as ‘stage managed’, I sure hope I’m wrong. But for the life of me, I cannot see why anyone would want to have 6 bills all swirling around. It seems far more productive to me to manage one bill that comes out of the committee process.

    August 14, 2009
  1006. Barry Cipra said:

    Ray, I concur with your characterization of premium dollars that go toward dental check-ups. The same is true for healthcare plans that cover physical exams, childhood immunizations, age-50 colonoscopies, etc. We really shouldn’t use the word “insurance” to encompass things that are completely predictable. These are medical benefits, pure and simple. It would be of some interest to know how much of the $2.4 trillion people keep mentioning is accounted for by such things. (If all 300 million people went in for a $400 physical every year, that would represent 5% of the nation’s healthcare tab. But of course not everyone gets an annual exam. Indeed, some small portion of health insurance companies’ profits come from people who skip a benefit their premiums have already paid for.)

    Whether these examples support the notion of taxing healthcare benefits is another of those pesky point-of-viewy things. We as a society seem to have decided a long time ago to use the tax code to underwrite certain desirable behaviors. We have the mortgage interest deduction to encourage home ownership (and look what a mess that’s gotten us into lately!). We have college tuition tax credits to boost higher education. And we have tax-exempt healthcare insurance (including HSAs) to help people get and/or stay healthy. These decisions are always worth revisiting, but it’s by no means a given what the decision should be — as always, it depends on whose ox you’re being gored by.

    As to your tax-free “Life Sustenance” plan, I love it. Sign me up! One concern, though, is that your plan’s administrator — let’s call it Blue Plate Blue Special — will be deciding my in-network menu and I won’t be able to go to the restaurant of my choice without paying for it out of pocket. But what really worries me is that the government will eventually take things over and I’ll wind up dragged before Obama’s infamous Diet Panel….

    August 14, 2009
  1007. David Henson said:

    Paul, I think what you are seeing is the planners cannot even make this look good on paper – in the real world you can be certain that a planned system will be a disaster. This is why a health debit card or extreme consumer choice is the only way out – decentralize.

    August 14, 2009
  1008. Paul Zorn said:

    Here’s an investigative article on the “death panel” madness:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html

    One interesting question the article raises: Does this craziness actually hurt the cause of sensible health reform, as one might expect naively, or does it help in some indirect way by associating legitimate opponents with fringe-y fantasies?

    I’m not sure.

    Here’s another article, this one by a local, that makes another point about healthcare:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0813/p09s01-coop.html

    August 14, 2009
  1009. Ray Cox said:

    The article in the CS Monitor sums things up pretty well regarding universal health care. If you want that type of health care, Denmark is clearly the place to be. But when was the last time a break through medical procedure or drug came out of Denmark? We cannot forget that America is the leader in developing medical care. That will end if we go to a government plan. Anyone that thinks it won’t end needs to get out more or do more reading, or do both more.

    And as far as the people that the article referred to that don’t want to spend thier dollars paying for others health care, that attitude is there because no one believes the American government will handle a government health plan any better than they handle welfare or other massive programs. All the programs start with the best intentions, but being it is government, the programs just grow, and grow, and consume more and more resources. That is what people are concerned about.

    Paul,I like your question about the ‘fringe’ people getting noisy. I think you are on to something in that it does tend to force supporters of the various bills to come forward and plainly explain the content. Without that push I’m not sure what would be explained.

    August 14, 2009
  1010. john george said:

    Paul- Those are a couple good articles. They touch on a subject that resonates with me, and I heard it best described by the late Dr. Francis Schaefer a number of years ago. He said that the greatest problem facing the world is the compassionate distribution of accumulated wealth. This is where I agree with the basic idea of providing general health care but disagree with the funding approach being proposed. If you try to force someone to be benevolent without first changing their heart to embrace it as a core value, then that person will always be looking for a way out of the requirements rather than a way to fulfill them. I see a moral challenge to us all in being willing to lay down our own desires for the benefit of the greater society. It is a philosophy presented by the Apostle Paul in Phil. chap. 2. Since I do not embrace the concept of the basic goodness of men (I think, for one example, the financial debicle we have been through disproves that theory), then I look to that which is outside man to bring about this moral change that is needed.

    August 14, 2009
  1011. Paul Zorn said:

    John:

    It’s hard to disagree that benevolence come better from the heart than frini being “forced”. But if changing people’s hearts is a long-term project, as it would seem, what do you suggest we do in the meantime?

    August 15, 2009
  1012. Paul Zorn said:

    Ray:

    You seem to assume that a socialized medical system (far different from what’s being proposed here, by the way) somehow prevents medical innovation, drug development, etc. I don’t find the Denmark example persuasive on this point.

    For one thing, Denmark has about the population of Minnesota, so it’s hardly comparable to the US. If you do want to cite statistics, however, one could mention Denmark’s higher rankings than ours as regards infant mortality, life expectancy, etc., then your reasoning would imply, wouldn’t it, that our system leads to bad outcomes in these areas?

    August 15, 2009
  1013. David Henson said:

    Paul, are you comparing Denmark’s stats to Minnesota or the USA ?

    August 15, 2009
  1014. john george said:

    Paul- Regrettably, we as the Church* have fallen down in out mission to change hearts. I believe that we have become distracted with social issues and left our first commission- the changing of men. This can be done concurrently, but we have not done so, and now we are in a mess. If men’s hearts are changed, then government, a collection of representatives of men, will be changed. I don’t see a simple or quick fix to the situation coming.

    *By Church, I am talking about the Church in general, not one specific denomination.

    I posted this in another thread about a former city employee:

    Kiffi- The allegations presented in
    this article would lend some credence
    to the fears about who is going to be
    making decisions about health care
    coverage under the government provided
    health care proposals in Congress
    right now.

    August 15, 2009
  1015. Scott Oney said:

    Paul: As you say, “one could mention Denmark’s higher rankings than ours as regards infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.,” but what exactly would be the point? I haven’t checked, but I’m assuming here that Denmark ranks “better” than the United States in infant mortality and life expectancy, and that from this we’re supposed to conclude that the system in Denmark is better than ours. The fallacy here is that the populations are not the same. It would be interesting to see a comparison of infant mortality rates, life expectancy, and so forth between Americans of Danish (or Scandinavian in general) descent and their counterparts back home. I have a hunch the Americans would stack up pretty well against their distant relatives who stayed put, but I haven’t seen any studies that address this topic. Would you be able to dig up some statistics?

    August 15, 2009
  1016. Jane Moline said:

    Sorry Scott–the USA fails on health care statistics in every way. We have higher infant mortality regardless–even if you take rich white women versus all of Denmark, Denmark has lower infant mortality. (Note that the USA infant mortality increases if you are poor, hispanic, or black, with being black a key indicator for higher infant mortality.)

    And Ray, we fail at innovation,too. Researchers seek jobs outside of the USA due to funding restrictions.

    Our health system is the worst of developed nations. Although you’all seem to want the status quo, the majority of citizens want a change.

    Lose your job, you lose your insurance. Preexisting condition–no insurance for you. Born to poor parents–limited health care for you.

    We are the only country in the world where a health care crisis means bankruptcy.

    Just imagine if we provided educational services–schools–on the same basis–where the rich get to go to expensive, good schools, and the poor can’t get regular schooling because they can only pay for a few weeks per month. That is our attitude towards decent, basic health care–you got money, you can pay, you can see a doctor–but if you are poor you can go to the emergency room when you step on a rusty nail, but no annual checkup for you.

    August 15, 2009
  1017. David Henson said:

    the USA fails on health care statistics in every way. We have higher infant mortality regardless–even if you take rich white women versus all of Denmark,

    Jane, do you have a reference for this claim?

    August 15, 2009
  1018. Paul Zorn said:

    John,

    Thanks for your churcha culpa on insufficient progress in “changing men’s hearts”. But I don’t think you answered my question about what to do in the meantime. Isn’t “forced compassion” for others better than none at all?

    August 16, 2009
  1019. Jane Moline said:

    David: There are several articles in Time Magazine, but some of my statistics are from the World Health Organization. If you go to TIme, in 2008 there was an article with rate of non-hispanic white infant mortality (babies die in first year of life) at 5.66 per thousand compared with 3 per thousand in all of numerous European countries.

    WHO ranks US 18th our of 18 developed countries in overall health care. WHO ranks US 37th in health care-right behind Costa Rica–when ranked with developed and developing countries.

    August 16, 2009
  1020. Jane Moline said:

    And there are more articles in Time magazine citing additional statistics on the high infant mortality rate in the USA–most recent is July of 2009.

    August 16, 2009
  1021. David Henson said:

    Jane, Denmark is 4.4 and MN is 5.1 but these are from different sampling and may very well be within an error ratio of each other. The District of Columbia (where the government is most concentrated) has an infant mortality rate of 14.1. I would think if the Dems said, “we are going to just redo DC which is by far the worst in the USA and see if we can fix then expand to the rest of the nation” – they would have more agreement.

    August 16, 2009
  1022. kiffi summa said:

    If you look at photo galleries ( of health care town hall meetings) on various news sites, three things will catch your eye: the level of concerned perplexity on most faces, the level of truly outrageously inappropriate anger on some, and those ubiquitous bright blue shirts from the anti-reform groups scattered through the crowds, no matter which state the meeting is in.

    Rick Pearlstein has a good article in today’s Washington Post; He speaks basically about the prevalence of crazy claims that our freedom allows, and the change in the media’s reaction or validation of such claims.
    He has a very visual sentence that illuminates the problem of freedom of speech without the sense to make ‘sense’ of what is said: “The tree of crazy is an ever- present aspect of America’s flora.”

    We must have the sense to know what is ‘crazy’ and not be afraid to identify it as such; i.e. better journalism, less sensationalism.

    August 16, 2009
  1023. Paul Zorn said:

    Scott:

    You wrote:

    As you say, “one could mention Denmark’s higher rankings than ours as regards infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.,” but what exactly would be the point?

    I raised the matter of Danish statistics (see 848.1) in response to Ray’s suggestion that having a Danish-style system would stifle medical innovation. My point was that things are more complicated than Ray’s reasoning seemed to me to suggest.

    Then you said:

    … I’m assuming here that Denmark ranks “better” than the United States in infant mortality and life expectancy, and that from this we’re supposed to conclude that the system in Denmark is better than ours.

    Yes about Denmark’s statistics bettering ours, but I do not assert that any one specific statistic proves that one system is better than another. Matters are always more complex than a single stat can cover. So much said, I do indeed feel that Denmark’s health system works much better for them than ours does for us.

    The fallacy here is that the populations are not the same. It would be interesting to see a comparison of infant mortality rates, life expectancy, and so forth between Americans of Danish (or Scandinavian in general) descent and their counterparts back home. I have a hunch the Americans would stack up pretty well against their distant relatives who stayed put, but I haven’t seen any studies that address this topic. Would you be able to dig up some statistics?

    Agreed, such statistics would be interesting. But I don’t accept the “fallacy” description, as I wasn’t drawing the conclusion you disagree with. And, whatever our population characteristics compared to those in Denmark, we live over here, in the US, with the population we have. It’s up to us to get our own population better covered and protected.

    August 16, 2009
  1024. Jane Moline said:

    David: If you look at infant mortality rates in the USA, they were declining–but the decline has stopped and we are in a plateau. WHO organization statistics appear to be the most comprehensive, but the two Time articles I cited give quite a bit of information.

    So you think Minnesotans don’t need insurance? You really miss the point. In Minnesota, we are doing better than most of the nation–(at least on infant mortality rates) but we still have thousands of children without insurance, thousands of adults without insurance, thousands that cannot afford their deductibles, thousands that are afraid of losing their insurance, and thousands who are underinsured. Thousands are denied insurance for preexisting conditions, and people file for bankruptcy due to health care costs they cannot pay.

    Whatever measure you use, the US health system compares poorly with every other developed nation and many undeveloped nations. It may be working great for you, but it is not working for people with celiac disease, Crohns, diabetes, or young healthy people who get in accidents.

    In today’s Star Tribune, in the B section (page B3) Greg Lee, a former Northfield resident is featured. His COBRA insurance was cancelled when he mistakenly underpaid his premium by $6.28. Greg is “uninsurable” due to diabetes. They reinstated his insurance after he contacted Whistleblower at the Trib. So, unemployed, he is paying a premium of $428 (I think) for himself. Affordable if you have a job–but how will he pay if he cannot find another job? (I assume he is using unemployment now–but what next for Greg?

    I know first hand of a case where a young man in need of several prescription drugs to maintain his mental health could not qualify for medical assistance while he was working and could not pay his prescriptions on his hourly wage pay–so the only way he could stay on his medication was to NOT work. This is really unacceptable.

    I see two problems with this discussion:
    1. We cannot seem to agree that there is a problem in spite of available data that shows the problem.
    2. We have a group that believes that government cannot do anything well and a group that sees government as a necessary part of a civil society and that has a definite role in bringing services to the people.

    August 16, 2009
  1025. mike zenner said:

    Jane,

    I feel everyone here believes there are “problems” with current health care system, but what truly are the macro problems and how will the current legislation address them.

    I feel before a true debate can occur the “problems” need to be clearly stated and identified, before solutions can be proposed.

    I am sure that your top 3 or 4 macro problems list is different from mine and probably most everyone else due to our own life experience and values.

    My American health care Macro problem list:

    1. Poor life style choices
    2. Aging Demographic and the belief of unlimited Gov health insurance to cover this.
    3. “For Profit” health insurance
    4. Tort reform

    The link below covers the first two on my list pretty well I feel.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-dychtwald/the-biggest-problem-with_b_216446.html

    What’s your top 4 list?

    By the way, I read that US life expectancy is no worse than the rest of the western world when you subtract deaths from violence and accidents. Life style again?

    August 17, 2009
  1026. David Henson said:

    COBRA, is a law passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Reagan that, among other things, mandates an insurance program giving some employees the ability to continue health insurance coverage after leaving employment. COBRA

    Jane, your citing a federal program that failed someone as evidence that we should turn 16% of our economy into a big federal program (I guess I do not follow). I know your reply is “that’s because the big private insurance companies get in and write the laws and cheat the system” – yes they do – that is how our government works (or not) but it argues against expanding powers.

    Europe is a wonderful place to sit out and have coffee among beautiful architecture but natives I speak with from Europe always say, ‘the system is very class oriented and the economy is locked up and you cannot get ahead unless you know someone.’ I really question whether their Muslim minorities are even counted properly in the health statistics you cite. Our European representative here on locally grown tells us the wondrous system you tout is not in fact so wonderful (might want to listen).

    Socialism is evil and leads to fascism. Socializing 16% of the economy is terrible and tragic idea that will lead to terrible and tragic results. If we could all just sip a Koolaide that would make life perfect that would be wonderful but alas we can talk about such a thing but such a thing does not exist. Think of all the human energy wasted trying to force others to accept a vision rather than just going out and making that vision happen without force through private effort. Raise some funds, rent an office on division, hire a doctor and stick them in the office to offer free services (or cheap). But do not try to use the police state to force everyone to participate in this vision and hire an army of bureaucrats to oversee the system who do nothing but try to suck as much cash out for themselves as possible.

    August 17, 2009
  1027. Jane Moline said:

    No David–COBRA is not a federal “program.” It is a law that employer’s have to follow and insurance companies administrate. I realize our system is very complex and difficult to use and understand–one reason our health system needs an overhaul.

    Being 37th in the world should mean something for us in the USA. We should be able to be much better. Japan and France are number 1 and 2. The French, who could not kick Hitler-butt without us, have a more successful health system than we do.

    Mike, claiming our death rate is due to our lack of gun control laws is a real interesting argument. However, it does not explain our terrible record on infant mortality (die in the first year of life.)

    The US health care system sucks. You have a few spots of greatness, but that does not make up for the general mediocrity with which we care for our health.

    And, we spend more than other developed nations, as well–it would not be 16% of our economy if we had somebody other than profiteers in charge.

    August 17, 2009
  1028. mike zenner said:

    Jane,

    Violence(stabbings,beatings,etc) and accidents(automobile especially) are not just restricted to gun violence.

    High infant mortality could be caused by poor lifestyle choices of the mother during pregnancy (poor diet,smoking, drugs, alcohol,etc), not to mention just dumping kids in dumpsters, baking them in cars, or just plain starving them due to negligence. Would these types of activities fall under violence or accidents?

    August 17, 2009
  1029. Paul Zorn said:

    Mike:

    In #856 you say:

    … I read that US life expectancy is no worse than the rest of the western world when you subtract deaths from violence and accidents. Life style again?

    Can you give a citation for this?

    And for an apples to apples comparison, of course, one should also subtract similar deaths elsewhere.

    August 17, 2009
  1030. john george said:

    Paul- Sorry. I thought I had answered you with my comment

    I don’t see a simple or quick fix to
    the situation coming.

    but I wasn’t clear. I suppose “forced compassion” is the only quick fix there is, but I don’t see this as a lasting solution. Just as the whole government organization has a health casre plan that is comprehensive, and is paid for by the taxed populace, then it is understandable that their only solution to the health care debicle is the same type of thing. When you are a hammer, every problem is a nail. From observation of past initiatives to tax the rich to pay for the needs of the poor, it seems that those with money and influence can buy their way out of the responsibility through political contributions. The middle class has picked up most of the slack in the past. Unfortunately, the middle class is deminishing in size to the point of not being able to carry it. That is why I do not have a lot of hope in many of the proposals I am reading about.

    August 17, 2009
  1031. kiffi summa said:

    Many of us might remember when a now-deceased NF resident was removed and incarcerated by the Secret Service when he spoke against (threatened?) President Clinton who was speaking at a Carleton event.

    Now people, not one but twelve, are outside an event where Pres. Obama is speaking, two of them with assault rifles, and it’s just OK?

    So, it’s legal in AZ; is it reasonable considering the outright aggression and scare tactics of groups who advise ‘crazies’ to show up with their guns?
    So it’s just a visual threat?

    This is not OK; I don’t care if it’s “legal”, I don’t care if it’s Arizona; it’s a threat by people who would use their guns if they wanted to, or felt provoked … and that’s CRAZY!

    August 18, 2009
  1032. william siemers said:

    David…

    Social scientists study and measure social mobility, income mobility, class stratification, etc. They do it here, in europe, and around the world. Wikipedia has some good articles on these issues and a google search of articles will yield many interesting perspectives. Your statement that europeans always say ‘the system is very class oriented and the economy is locked up and you cannot get ahead unless you know someone.’, does not reflect my experience with europeans. And neither of our experiences reflects a scientific study of the matter. In any case, these experiences have very little to do with the health care debate.

    I’d also say that one person’s experience (particularly one person with a distinct political perspective), is of very limited value with regard to reaching conclusions about the relative merits of health care systems. Health statistics measure outcomes. Ecomomic statistics measure the cost of those outcomes. And user satisfaction surveys measure how citzens rate their country’s health care.

    As to,”Socialism is evil and leads to facism.” So…Sweden’s government is evil and on the road to facism? When can we expect the brown shirts to be patroling Stockholm? Around the world, hundreds of millions of citizens vote for democratic socialism. Have they all been duped for nigh on to a hundred years?

    August 18, 2009
  1033. william siemers said:

    Mike…

    My list of the top ‘macro problems’ with US health care.

    1. 40 million uninsured citizens.

    2. Poor lifestyle choices.

    3. The aging demographic

    4. The lack of systemization in our system.

    August 18, 2009
  1034. David Henson said:

    William, the health debate has everything to do with social mobility and particularly innovation. The US is simply not innovating at past levels and thus our economy is faltering. By the time the Wright Bros got done paying mandated auto ins, health ins, fines, worker’s comp, and any other myriad of social overhead – they would have no funds left to invent the airplane. The more the economy is locked down the less flexibility the economy has to innovate. I think anyone who wants to live in a European system can move there (don’t know any who have) but I know millions of Europeans have moved to the US and continue to do so – what is their motivation if all the scientists say their lives are so much better there? (OPPORTUNITY)

    August 18, 2009
  1035. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    You wrote:

    I think anyone who wants to live in a European system can move there (don’t know any who have) …

    What makes you “think” this? European countries have varying policies on immigration, some more liberal than others, but none has an open door policy.

    but I know millions of Europeans have moved to the US and continue to do so …

    If your “millions” refers to the Ellis Island period so be it, but those folks were hardly fleeing social democracy.

    If you mean now, as “continue to do so” suggests, then please provide sources. I glanced at the Dept of Homeland Security’s 2008 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. How many Scandinavians (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Sweden) would you expect received permanent residence status in the US in the 1990s (most recent data I could find)? The answer is less than 3000 per year — from a total Nordic population somewhere north of 23 million. And that’s only one side of the ledger; it ignores some unknown (to me) number of Yanks who crossed the pond the other way. And, of course, we have no way of knowing how many of those country-changers had marriage or family or retirement or any other non-economic motive in mind.

    In any event, I see no statistical evidence that Scandinavians are fleeing like rats from a sinking democratic socialist ship.

    And then:

    what is their motivation if all the scientists say their lives are so much better there?

    I assume this is just rhetorical overkill. “[A]ll the scientists” never agree about anything.

    August 18, 2009
  1036. william siemers said:

    David…Social mobility and innovation are quite different things and in both cases they do not necessarily increase with the degree of ‘economic freedom’ in a society.

    Successful companies must be as innovative wherever they are. It’s a world economy. People move across oceans to work, and believe it or not they travel in both directions. You might be correct about the Wright brothers, but they played on the economic field as it existed at the time…so I’d say your example is a little off base. Somehow google was able to innovate with a system that includes all the mandates you decry. How does Germany continue to make the best automobiles in the world if they are so overburdened with regulation? Six of the top 10 drug and biotech firms are european. There are new companies starting up everyday in europe and many bring innovations to the marketplace.

    I take the time to respond, because I think the ultra-nationalism reflected in your posts is part of the problem in the health care debate. Many americans believe that we do it best regardless of evidence to the contrary, and politicians are always ready to appeal to that sentiment. But we don’t do it best in health care, not even close. I’ll admit that even Obama seems willing to play the nationalistic card…he wants to offer a ‘uniquely american’ system. Ok, so be it. But I’d be happy with a uniquely French, German, British, Canadian, or Swiss solution.

    August 18, 2009
  1037. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    I like your thought, William:

    Many americans believe that we do it best regardless of evidence to the contrary, and politicians are always ready to appeal to that sentiment. But we don’t do it best in health care, not even close.

    I am for single payer, but I’ll settle for the public option for now. Nothing less. And many members of the House are saying that, too. I see it as a true test of our society as to whether we move toward a change that will benefit the masses.

    August 18, 2009
  1038. Ross Currier said:

    Hey Y’all, according to the Strib, Favre will be wearing purple this season.

    Oh, I’m sorry, this is the Democrats-Republicans blog post…I was looking for the Packers-Vikings blog post.

    August 18, 2009
  1039. john george said:

    Ross- I thought you were just trying to tackle a new issue. Never know what is going to go down on this thread.

    August 18, 2009
  1040. David Henson said:

    Its not nationalism William, it’s freedomalism. I give no credit for electricity, telegraph, telephone, lighting, the automobile, the modern engine, trains, planes etc to the “nation.” I think the lack of a “nation” kept government from getting in the way of these accomplishments.

    Your comparison of the biggest as a representation of the most innovative completely misunderstands the concept of an open market. The media use to say Japan has 4 of the 8 biggest banks but failed to mention the USA had 3000 banks competing (which was why we didn’t have the super banks).

    August 18, 2009
  1041. mike zenner said:

    Paul,

    I can’t get the link past the spam filter. Google “Standardized Life Expectancy” go to Carpe Diem blog site.

    The many of the other counties expectancy rates fall when the accident filter is applied. To me this says that most US accident deaths are on the young side whereas the other counties have a large number of accident deaths on the older side of the mean.

    August 18, 2009
  1042. mike zenner said:

    William,

    The lack of systemization in our system.

    I am not clear on what you mean by this, is it implying the lack of some form of standardization?

    Your list looks like mind on two Macro points. I am assuming your list like mine is highest priority is point #1? I am willing to agree that the uninsured is a large problem, but from strictly a cost point of view it, I feel, would fall in at somewhere around #4 or #5 on the list. On Wikipeidia they stated that the uninsured issue was costing the system $45Bil/yr. This of coarse is not chump change by any means, but within a $2Til/yr health care spending spree amounts to 2.25%.

    August 18, 2009
  1043. mike zenner said:

    Paul Z and William,

    I hate to bring this up, but getting back to the Social Security issue I found Bill Fleckenstein to be on the same wavelength as I:

    Given that so few people really understand the Ponzi nature of the current Social Security financing scheme — created in 1983 by a commission chaired by none other than the world’s greatest serial blower of bubbles, Alan Greenspan

    http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/social-security-crunch-coming-fast.aspx

    August 18, 2009
  1044. Paul Zorn said:

    Mike:

    Indeed, others have compared Social Security to a Ponzi scheme. But they’re wrong, for reasons discussed earlier in this discussion. Most important, there’s no expanding pool of Social Security suckers. SS may have its faults, but they’re not those of a Ponzi scheme.

    Mr Fleckenstein (whoever he may be) might still be right about Alan Greenspan’s blameworthy-ness in current financial messes, but that’s another issue.

    August 18, 2009
  1045. Paul Zorn said:

    William S:

    Like Mike, I’m not sure what you “systemization” means, so don’t know whether to be fer it or agin it.

    What do you mean?

    Mike:

    I don’t understand most of your second paragraph in 863.1. In particular, what do you mean by “the uninsured issue” “costing the system $45Bil/yr”? I don’t find such a figure, explicitly or implicitly, anywhere on the Wikipedia entry for “uninsured in the US”. And I don’t expect to find such a number, since if (as Wikipedia estimates) there are something like 45M uninsured, a figure of $45B represents only $1000/person.

    What do you mean?

    Mike and William:

    Here are my top 4 health care problems-to-be-addressed:

    1. Too many people without access to care
    2. Too much attachment of health care to jobs
    3. Health care expensive, inefficient, resistant to cost control
    4. Overemphasis on technical procedures, underemphasis on primary care
    August 18, 2009
  1046. Paul Zorn said:

    Mike:

    Interesting stats. But you can find another, somewhat debunking, take on this at a Wall Street Journal blog site (Google on ohsfeldt schneider bialik ). I’d add to that Bialik’s analysis that if one is to throw out deaths from accidents, murder, etc. from US stats on the grounds that the US has more of these than average, then perhaps one should throw out of (say) Danish stats deaths from smoking because Danes smoke at higher rates than do we Yanks (a surprise in itself, at least to me).

    Still, I agree with the general point that life expectancy — or any other single stat — doesn’t give a usefully nuanced picture of one country’s health system vs. another, perhaps especially when we’re comparing rich countries, all of which have pretty high life expectancy.

    August 18, 2009
  1047. william siemers said:

    Ahhh…systemization…probably not even a word, but here it goes: A lack of coordination in care and record keeping between health care workers, over time, and between places; a lack of focus on outcomes and patient satisfaction; the lack of a simple payment method.

    David…I do not ‘completely misunderstand the concept of an open market’. Google was not the biggest anything when they started up. Germany has great innovative companies in the auto industry, some large, some small. New companies start up here and around the world everyday…and many are doing new and innovative things. It’s happening in a variety of political and social environments…many of which have more regulation than the US. Maybe you find the amount of regulation so daunting that it is inconcievable that you could start a business here…but luckily plenty of other americans are getting it done…just look around.
    And it is ultra-nationalism, if not just plain old ugly americanism, to say that ‘europeans can’t get ahead unless they know someone’, or to suggest that muslims are not counted in european health statistics.

    August 18, 2009
  1048. john george said:

    For those of you who like stats, there are some interesting ones in the Strib today in a column by Brian Riedl, titled “Your Federal Budget, Itemized.” The figures that caught my interest are in the first paragraph where the writer inumerates how much money the government will collect in taxes (about $18,277 per household) and how much it will spend (about $33,880 per household). That is about double what it takes in, and this is just for the programs in place. There are no figures in there for this universal health care proposal. If a business were run this way, it would have to close down. In fact, it is this same type of disparity between assets and bad loans out there that have brought down some of the largest financial institutions in our country. If the deficit philosophy doesn’t work in the banking system, how is it going to work in the government? Just because the government can print additional money does not mean that money has any value.

    August 18, 2009
  1049. David Henson said:

    americans are getting it done…just look around.

    William, I looked around … they all moved their production to China.

    Software has been innovative, no doubt about it, but ask yourself why software so much more so than other industry? (hint, not much regulation there yet)

    August 18, 2009
  1050. william siemers said:

    David…China is a communist country. So ‘they all moved’ to a more controlled economy? On the other hand, wouldn’t the ‘open market’, you espouse, promote business moving wherever it wanted for whatever reason?
    Or does your ‘open market’ end at our national borders?

    The right wing has decried regulation on ‘principle’ since the days of the trust busters. For over 100 years they have bemoaned our loss of ‘freedom’ and assured us that the american economy would fail due to government intervention. But most americans are, in real terms, more free today than they were 100 years ago. And the economy has chugged right along. Now I’ll admit that presently we are in an economic downturn. (One that was caused in no small part by a lack of regulation.) But we’re comming out of this downturn, (in no small part because of government intervention), and our economy will continue to grow in the future.

    August 19, 2009
  1051. Ray Cox said:

    John, in #872 you hit the issue on the head. We are spending outselves into bankruptcy, or at least sending our grandchildren into a permanent debtors prison. I do find it so terribly interesting that the left pounded and pounded on McCain in the last election for supporting President Bush’s budgets which resulted in our “400 billion mess”. Now, less than a year later we have watched it explode to a $1.8 trillion deficit. And by and large the left is pretty quiet about it. In fact they are talking about adding a trillion dollar health care program on top of this debt.
    I know I’m just a little old businessman trying to stay solvent in a tough economy, but I do not believe the leadership of our Nation is leading us in the right direction. We cannot support this kind of spending.

    August 19, 2009
  1052. David Henson said:

    William, the cheap communist labor is what supports are exorbitance government overhead (just as slavery supported the Old South). The ‘system’ is in more than a downturn and will, like it or not, have to be rebuilt from the ground up over the next decade.

    August 19, 2009
  1053. David Henson said:

    William, I would argue more about freedom but I need to find my ID as I cannot get on an airplane without the government knowing where I am going (this was not even the case during WWII). Say, do you know if the X Ray technology they use to look under my cloths can effect your health?

    August 19, 2009
  1054. Paul Zorn said:

    Kinda quiet on the LoNoGro healthcare front.

    Just to stir the pot let me recommend yesterday’s Midmorning show on MPR … click [here][1] or Google mpr uwe reinhardt midmorning if the link police catch me.

    One of the guests, Uwe Reinhardt, is a Princeton health economist and (IMO) full of good sense on health costs. He also does the Economix blog at the NY Times (also easily Googled).

    Prof Reinhardt points out, among other things, that a free market approach to health care suffers from a serious obstacle: While sellers (doctors, hospitals, etc.) may understand the “product” , “buyers” don’t (and probably can’t) understand or evaluate health products well enough to play their role in a free market system.

    August 20, 2009
  1055. john george said:

    Paul- I think you touched on a central truth in this whole health care debate, and possibly a central truth to our society as a whole, in your observation

    “buyers” don’t (and probably can’t)
    understand or evaluate health products
    well enough to play their role in a
    free market system.

    Our whole society is driven by a dependence upon specialists. If we have money to invest, we seek an investment professional. If we have a dispute with a neighbor, we seek a legal expert. If we need our car fixed, we seek someone with the $10,000 engine analyzer to even find out what is wrong with the thing. The same holds true with health care. My daughter just experienced a complication with her baby’s delivery that I had never heard of. 50 years ago, she and the baby would probably have been a statistic. Now, with the advances in medical science, she will most likely recover. All these technological and medical advances have taken much of the control of our own lives out of our own hands. They also cost a lot of money. Perhaps some of the angst being expressed at the town meetings is actually based in this. One underlying belief, true or not, is that once control of something is surrendered to the government, there is never any hope of getting it back. Another underlying belief, true or not, that I think is out in the mix, is that government bureacrats will do no better at doling out health care than the insurance companies. One characteristic that is common to both methods is is that they are cost driven, not need driven. There must be some mechanism to evaluate need based health care aside from the cost of it. This is a concept I have not seen or heard brought up, although I may have missed something.

    August 20, 2009
  1056. john george said:

    Griff- I’ve got a comment hanging in moderation, for some reason. It was a response to Paul Z.’s post. Know what the hang-up is? Did you contract Kiffi to be a grammatical policeperson? If that’s the case, I know I won’t have any hope, what with my grammatical abilities and PEBKAC.

    August 20, 2009
  1057. Griff Wigley said:

    The spam filter has a mind of its own, John. I found your post and it’s now live. Apologies!

    August 20, 2009
  1058. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    Re 878.1: I’m delighted to hear that your daughter and grandchild may be well. Best wishes and congratulations!

    Sophisticated health care intervention will always be expensive, and unplanned by those who need it. (A big pool, such as the whole society, can and must plan for such things in the statistical sense; that’s what insurance, public or private, is all about.) The costs of these extraordinary but statistically predictable events must, one way or another, be shared by others than those who incur the costs. I’m glad to do my part — and to expect the system to help me when that need arises.

    Perhaps the need for technical and medical expertise takes some control out of our hands, and hence promotes some angst. But let’s keep in mind the other side of the ledger: survival and, ideally, health for people who might otherwise become, as you say, statistics. C’est la vie moderne.

    I’m not sure I follow your thought about need-based vs. cost-based evaluation of health care. Surely you’re not advocating medical “need panels” … Sarah Palin would be appalled!

    Re #880: It’s an amusing ditty, but were the gentleman’s 10% solution adopted we’d have to shut down the military, the courts, the roads, Medicare, Medicaid, and who knows what other big governmental programs.

    August 21, 2009
  1059. john george said:

    Paul- Thanks for the encouragement. I’m sure my daughter will come through this ok, but no one knows for sure what level of function or medication dependence might lie in the future. It will take about a year to know.

    Your question

    I’m not sure I follow your thought
    about need-based vs. cost-based
    evaluation of health care.

    I would answer like this. What I have heard proposed are various types of care plans which all have a cap on costs of care provided. This includes the debit card approach, etc. What I have not heard is how these fluke unexpected things, like my daughter’s complications, are to be handled. If there is a cap, then it would seem there would be a limit to what can be spent per person. The other thing I have heard inferred is that, of course, whatever event comes up it would be covered. I’m not sure I trust this assumption, and what I would like to see is this put in writing somewhere.

    I agree with the concept of spreading the cost of health care out over the whole populace, and, like you, I’m willing to contribute my share. I presently do, anyway, with then private health plan I have. The concern I have is that the segment of the populace that the government is wanting to add coverage for is not presently contributing anything to pay for the costs. That means that all the rest of us have to contrubute a greater amount of our income to pay for these people. What no one has provided me with are any firm figures that demonstrate that this can be done. As the link I referred to above, the government is now spending over $15,000 more per household than it collects in taxes. Where is money for the additional cost of health care going to come from?

    August 21, 2009
  1060. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    You wrote:

    What I have heard proposed are various types of care plans which all have a cap on costs of care provided. This includes the debit card approach, etc.

    I don’t see a hard upper dollar limit in any of the plans I’ve heard floated seriously. Can you cite language to this effect in the House Health Care Bill? I don’t think it’s there.

    As for the “debit card approach”, I think David H mentioned this idea, and I’m far from qualified to speak for him(!), but I took this to mean something like the following: Citizens would have health debit cards worth up to some specified amount, after which some supplemental program would kick in. The idea that people who reach some dollar limit on health care would just get the plug pulled sounds to me like another death-panel-style myth.

    … The other thing I have heard inferred is that, of course, whatever event comes up it would be covered. I’m not sure I trust this assumption, and what I would like to see is this put in writing somewhere.

    It’s one thing to insist (as I would … but many wouldn’t) that all people have the right to decent medical care irrespective of their individual ability to pay. But what exactly is the “this” you’d like to have in writing? Must the full cost of any treatment, for any condition, ordered by any doctor or desired by any patient, be “covered” without any limits? Would homeopathic care be covered? Aromatherapy? Could I demand to see the US surgeon general if I scrape my knee? What limits would apply, and who would apply them?

    Paying the cost of healthcare is a real problem, as you point out. One of the reasons, IMO, for including everybody in the system is to get everybody paying their share more systematically than now occurs. Under a sensible system those freeloaders you (properly) decry would get their chance to ante up like the rest of us.

    August 21, 2009
  1061. john george said:

    Paul- I’m not decrying “freeloaders.” They are receiving emergency treatment right now. Their inability to pay has nothing to do with their attitude and everything to do with their income. Right now, their care is hit and miss according to the particular crisis they are in. As I understand it, the purpose is to get these people some type of consistent coverage to keep them out of the emergency rooms. What I am saying is that if they do not have money to put toward the public assistance they are receiving right now, then they won’t have any money to put into a federal comprehensive system. So the scope of the coverage increases without an increase in the funding base. Your concept of spreading the cost of coverage out over the whole population is only workable if there is equal ability within all the population to contribute. There is not, so I don’t see how this is going to lower the cost of health care. It is going to increase the ammount paid by those with the ability to pay.

    As far as demanding the surgeon general put a band aid on your skinned knee, this is the reason I raise the issue of needs based rather than cost based treatment. If your need is a band aid, then that level of care is covered by the appropriate level of practioner. If your need is a neuro-surgeon, then that need is covered by the appropriate practitioner. I suppose there may be some maladies out there that fall into a grey area as to whom is qualified to take care of it, but it seems that there would be the same types of consultaion between areas of specialty that there is presently. Right now, there are limitations to availability of certain treatments determined by the insurance companies. How will a federal system be any different? On the one hand, there is a factor of profitability that influences decisions. On the other, there is factor of available funds that influence decisions. And, since the funds are nowhere in sight, it causes me a little concern as to how this is going to be paid for.

    August 21, 2009
  1062. Paul Zorn said:

    John,

    Indeed, “freeloaders” was my term, not yours; apologies if I misunderstood.

    As you say, inability to pay for medical care is not a moral failure or a bad attitude problem. Still, I think that many people do sometimes freeload in the sense of going un- or under-insured for medical care while still trusting that others will pick up the pieces (and the bill) if really necessary. I’ve probably done this myself at certain times of life, and for all I know I’m doing it right now, as I have no clear sense of the real actuarial cost of my own health care future.

    Foes (and even friends) of universal health coverage often describe it as just an entitlement, but it’s also an obligation — to do one’s financial part to assure decent coverage for our fellow citizens. There are good arguments to be had about what it means to do one’s part, but surely we can do better than we do now.

    No system of payment, private or governmental, will magically solve or avoid cost implications and limits. Private companies can go broke, and governments can go bankrupt. There is never enough money to do everything, and so your concern about how “this” is going to be paid for is well-founded. Here’s my answer: with difficulty, with or without universal coverage — but with even more difficulty without a universal plan.

    Very difficult choices are inescapable, with or without reform. When is something too expensive? Who decides what’s necessary? What anti-reformers won’t see or acknowledge, IMO, is that these choices are already being made, well or poorly, with too much weight given to private profitability and too little to fairness and compassion.

    August 21, 2009
  1063. David Henson said:

    While sellers (doctors, hospitals, etc.) may understand the “product” , “buyers” don’t (and probably can’t) understand or evaluate health products well enough to play their role in a free market system.

    Paul Z, I don’t think there is anything unique about health care as far as consumers are concerned except that unexpected ailments can cost huge amounts.

    Is it better to buy your tires at Sears, Tires Plus or the local Goodrich dealer? Should you by the cheapest tire and more insurance or the best tires and less insurance? I don’t think there is a clear answer … the key is just that consumers are happy with their choice.

    Should health consumers spend more on physical therapy and yoga or purchase more insurance to cover potential back surgery? Again, there is no right answer other than that consumers are happy with their choices.

    I think your Prof Reinhardt has the issue completely backwards: because doctors are not paid or selected by the health consumer the doctors have no motivation to make them informed consumers. I am certain if the market were free and open and everyone had a health debit card that an ombudsman service would pop up over night – ‘for $5 per month we will always have a neutral expert ready to step in and assist you with medical doctors should a tough medical issue come your way.’ Because the system now is controlled this service would not be a choice.

    Can consumers make poor choices? Yes. Can central planners make poor choice (which are by definition more globally devastating)? Yes. Which is more likely? to me central control is more corruptible.

    August 21, 2009
  1064. john george said:

    Paul Z.- You and I agree on pretty much all these points. I revert to Dr. Francis Schaefer’s quote, “The greatest problem facing the world today is the compassionate distribution of accumulated wealth.” (Emphasis mine.) I don’t know how many people are whistling past the graveyard concerning health coverage. I saw an article a couple months ago, in some publication, where the writer had interviewed a number of YUPPY types, and the great majority of them did not carry any coverage. So, if there is a coerced participation in a governmental plan, then perhaps we can shake some money out of these people. The question still exists, is there going to be enough? Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I still prefer to know whether I will have enough money accomplish a project before I start into it.

    August 21, 2009
  1065. David Henson said:

    John, if Obama mandates coverage from his base to pay for something they effectively already get then he will not be reelected,

    August 21, 2009
  1066. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    You say:

    I don’t think there is anything unique about health care as far as consumers are concerned except that unexpected ailments can cost huge amounts.

    I don’t know about “unique” (mathematicians avoid that word), but health care seems to me more special than your description suggests. Indeed, unexpected ailments can cost huge amounts, but something similar is true for, say, fire or (as we all discovered two years ago) hail insurance for homes or cars. Insurance is an excellent idea (and probably required by one’s mortgage holder) in all of these cases. But I’d oppose the government getting into, say, the fire insurance business because the hazards and risks are simple enough in these cases that (a) there’s a well-established private actuarial system; and (b) consumers can reasonably be expected to have some idea what they’re buying and how different “products” compare. (Notice, however, that even for these kinds of insurance the state government regulates and checks up on companies, probably to help assure that they’ll be able to pay claims.)

    Health is different from fire, hail, and other hazards. This is so both in the practical sense that health is far, far more complicated and (for individuals) unpredictable and in the philosophical/moral/social sense that, as a society and to our credit, we’re generally unwilling to stand by as ill people, especially children, go un-helped. In some sense, in other words, we really do agree as a society that health care is a human right — even if we disagree … vehemently … on what that right means in practice. These serious differences between health and other “goods” should, IMO, be reflected in social policy.

    I’m personally fine with government somehow using private insurance companies in the process of assuring that everyone has basic health care access. (This is already done, I think, in France and Switzerland, and it seems to work acceptably there.) And I like the idea of giving people much better information about what their health care really costs, perhaps partly through higher deductibles.

    But a lot of hard problems would need to be faced, including how to assure private coverage for very ill people, what services would be covered, whether “alternative” medicine is OK, what to do after coverage limits are reached, etc.

    I’m kinda intrigued by the “health ombudsman” idea, but wonder (a) what it would really cost ($5 is unrealistic, and the debit card idea is a medium of payment, not a funding source); and (b) in what sense family doctors aren’t already “ombudspersons”.

    August 21, 2009
  1067. john george said:

    I was talking to one of my neighbors about health care costs, and he was lamenting the amount of money paid out for malpractice claims. I found this link
    http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2920
    which really disproves this argument. These are 2006 statistics, but $3.6 billion paid out seems like a lot of money. Compared to the $2.1 trillion of total medical costs, it is less than 1%. So this is probably not worth the effort to push on.

    August 21, 2009
  1068. David Henson said:

    John, I think it is all the extra testing etc that is done because of lawsuit potential that runs costs up as opposed to just the payouts (what they call defensive medicine)

    August 22, 2009
  1069. David Henson said:

    Paul, the tax money for the health debit cards is already taken but just distributed in a convoluted and expensive method verses just giving direct control to the health consumer.

    The Ombudsman service was simply made up to show what a free system might produce – I meant the $5 monthly as an insurance if you need one for a difficult medical situation where an expert knowing all therapies and provider options related to a specific ailment would be required.

    If people have no health funds available today then those people would probably much appreciate some being made available via a health debit card while solving all the world’s “philosophical/moral/social” problems is being worked out.

    August 22, 2009
  1070. william siemers said:

    John…the amount paid out in malpractice claims is small compared to the amount wasted on needless ‘defensive medicine’ procedures that are employed in order to avoid being sued. While I don’t think tort reform is among the highest priorities in health reform, I do think it needs to be addressed.

    Paul…The swiss system and the german system both require insurance that is available from competing private firms. I think the french system is closer to a single payer (the government) sysytem.

    David…As a consumer, I do have ‘choices’ for where I get my health care. I do not have a real choice for my insurance plan. I am relatively old, with a complicated health history, that includes a minor bout with cancer. I have to stick with my wife’s group plan that is offered through her employer, even though I could buy insurance for less than we currently pay for my share of this ‘family’ coverage. I can not be dropped from her plan (unless it becomes so expensive for her employer that they drop it), but I could be dropped from individual coverage. So I pay a couple of thousand dollars a year extra so I won’t be dropped.
    Personally I see this as evidence that the ‘market’ does not currently work.

    August 22, 2009
  1071. David Henson said:

    William, I don’t think we have a current “market’ for health care in the sense of other markets. I also think huge money is wasted via health insurance companies. This is why I would suggest a health debit card and not force the purchase of insurance, let consumers decide how to spend their dollars (insurance being an option).

    The irony of this whole debate is the “invincibles” (healthy 20 somethings) elected Obama and in the end his health solution is going to be to mandate them to purchase insurance they don’t need (expanding the pool) so others get coverage cheaper – effectively a tax, that private insurers get to peel profits off, on Obama’s base. And when this $1000. plus is taken out of their pockets where will they stop spending money to make up for the loss – probably organic food coops and exercise clubs.

    August 22, 2009
  1072. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    I think we agree that a health debit card system might help give people more information about and control over their health expenditures, and perhaps some incentive to economize. (Such cards are apparently used in France, for instance.) But, as I’ve said before, a debit card is a vehicle for payment, not a funding stream or a policy.

    So before signing on (or off) to such a system I’d want to know some things, like these:

    • What’s the annual “value” of the card? %5K? $30K$? $unlimited? Who decides? How?
    • You’ve said that cards would be funded out of money already in the government pipeline. What would be defunded in favor of the cards?
    • If one of those 20-somethings exercises his right not to buy the insurance you say he doesn’t need, but then contracts, say, lymphoma, what happens next
    August 22, 2009
  1073. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, one nice thing about a debit card system is the it could be done fast and incrementally. I am sure Obama could get a $500.00 card for every uninsured (or everyone period) tomorrow and start the process. Then funding could be tweaked over time to expand the amount and account for all problems. An overarching system that solves everything and reduces costs at one moment in time is not realistic. Shockingly a $500.00 card might pull people out of the ER in large numbers since they could get in a few office visits saving money right out of the gate. Long term I would think the goal would be to get employers out of medical benefits business and consolidate all programs to a health debit card system in a competitive landscape.

    Another point is say a magic program sprang up tomorrow and overnight no ERs were used for non emergent care – we might have a bunch of bankrupt overstaffed ERs.

    August 22, 2009
  1074. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    I like the $500 (or $1000 card) idea. Let’s give one to everybody, from Bill Gates to the homeless. It comes nowhere near solving the big problems of health care, but it’s a modest start.

    Well done.

    August 22, 2009
  1075. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, maybe someone has a name like rather than “Cash for Clunkers” this could be “Modest Money for Medical” or such.

    August 22, 2009
  1076. mike zenner said:

    Paul Z,

    I feel the key is to get all the third party payers (Government, for profit Insurance, Corporations etc) out of the health care loop. Price discovery is optimal when its just the buyer and seller are involved in the transaction.

    I like the idea of non profit CO-OP’s run strictly by their member organizations (hospitals and clinics) spread across the country. Everyone must be a member of one of many CO-OP’s of their choice, and you can choose a different one say once a year. Premiums would be reflective of age and health condition to a certain affordable limit or coverage package limit, with no denial of preexisting conditions, but perhaps some max dollar limit on services provided. With the ability to compete between themselves on both price and service, should help to drive down costs. Further, some may even offer aromatherapists,chiropractic, acupuncture, etc if that’s your thing, for an extra fee.

    Those who can’t afford the premiums could volunteer work time to make up the difference at their Co-OP clinics or hospitals or senior care homes etc. They could be part time cleaners, greeters, senior care mobility drivers, landscapers etc.

    Annually members get a Statement showing the financial status of the CO-OP showing where the expenditures went and if there was an surplus or deficit due to this level of spending. Members are shown the total cost of the services provided to them and how they compare to services provided to others within their age group. Surpluses funds would be returned to members at the start of the new year.

    For this to work however, all the third parties MUST be removed from the health care system otherwise they will dump all the high cost people,or the folks that can’t afford coverage on the CO-OP’s and milk the healthy for their profits. That’s the way its always worked out in the past. Government may not be making a profit, but they sure have a way of redirecting funds to other things like say illegal wars, and of coarse they distort the pricing for services and much added red tape causing added expense.

    August 22, 2009
  1077. Paul Zorn said:

    Mike Z:

    The health co-op idea might be a good one in outline, but there would be many things to resolve. For instance:

    • Somebody would need to regulate these coops, at least minimally, to be sure they adhere to good business practice, don’t rip off the taxpayers, are adequately funded to pay their expenses, don’t in fact discriminate against the sick, etc. Can this be done without the dreaded third party involvement?
    • Surpluses, you said, would be shared among members. What about deficits? Would they be shared among members, too?
    • The idea that the poor or ill would somehow work off their premiums seems far-fetched to me. I think they’d need a government subsidy.
    • Having member-owned coops doesn’t automatically do anything to change the profit motive — especially if, as you suggest, surpluses would be returned to members. Wouldn’t this create an incentive to economize, perhaps harmfully to patients?

    I don’t say any of these objections is fatal — no system avoids all challenges. But I’d want to feel such questions could be addressed.

    August 24, 2009
  1078. john george said:

    For those of you still following the health care debate, there is a really good column in the Strib today by D. J. Tice. In a nutshell, he is exposing the disparity in thinking in both liberal and conservative camps. He compares the party positions on two issues that put government programs in competition with private organizations, and how the two parties have bipolar positions. In the case of school vouchers, the Republican position is mainly for them. The reasoning is that competition for a service (education) will only increase the quality of the service provided. The Democrats are mainly against them. The reasoning is that vouchers will mean the demise of the public education system. On health care, the Democrats are mainly for government competition, reasoning that government competition will only increase quality of care and help drive down costs. The Republicans are mainly against this concept, reasoning that the government competition will ruin the insurance industry. He suggests that we look at where each party gets its support. The teahers unions give big bucks to the Democratic party, so any threat to their well being is a threat to the well being of the Democratic party. Conversely, the insurance industry gives big bucks to the Republicans, so any threat to them is a threat to the Republican party. I don’t know if this is a 100% accurate analysis, but I thought the question was good. I think it was Peter M. who once suggested following the money trail. Perhaps he was right.

    A common denominator in both liberal and conservative fearmongering is the use of “big”. It is “big” business against “big” government. Perhaps the American people are getting to the place that we really don’t trust anything “big” anymore. Supposedly, a big company can provide more advantageous pricing than a small company because of their purchasing power. This has not necessarily proven true through experience. Supposedly, big government can administrate something better because of centralized and standardized procedures. I don’t think this has necessarily proven true, either. IMO, therein lies one concern affecting public opinion right now. For the size of our country, I do not see a way to make a quick switch to smaller localized organizations overnight, but perhaps this is a road we should consider taking.

    September 9, 2009
  1079. David Henson said:

    John, I heard Obama’s speech and that part I really do not get I have heard before. He says Medicare critics complained about it leading to socialism but that did not happen …. now here is my plan for socialized medicine (were the critics wrong or right?).

    September 9, 2009
  1080. john george said:

    David H.- That is a good question. I certainly don’t have the answer.

    The part I do not understand is the subsidization of those people with lower incomes. If I understood him correctly, he said that this money was going to come from savings generated out of better efficiency and not add to the deficit. Oh, really? If the government does not get its money from taxes, then where does it come from? The reality of the inefficiencies he is talking about is that the monies are going into someone’s pocket who works for a private company. What kind of regulation is going to be enacted to authorize the federal government to go into these companies and exact this money out of them?

    The other question I have is what is the actual cost of treatments for these people who are not insured at this time? If the private companies are dropping people at the rates he quoted because of the costs of the treatments required for them, then how is that cost going to be any different? Where is the government going to get the money to cover these treatments if not through taxes or borrowing on the future? If the current cost of health care is 16-20% of GDP, and there are millions of people without medical coverage, then what percent of the GDP is the actual cost going to be? I really question whether there is that much fraud and inefficiency in the present system to cover these people. His reference to companies wanting to compete for this eschelon of coverage doesn’t look inviting to me unless there is government gaurantees that they will be reimbursed for the treatments they pay for. This has to come out of someone’s pocket, and increased taxes seem the only avenue open.

    Otherwise, as far as having a more compassionate approach to dispensing medical coverage, I agree that this is where the greatest amount of change is needed. Unfortunately, I do not see another way of implimenting this aside from more regulation.

    September 10, 2009
  1081. john george said:

    Peter- It’s a little like the fox guarding the henhouse. This is just more example that representatives are under more pressure form large national organizations than from their district constituants.

    September 10, 2009
  1082. john george said:

    Regarding the reaction of the SC Senator last night, I found this interesting little excerpt from the House Bill on Health Care

    Pg 50 Section 152 in HC Bill – HC will
    be provided to ALL non-U.S. citizens,
    illegal or otherwise

    Now the question I have is who has read what about this legislation? Is this phrase indeed still in the bill? If the President knew this phrase was in this bill, why did he not come out and refute it or ask that this be ammended or stricken from the legislation? These types of discrepencies do not increase my confidence that anyone in Washington really knows what is going to be enacted and what is going to be affected with the passage of this legislation.

    September 10, 2009
  1083. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter M and John G,

    Does it matter to your analysis of why tort reform is “not part of the agenda” that, in fact, tort reform is part of the agenda?

    Google Newsweek tort reform silver bullet , for instance.

    PS. FWIW, I have no strong opinion for or against tort reform — in my view it’s a sideshow compared to the real problems.

    September 10, 2009
  1084. Paul Zorn said:

    John,

    Below is what section 150 actually says. It’s a bit dense, but I sure don’t see the “phrase” you find so objectionable. You must be reading another version, or perhaps somebody’s paraphrase.

    Could you please cite your source?

    SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.

    (a) In General- Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

    (b) Implementation- To implement the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

    September 10, 2009
  1085. Patrick Enders said:

    Funny… it doesn’t say that in the version of the bill I found. Rather, it says:

    SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR
    UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

    43
    Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for

    affordability credits on behalf of
    individuals who are not lawfully
    present in the United States

    from “Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 – U.S. Congress”
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

    John, where are you getting your quote? It doesn’t look like actual legal language, but rather like someone’s crib note.

    On another tack – even if your quote is genuine, it does not say the US government will pay for health care for illegal aliens. Rather, it simply says that “HC” – I assume that means ‘health care’ – “will be provided to all…”

    That’s just a statement of basic morality which is already codified into law. It would be positively immoral and unconscionable to refuse critically needed health care to anyone. Indeed, it’s already set down in the law known as “EMTALA.”

    EMTALA “requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMTALA

    September 10, 2009
  1086. john george said:

    Patrick & Paul Z.- That is why I asked this question in my post 897

    Is this phrase indeed still in the
    bill?

    It evidently is not. I don’t trust everything I read on line, as some things are lifted from earlier unammended texts. Thanks for verifying my suspicions. As I have stated before, in this day of instant communications, it is sometimes a circuitous route to find out what is most current. I can always rely on my adversaries here on LGN to keep me on the straight and narrow.

    As far as providing medical care for aliens, either here legally or illegally, I actually have no problem with that. I consider it a Christian thing to do. In the Old Testament, there are many admonitions to take care of the “sojourner”, so I would go so far as to say it is in the Judaic tradition, also. Not everyone agrees with me on that, but that doesn’t deter me from helping someone in medical distress, no matter from where they might be. I don’t see it as any different from sending aid overseas. What I think some people object to is that there are illegal aliens receiving medical treatment when many American citizens can not obtain it. That might be an arguing point on one of the injustices of the current system.

    September 10, 2009
  1087. john george said:

    Paul Z. I agree about the “sideshow” importance of tort reform. If I read Obama’s speech correctly, he did mention addressing tort reform, but I got the idea that this was one of the many details that have yet to be worked out. The figures I have found, if they are correct, portray malpractice settlements as a small part of the overall cost of medical care under our present system. The thing that was not clear to me is whether the figures only represented what was paid out in settlements or if it included the costs of malpractic coverage that doctors must bear. I think we should consider both figures in evaluating overall costs to the consumer.

    The tables in Peter’s link were interesting in how they differentiated the dollar amounts contributed by medical and legal PACs. It is just one more source of information to help evaluate what is being proposed.

    September 10, 2009
  1088. Peter Millin said:

    Paul Z
    I used tort reform as an example on how the health care issue has been hijacked by special interest groups.
    Take a browse through opensecrets.org and take a look on who gets paid by who and then compare it to their position in the reform.

    September 10, 2009
  1089. Peter Millin said:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26988.html

    Democrats had twice the chance to restrict health care to illegal aliens..twice it got voted down.

    Obama says that the new plan won’t add a penny to the deficit..so why the $ 900 billion price tag?

    Obama said he won’t raise taxes but he already did and is planning to do it again? Was he lying or what?

    It is comical watching the D’s get in an uproar about Wilson remarks. Especially aftyer all the things they threw at Bush..stupid, incompetent the worst president ever were just some of the words used.
    It was ok then but it is not ok now??

    I suggest some of you start watching debattes of the english, German or Canadian parliament.
    It makes our congress look like a retirement home. I am for one glad that there is finally some passion.
    Instead of that “can we all just get along” crap.

    If they get along too much that usually means that “we the people” get screwed. So personally I welcome some fireworks.

    The other reality that is lost is that the current dissent and indecsison has nothing to do with the Republicans.
    Obama has more than enough votes in the house and the senate to pass whatever he wants. He is barking up the wrong tree.Instead of attacking the Republicans he should spend his efforts getting his own party in line.

    Hopefully the Republicans are smart enough to not vote with him and make the D’s pay at the midterms.

    September 10, 2009
  1090. Jane Moline said:

    I think the respect that was shown past presidents by congress should continue for this president. I don’t think that the raucous approach of the U K, German or Canadian parliments are to be admired–and it certainly is weird that we should cite them as a good example for the first black president. In spite of Bush’s lying to congress, signing statements, and demonstrated incompetence, the Democrats in congress did not have spontaneous outbursts. But hey, he was white.

    With 70% of the people supporting health care reform, I hope it does get slammed through–and those uncompromising Republicans–the party of “NO”, can proudly be defeated at their midterm elections when their constituents–who are not big insurance companies–will throw the bums out.

    September 10, 2009
  1091. Peter Millin said:

    think the respect that was shown past
    presidents by congress should continue
    for this president. I don’t think that
    the raucous approach of the U K,
    German or Canadian parliments are to
    be admired–and it certainly is weird
    that we should cite them as a good
    example for the first black president.
    In spite of Bush’s lying to congress,
    signing statements, and demonstrated
    incompetence, the Democrats in
    congress did not have spontaneous
    outbursts.
    But hey, he was white.

    Jane..oh really ??? Respect for Bush….you do have a short memory.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/10/flashback-democratic-etiquette-in-the-bush-era/

    70 % of people do support health insurance reform….however most don’t want the government to run it.

    September 11, 2009
  1092. john george said:

    Peter- Great link. Thanks for posting it. The whole scenario reminds me of my grandfather’s saying that a horse always thinks its own manure smells good. As I said before, the pot has no place to call the kettle black.

    September 11, 2009
  1093. kiffi summa said:

    Peter: Non-applicable link characterized by its very name, i.e. “hot air”… monumental BS, IMO.

    Anyone can see the difference between a group/crowd/ many senators disapproving of a statement in a speech by mouthing boos and catcalls from the singular one voice calling out “you lie”… a group disapproval vs. a direct accusation of lying.

    September 11, 2009
  1094. Patrick Enders said:

    Hmmm….

    Interesting video, Peter. I don’t think it proves what you think it proves.

    A general, inarticulate murmuring, vs. a loud shouted “You lie!” in the middle of the speech.

    Two very different balls of wax, I’m afraid.

    Incidentally, the Republicans also did the “inarticulate murmuring” thing during President Obama’s speech, and that’s not what people are complaining about.

    September 11, 2009
  1095. john george said:

    Patrick & Kiffi- You are cutting some pretty fine hairs, here. Disrespect is disrespect. At least the conservatives are nor denying it. Murmuring is a little different from booing, and there are other presentations by former President Bush where the audible boos are evident. I don’t have time to research them right now, but hope to tonight after work. Is there some reason you two can’t admit that people are human, whether they are conservative or liberal? This claim that liberals follow some sort of higher plane of civility is unfounded, just as the same claim for the conservatives would be. Sheesh! It is this type of denial of human nature that is part of the stumbling block to being able to really listen to one another and understand each other.

    September 11, 2009
  1096. Jane Moline said:

    John George: Let’s look at THE FACTS. No one ever called out “You LIE” to then-president Bush. Even though there are documented hundreds of lies TO CONGRESS.

    Yes there were murmurs and boos–but we get the first vocal outburst to a BLACK president by a southern good ‘ol boy–who was WRONG. The bill has a specific part that states that illegal immigrants can’t get subsidized insurance or participate in the public option. This has been all over the TV and internet for the last two days. Joe Wilson was WRONG AND RUDE.

    The democrats continue to hold Bush in contempt for the way he treated congress and the country–lieing to us, spying on us, and exempting himself and his friends from the rule of law–and for the financial ruin of the country.

    The Democrats may not have a pedestal on the plane of civility, but at least we are accurate in our accusations–and we are not jumping off the plane of civility to roll in the mud with the Republican wing-nuts. (Becasue there are still a few Republicans that are NOT wing-nuts. I just don’t know where they are.)

    September 11, 2009
  1097. David Henson said:

    The country has survived fist-to-cuffs in congress and public duals – I don’t think we are so weak that a “you lie” makes us run to the teacher. The country is just not that civil.

    September 11, 2009
  1098. john george said:

    Jane- You are correct, no one did this to Bush. It seems that Wilson was quick to acknowledge his wrong behavior, call the White House and apologize for it, and other Republican leadership were quick to assert that they did not condone it. I haven’t heard a peep from the liberal side acknowledging their disrespect. And, as far as disrespect, I think your comments speak for themselves. I guess you must consider me to be one of the “wing nuts”, since you state above that you do not know where any are that are NOT. I certainly don’t think you must live your whole life like this. It is unfortunate that you are still carrying such bitterness against an ideology, or party, or person, or whatever drives your emotions. There are a number of us conservatives that are quite likeable, or at least I think so. But then, perhaps I am the one that is deceived, and we really aren’t likeable afterall.

    September 11, 2009
  1099. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    I’m not very exercised, or surprised, by a South Carolina pol’s etiquette breach when “overcome by emotion”.

    I think this is the same Mr Wilson who decried as smears allegation about Strom Thurmond’s illegitimate daughter — this after Thurmond’s family had acknowledged his paternity and decades-long history of (commendable) child-support payments. Perhaps Mr Wilson was then, too, overcome by some emotion.

    In any event, you said, John:

    … It seems that Wilson was quick to acknowledge his wrong behavior, call the White House and apologize for it …

    Seems to me that’s a pretty charitable interpretation.

    First, Mr Wilson’s apology seems to have been instigated by others, not by any excess of personal “emotion”. Second, Wilson’s apology was for bad etiquette, not for the patently false substance of his outburst. Third, Wilson and his supporters are already fundraising on the strength of his new notoriety.

    Maybe Joe Wilson and Governor Sanford should go walkabout on the Appalachian trail to contemplate their sins.

    September 11, 2009
  1100. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Being overcome with emotion is a reason, not an excuse, for emotional outbursts. I still believe in exercising self control, and I recognize I can have as much struggle with this as anyone. And often times I need another’s perspective to help me determine my error. My wife is especially exercised in this gift, given the 40+ years we have been married. You can call my interpretation charitable if you like. I try to be charitable even to those who wrongly accuse me.

    As far as Strom Thurmand’s moral excesses, a little bit depends on how facts are presented. David L. and Britt E. can give you some legal perspective on where presentation of “facts” can border on libel. If there is an intent to “smear” a person, then that intent can raise an objection. I could mention any number of “facts” out of public servants’ pasts that would bring to mind all sorts of moral infractions, but I wouldn’t serve any good purpose to do so. My intent could be rightly questioned as “smear tactics.”

    September 11, 2009
  1101. john george said:

    Paul Z. One more perspective on your comment

    his supporters are already fundraising
    on the strength of his new notoriety.

    So is his opposition. I read today that his upcoming opponent in SC has raised more than $500,000 in the 24 hours since his outburst. Politics is a process of opportunism, and I think this is just more evidence that it is more visceral than intellectually reasoned.

    September 11, 2009
  1102. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    With respect to 903.3: Personal charitability toward those who wrongly accuse us is undoubtedly a virtue, and you may be right to congratulate yourself on that score. “Turn the other cheek,” said one famous thinker.

    But, with respect, it’s really not up to you to extend charity toward Joe Wilson for offenses he may have committed toward a third person. In the present case President Obama seems to have acted in this gracious manner.

    September 11, 2009
  1103. john george said:

    Paul Z.- When someone does something so nationally public like this, all of us who heard it have a responsibility for our reactions to it. We can either be offended or we can forgive. Forgiving someone does not justify what they did. It simply releases them from any responsibilty to answer to us for what they did. It would seem to me that the offense was as much a public affront as just an issue between the President and Wilson.

    September 11, 2009
  1104. David Henson said:

    I am offended that both parties allow “illegal immigrants” to be bounced around as scapegoats for our systemic and cultural problems. This is an issue that turns me off the republican party. The idea of blaming those who work the hardest for the least is discusting. This to appease a bunch of lazy delerious welfare collecting white trash who run around the border harassing the least of us to fault some group for their personal failure. If Obama would stand tall on this issue instead of appeasing and courting the ‘blame the immigrant crowd’ then he might actually win some independents for his plans – instead he cowers and says I am not lying, “no illegals will get any benefits.”

    September 12, 2009
  1105. Patrick Enders said:

    So is his opposition. I read today that his upcoming opponent in SC has raised more than $500,000 in the 24 hours since his outburst. Politics is a process of opportunism, and I think this is just more evidence that it is more visceral than intellectually reasoned.

    Count me as one of the opportunists on this one – but it’s a reasoned position, not an emotional one. There’s a good chance to oust this guy following that outburst – much better than many other conservative Congresspersons. So yes, I sent a few dollars that way.

    September 12, 2009
  1106. john george said:

    Patrick- This is not a reasoned response at all. It is a knee-jerk reaction based in the emotion of anger. This does not make it wrong, but I think we need to be honest about it. Did you “reason” to contribute to Wilson’s politcal opponent before this outburst? And if so, was it just along the lines of the differing political philosophies?

    September 12, 2009
  1107. Peter Millin said:

    Harry Reid has called GWB a liar on more than one occasion. When given the chance to apologize he reaffirmed his statement.

    Patrick,
    Are you saying that that your interpretation is better the that of the CRS ??
    The CRS is a nonpartisan congressional research group that provides interpretation and research to congress about laws passed or about to be passed.

    I am still confused about you your support for a government run health care system. Besides the patients you are the one that has the most to lose.

    Maybe within your circle of friends you could get the chance to talk to a doctor from Canada. A brief conversation with him would cure you forever.
    Unless of course you enjoy being told by a bureaucrat on how to treat your patients. Most doctors I know are not.

    Jane,

    Do you have an example on when Bush lied to congress? Or are you just pulling a “Pelosi” here?
    I am still waiting for her proof….

    September 12, 2009
  1108. Peter Millin said:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/politics/13protestweb.html

    I am sure those people are just a bunch of right wing wackos, members of the KKK or the NSDAP…McVeigh worshipers..and members of the right wing militia.

    Their doesn’t seem to be a consensus as to the number of people that showed up some reports estimate the protesters in the 2 million range..some say tens of thousands.

    More important is the fact that these people weren’t just right wing nut jobs as some like to claim.

    Protests like this give me hope that not all is lost. Unfortunately the political aristocracy in this country will just ignore them.

    September 12, 2009
  1109. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    I don’t donate to political campaigns for any other reason than helping elect people with whom I agree/approve, and helping oust people with whom I disagree/disapprove. The reason I contributed to Joe Wilson’s opponent now is that I see a newly-vulnerable politician on the national level who opposes policies that I would like to have implemented. I’d like to see him out of office, and replaced by someone who will help implement policies that I agree with.

    The difference between last week and this week was that last week Mr. Wilson was an anonymous backbencher from a conservative state, and not very likely to be ousted. This week, he’s a guy whose outburst looked very bad even to many of his fellow conservatives. It’s a safe bet that he’s hurt his reelection chances just a bit.

    September 13, 2009
  1110. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter,
    What has been proposed in Congress bears no resemblance to the health care system in Canada. Still, it is an improvement over the mess we’ve got.

    My main concern is that I see (or worse, yet, don’t see) children whose parents are forced to make suboptimal care decisions, or even delay or avoid needed health care altogether, because of their inability to afford health care or health insurance.

    September 13, 2009
  1111. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter, I might also direct you to the words of my boss, Ken Bank:

    “I think everybody agrees that to do nothing is almost certain to not only leave us with a health care system that doesn’t work very well, but is going to bankrupt almost everything else,” said Northfield Hospital CEO Ken Bank.

    “Local reaction to health care reform largely supportive”
    http://northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=49745

    September 13, 2009
  1112. Peter Millin said:

    patrick,

    please point out any of my statements that it is againgst reforming the health insurance system?
    You won’t find it, because like you I am for reforming the system.
    You’d be hard pressed finding anybody that disagrees with reform.
    Unfortunately the desire to reform is being miss read as a desire for government involvement.

    Here is what I suggest:

    1) Tort reform. Not by capping awards but by making the loser of a law suit bear all costs for the proceedings.

    2) Allow an open market for reform where you can buy health insurances across state lines.

    3) Expand the use of medical saving accounts.

    4) Post actual costs of procedures in all doctors offices.

    to 905.1
    In most states children under 18 are covered.If parents are too lazy to apply what am i supposed to do?
    http://www.cms.hhs.gov/home/chip.asp

    September 14, 2009
  1113. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter,
    I agree with your #’s 2-4. I might even agree with #1, but I’m not familiar enough with the legal costs/realities to take a stand on that one one way or the other.

    But that’s not enough. That won’t solve accessibility issues for poor persons. That also won’t guarantee that insurance companies will sell affordable policies to persons with significant medical needs, nor will it guarantee that the policies that people buy will actually cover the care that they need – and that they won’t be dumped by the company as soon as they actually try to file a significant claim. Those are things that the Democratic reform proposals start to address.

    (Additionally, your #4 would unfortunately be far more complicated than you imagine, because one of the unfortunate oddities of our present messed up system is that the price varies widely for different persons – largely based on various discounts that various insurers (including the government) arrange with different providers.
    Trust me, if I could, I would _love_ to be able to easily tell my patients exactly how much anything will cost them – but often I can’t, because the answer is determined by forces apart from myself and the family in the room.)

    September 14, 2009
  1114. john george said:

    Patrick- Your comment

    one of the unfortunate oddities of our
    present messed up system is that the
    price varies widely for different
    persons

    I think sums up the root problem with our present system. The thing that I have not found, and perhaps it is burried in some verbage that I just haven’t understood, is how any of the proposals before Congress will address this issue. I don’t see how we can make accurate projections of how much it is going to cost to cover those who cannot presently afford insurance without some standardization of what treatments cost. I am all for having everyone covered, but I’m a little hesitant to step out into any universal coverage plan without first knowing that costs will be uniform throughout the system. This may take a while to accomplish, but if it can be done, then I am in it for the long haul.

    September 14, 2009
  1115. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    That oddity is a marked-based creation. There are already plenty of cries of ’social…sm’ being thrown at this reform effort. Good luck trying to add anything to the bill(s) that might interfere with the working of the free market. After all, who would be in favor of forbidding insurance companies from negotiating for the best possible price?

    The unfortunate downside is that eventually the baseline price gets inflated to help cover all those negotiated discounts. It’s much like the MSRP. Does anyone even think of paying that any more?

    September 14, 2009
  1116. john george said:

    Patrick- You are exactly correct in you comparison to MSRP. In my industry, no store sells a product to anyone at MSRP. Everyone who comes into our store is charged the same price for the same item, whether they purchase only one item or 20 items. The difference I see between current retail practices and the health insurance industry is that the unfortunate soul that has no health insurance coverage is charged the MSRP. The concept of discounted prices is more a marketing ploy than what I call reality. It supposedly creates a perceived savings. The idea is ok, I guess, but the practice within the health care industry is clear out of whack. Much as I dislike the idea, I must admit that some universal standard of prices needs to be set. The industry is not doing that right now, so it appears that the government is the only other entity that has the clout to step in and accomplish that. That is the type of provision I am looking for in the proposed legislation.

    September 14, 2009
  1117. Patrick Enders said:

    John,

    The difference I see between current retail practices and the health insurance industry is that the unfortunate soul that has no health insurance coverage is charged the MSRP.

    Yes, that is in fact a big problem. One practical solution, under present circumstances, would be to further raise the ‘MSRP’ by just a little bit, then offer a ‘cash discount’ that is remarkably close to the negotiated discounts that the insurance companies receive.

    Unfortunately, I have no control over such things. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a rule against that, or clauses in the various contracts that would recalculate the insurance companies’ discount rates in order to correct for any cash discount.

    Collective bargaining and bulk purchasing hold a lot of power. Individual customers? Not so much.

    September 14, 2009
  1118. Peter Millin said:

    Anthoy,

    Whats your point?

    September 14, 2009
  1119. Anthony Pierre said:

    my point is they are right wing nut job crazies.

    September 14, 2009
  1120. john george said:

    Patrick- Your statement reflects a truth of most retail and manufacturing businesses

    Collective bargaining and bulk
    purchasing hold a lot of power

    That is why I likened the structure of the plan to that of the big box retailers. Your example of the way prices are “massaged” to acount for revenues within a business is also a characteristic of the current system. As I said before, the money being expended for health care right now is going into someones’ pockets, and unless the government finds a way to pry that money out of the pockets, there will just be a huge additional amount of cost without there being additional revenue sources to cover it.

    As I have thought about this, the scarey scenario that comes up for me is the government taking on the role of supplying medical care (the bad S word) rather than being an agent of purchasing medical care (payer) for a block of citizens that lack buying power. This is where my concern about costs comes in, especially when it appears to be nebulus what they are going to be. For the government to be a purchasing agent, they are going to be gaurenteeing payment for services provided, whether the recopients are able to pay or not. Where is that money going to come from? The president said in his speech that it would come from savings on costs. I just have a hard time believing this without some firm figures on what the costs will actually be.

    September 14, 2009
  1121. kiffi summa said:

    Go to talking points memo website, look at # 31 in the slideshow from the Anti-reform Health Care march in Washington, and then tell me you are proud to be associated with that POV…

    September 14, 2009
  1122. john george said:

    Peter- Back to the battle of the web links. Let’s see, which extremist POV is most extreme…

    September 14, 2009
  1123. David Henson said:

    John and Patrick, you have the economics of this very backwards. The insurance companies are not now competing in a free market and most certainly do not want to compete in a free market. A true free market competing to get dollars disbursed by individuals is what drives innovation and choice up and prices down. While it is possible for the gov’t to use price controls they are likely to be high because of politics and they will kill future innovations. The fight needs to be for free markets and individual choice (even if the govt gives individuals money dedicated to health).

    September 14, 2009
  1124. David Henson said:

    The way special interests are framing this debate reminds me of a Thomas Pynchon quote something like, ‘if they get you asking the wrong questions then they do not have to worry about the answers’

    September 14, 2009
  1125. john george said:

    David H.- I don’t think I said anything about health care being a “free market” right now. I’m just comparing the structure of the President’s plan to other businesses that rely on large volume purchasing power. Is this the idea driving the President’s plan, that free markets will happen if the government requires health care coverage for all US residents? If so, then it seems to me that the market for health care coverage will be artificially driven by the influx of government money. Unless there is some type of price controls, like medicare, then there will not be an incentive for insurers to lower their prices, since the market is a sure thing for them. Maybe I’m being too simplistic in my analysis.

    September 14, 2009
  1126. William Siemers said:

    John…You are right, additional revenues will have to be raised in order for all Americans to have health insurance. I believe that it is reasonable and right that those revenues come from a small increase in income taxes from those most able to pay. This, in combination with savings that can be garnered from reforming some aspects of medicare and medicaid, and encouraging more competition in private insurance can pay for the result we both desire.

    Regarding government becoming the sole supplier of health care- I don’t think that is a possibility anytime soon. Although one might wonder why not when we see how many presidents and congressional leaders have had medical procedures done at the excellent army hospitals around DC. And of course, Great Britain has such a system, and while not perfect, does seem to have the support of its citizens:
    link text

    But all that’s beside the point in our debate since there is no chance we will end up with anything like that.

    People need health insurance. Our country can provide it and it can be paid for. We need our leaders to be honest about how that can happen. Whether through a public option, or a co-op, or a clearing house of private insurers or a combination, I really don’t care.
    But the fact remains…all our citizens who want coverage should be able to have coverage.

    September 15, 2009
  1127. john george said:

    William- I agree that all citizens who want coverage should be able to have it. One aspect of current insurance methods is to drop people who become too expensive (however that is determined) or to raise their premiums to cover the additional costs. This is one practice the president has specifically stated that he wants to stop. I hope we can. I know this has to cost more money, and for myself, as I still have earning ability, I do not mind paying a little more to enable those without to be able to be covered. I just wish there were more firm figures on what the cost actually will be.

    Right not, if I remember the figures correctly, we are spending about $13,000 more per household in overall governmant expenses than we are collecting in taxes. Somehow, this gap needs to be filled. By adding additional outlays for health coverage, it seems we will be widening that gap rather than filling it. The president has stated that he does not intend to add to this deficit. I would just like to see the figures on this. When we are talking in terms of billions here and billions there, I would like to see that on paper to really support it.

    September 15, 2009
  1128. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    That ‘oddity’ is a marked-based creation. There’s already plenty of cries of ‘socialism’ around this reform effort. Good luck trying to add anything to the bill(s) that might interfere with the working of the free market.

    Would you be in favor of forbidding insurance companies from negotiating for the best possible price?

    The unfortunate downside is that eventually the baseline price gets inflated to help cover all those negotiated discounts. It’s much like the MSRP. Does anyone even think of paying that any more?

    September 15, 2009
  1129. Peter Millin said:

    Kiffi,
    Sorry but I am not taking TPM serious. It is in the same category as the Huffington Post or HotAir.

    Was there a few questionable signs? of course, but they don’t represent the majority of people their.
    When GWB was is charge people circled memos on how to assasinate him…did that represent the majority of the left ? Even I don’t believe that.

    September 15, 2009
  1130. Peter Millin said:

    William,
    Here is the problem. In the end we have to rise taxes for any proposed solution, although Obama claims that the proposal is cost neutral.

    The problem is that we have ran up a huge debt, outside of the health care proposal, which needs to be paid for sooner or later.
    How will the debt be paid for? Either by raising even more revenue or cut services.
    Essentially we are looking at a double whammy here. Most people are VERY uneasy with our current fiscal policy.
    I strongly believe if the debt outside of health care would be more realistic and manageable more people would be willing to accept a slight increase in taxes to pay for health insurance.

    Most people instinctively know that our current debt load is not sustainable.
    Printing “fiat money” does nothing more than devalue our currency and could lead to inflation. Look at the current trends in the commodity markets. Gold has gone over $ 1000 per oz. Oil has been creeping up to over $ 60 a barrel. The only laggard is NatGas due to domestic supply.
    These increases are a direct result of a weakening dollar. The weakening will get worse since a lot of countries are leaving the “safe haven” due to an improvement of the world wide economy.

    If we don’t control our debt spending we will become the Zimbabwe of the west.

    The march in Washington was not only about the public option. it was a direct reaction to an irresponsible fiscal policy in Washington.
    You be surprised how many democrats have joined this protest.
    The protest on Health insurance spending is just one part of a much larger picture.

    Common sense people realize that what is going on in DC is not so much a democrat versus republican issue. It is an issue of “we the people” against the political establishment that is neglecting it’s duty of being prudent with our taxes.

    This irresponsibility is showing itself on the state level as well.
    Politicians are quick to promise and quick on raising taxes if the money is there…but are incapable of making cuts and budget decisions.

    I posted a link on senator Burris from Illinois and his benefits, which are paid from tax $$.
    How many private sector people have the same or comparable benefits?

    While the private sector cuts retirement benefits and 401K contributions our elected officials see nice increases every year and that despite a loss in home value, despite inflation eating up our savings.

    Have we seen any decreases in our tax burdens??

    Ok…I am done now.

    September 15, 2009
  1131. Anthony Pierre said:

    While the private sector cuts
    retirement benefits and 401K
    contributions our elected officials
    see nice increases every year and that
    despite a loss in home value, despite
    inflation eating up our savings.

    the private sector cuts benefits and 401Ks cause they are greedy assholes, not cause they have to.

    September 15, 2009
  1132. David Henson said:

    John, Patrick said it was a free market and you mentioned price controls (which is very unfree market). The key is to make the market much freer and more dynamic, not less. The whole health business landscape needs to change for the costs to come down. Insuring everyone does not change the care delivery models and thus cannot save a nickel – this idea only works with a mandate to have insurance which is effectively a tax on young healthy people (which in my opinion is even worse than a total government takeover). If we cover 50 million people with insurance who now get emergency care anyway then this is just a theoritical wash in terms of money – probably more expensive in the short and possibly less in the long run (if we assume preventitive care availability saves some money).

    Reducing government decisions being made for individuals and reducing the use of insurance as much as possible (like a health debit card) will allow the market to become more dynamic.

    Of course, when I drive by auto lots where the inventory appears to be approaching zero this tells me the economy is in a very dire moment and maybe health care reform should not be the top concern.

    September 15, 2009
  1133. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Let me correct something.

    I said colloquially,

    Good luck trying to add anything to the bill(s) that might interfere with the working of the free market.

    I was simply referring generally to the popular conservative talking point / line of thinking / inevitable line of criticism – not to the actual nature of the medical marketplace.

    There are many things about the ‘medical marketplace’ that are not free at all, and many of them that never can be. (OTOH, there are other aspects of it in which information and choice can be improved, and it might help patients become better free market agents.)

    September 15, 2009
  1134. Patrick Enders said:

    …or rather become more like free market agents.

    September 15, 2009
  1135. john george said:

    David H.- Yes, price controls are very un-free. I personally do not like the idea, but I don’t see an alternative to have uniform charges for uniform services. If volume would lower costs, it seems it would already be happening. More and more people are getting preventive care right now than I can remember. It seems medical care has a subjective side which is hard to predict. I think a term I have read is “specificity.” Perhaps this whole industry cannot be run like a business that sells widgets. If producing 1000 widgets costs X dollars, but producing 10,000 widgets costs Y dollars less, then volume production and purchasing can save costs. President Obama is suggesting this process to cover the costs for the millions of people presently without coverage. When I heard that, I thought it was a good idea. As I do more research and process the whole thing, I’m beginning to wonder, now, if the pattern will work with the health care industry. For me, the question on health care for everyone is not “if” but “how.”

    September 15, 2009
  1136. David Henson said:

    Patrick, from your perspective, what, aside from a true epedemic, cannot never be a free choice in health care ?

    September 15, 2009
  1137. Patrick Enders said:

    …anything limited by urgency, distance, or lack of the expertise that is sometimes needed to know whether or not the doctor in front of you is offering you the best options, the only options, or all the options.

    Besides, while you can shop around to different doctors, you have to pay for each of those visits. As a community Pediatrician, a majority of my patients are not very ill, and most often the price of visiting with me is more than the cost of any treatment that I might recommend.

    September 15, 2009
  1138. William Siemers said:

    Peter…

    I am not comfortable with the increasing deficit numbers. I think the whole cap and trade business should have been put on the back burner last spring and health insurance moved to the front. Not doing so was a strategic mistake by the administration. In addition, so much of the stimulus money remains unspent that many people reasonably assume that this was another boondoggle and money poorly spent. I don’t agree with that assumption, but I understand their frustration. The projected cost of health care reform has just added to people’s concern with our fiscal situation.

    But for all that we still have 40 million uninsured and 20,000 more everyday. That continues to cause huge problems, on many levels, for our country. It may not be the best time address that situation, but it is the right time. We can join the rest of the industrialized world and extend this basic right to all our people.

    September 15, 2009
  1139. David Henson said:

    Patrick, do you know how much you billed out (or your clinic) compared to your salary (as a percentage – not trying to find out your salary just curious about the additional overhead)? Or are these numbers not tracked a Dr level ?

    September 15, 2009
  1140. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Yes I do. As you might suspect, however, as an employee of FamilyHealth Medical Clinics, Northfield Hospital, and the Mayo Health System, I cannot discuss the details of clinic/hospital finances or operations publicly. I’d recommend that you contact my boss Ken Bank, or our communications director Scott Richardson, if you would like to see any public release of that kind of information.

    September 15, 2009
  1141. David Henson said:

    Of course you can’t , sorry about that. But at any rate I would guess the overhead number is quite high – comparable to taking one’s car to the dealer. But for my car I have lots of specialized choices that can offer cheaper, better or different services. The medical landscape is very centralized and becoming more so every year … as it becomes more centralized it also becomes more expensive but statistically not more effective. I can’t help but think further centralization would lead to either reduced services or further increase in expenses. In my own experience I just cannot think of services that have improved with centraliztion and less choice.

    September 15, 2009
  1142. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I am neither an economist nor a person with any aptitude for business, but there seem to be two competing factors here. One is the fact of economies of scale and bulk negotiating/ bulk purchasing. The other is overhead for a large organization.

    Where the two balance out is a bit of a mystery to me personally, except that the larger clinics tend to prosper, while smaller institutions and private practices tend to struggle. I know doctors who have had a very difficult time making ends meet in private practice – far more commonly than in group practice. Heck, even 60 years ago, my grandfather had a marginally profitable private practice that he worked very hard at, but which he ultimately gave up to join a group practice.

    The other thing about a large organization is that they ideally offer oversight, educate, and set standards for their individual practitioners to follow, which seem to improve the quality of care that those physicians provide.

    Still, there is a niche already being filled by low-overhead, low cost clinics of the ‘minute clinic’ variety. There’s one just down the road in Lakeville. The price is certainly great. I can’t speak to the quality or range of care they offer.

    September 15, 2009
  1143. Paul Zorn said:

    William S:

    Well said in #915 about the main problem: tens of millions of uninsured and counting. And many who are in some sense insured are under-insured to the point where they consider health care unavailable. It is not too much to expect the richest country in the history of the world to address such problems. We can argue about how, but whether to address them should not be a point of contention.

    As for large federal deficits and debt … I don’t think anyone is “comfortable” with these numbers, but “comfort” is not really the issue. We have been (and maybe still are) in deep economy doo-doo, and IMO the Obama adminstration had little choice, “comfort” aside, but to spend or obligate big pots of money to keep the economy from skidding even further off the rails.

    Sure, not every recovery dollar was or will be well or wisely spent. But neither does every drop of water directed at a forest fire find its mark. And I’m not impressed with Republicans — on whose watch the “fires” started — complaining (to continue the belabored metaphor) about the big water bills incurred in fighting what was, and maybe still is, substantially their fire. Perhaps a less rudderless and demoralized GOP would have behaved more responsibly.

    I have no opinion on whether the Obama administration should have timed things differently for political advantage.

    September 15, 2009
  1144. john george said:

    David H.- I’m not sure the analogy between repairing your car and giving medical care is quite so simple. I’m sure your car has a computer controled fuel injection system. Each manufacturer has their own computer codes for each engine series, but each engine/computer combination in that series works exactly alike. Not quite true with we humans. We all can come down with a virus, but there is not necessarily a single medication that will help everyone equally well with the same set of symptoms. There are the effects of metabolism, chronic diseases, allergies, etc., that require personalized treatment. Having a doctor that you see regularly, who knows your medical history, usually speeds up recovery time because he knows which medications will affect your body most positively. I’m not sure medical care can be dispensed in specialized facilities that only treat one set of symptoms, like a Rapid Oil Change franchise. And, I think that Patrick’s example of his grandfather exemplifies the collective bargaining ability/buying power of a larger organization. All the overhead can be spread out over a number of people instead of just one having to carry it all.

    September 15, 2009
  1145. David Henson said:

    John, you are right Allina had no “cash for clunkers” program when I checked with them. But the health market looks and acts like a private monopoly to me and I do not think the current plans address the underlying problems. I think fee for service is the ultimate model with some type health debit card with insurance as an option but not a mandate. Much of the big clinics are to deal with big insurance and each carries a high admin overhead. Knock out that 20-30% overhead and the 30% over treatments (current Newsweek number) and the system gets viable.

    September 15, 2009
  1146. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Interesting article. The non-personal-narrative / non-‘death panel’ part of the article closely parallels the article(s) that Paul Zorn cited last month.

    Here’s a key section of the Newsweek article:

    But the biggest cost booster is the way doctors are paid under most insurance systems, including Medicare. It’s called fee-for-service, and it means just that. So why not just put doctors on salary? Some medical groups that do, like the Mayo Clinic, have reduced costs while producing better results. Unfortunately, putting doctors on salary requires that they work for someone, and most American physicians are self-employed or work in small group practices. The alternative—paying them a flat rate for each patient they care for—turned out to be at least a partial bust. HMOs that paid doctors a flat fee in the 1990s faced a backlash as patients bridled at long waits and denied service.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/215291

    September 16, 2009
  1147. Peter Millin said:

    Some of people’s concerns have grown
    out of bogus claims spread by those
    whose only agenda is to kill reform at
    any cost.
    The best example is the
    claim made not just by radio and cable
    talk show hosts, but by prominent
    politicians, that we plan to set up
    panels of bureaucrats with the power
    to kill off senior citizens. Now, such
    a charge would be laughable if it
    weren’t so cynical and irresponsible.
    It is a lie, plain and simple.
    (Applause.)

    It is ok for the POTUS to call people liars but not for Joe Wilson?

    September 16, 2009
  1148. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter,
    Who, exactly, did the President call a liar?

    September 16, 2009
  1149. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    Yes, it’s OK for anybody to call something a lie when (i) he or she sincerely believes it is indeed a lie, and (ii) the setting is appropriate. The POTUS’s assertion seems to me to pass both tests — the first with flying colors. I’m not all that excited about Joe Wilson either way, but I’d say he flunks both (i) and (ii).

    September 16, 2009
  1150. Curt Benson said:

    Like Kanye West leaned on Sunday, Joe Wilson needs to learn that there is a time and a place for everything.

    For entertainment purposes: The NPR show, Talk of the Nation covered the topic of Dissent vs Disrespect on Monday. The show is worth a listen, especially at about the three minute mark, when audio is played from the House of Commons. The invective and derision thrown at Gordon Brown is remarkable:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=5&prgDate=09-14-2009

    September 16, 2009
  1151. David Henson said:

    Patrick, I mean a system where providers charge whatever they want and consumers can go where ever they want with no govt set pricing and no claim filing is required. You want to keep more funds available you go to the Medimart at Walgreens rather than an expensive clinic. Get your surgery at Tiawan General if you choose. I think having parts of the economy operating in a noncompetitive environment creates too much distortion (or a class system based on politics rather than merit).

    September 16, 2009
  1152. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    We already have cheap minute clinics. If people like them, and want to pay for medical expenses out of pocket, they’ve been able to do what you suggest since the early 90’s. I believe it as GHWB who first introduced health savings accounts. If not, it was an early-to-mid 90’s innovation.

    It seems like the a la carte, fee-for-service options that you want already exist. You can even come to my clinic under such a personal plan.

    I hope you are not suggesting that all people should be required to give up their health insurance, and use such an a la carte system. If you are a believer in free markets, that would seem to impinge upon people’s freedom to choose the insurance care option if it works for them.

    September 16, 2009
  1153. David Henson said:

    Patrick, I am suggesting rather than a single payor, a 250million payor system. Where the government offers a health debit card and the consumer decides how to spend the funds. The employer deduction is ended. This offers the universal health benefits you tout while maximizing liberty and choice and decentralized decision making.

    September 16, 2009
  1154. john george said:

    David H.- The health debit card sounds like a good idea for reimbursal, but I would need to know a few more conditions of it before I could make a difinitive decision. Would there be a cap on the total expenditures in a given time period, say a year? If funds were not used, could they be carried over into the following year? If, in a given time period, there were care expenses that exceeded the card, would they be deducted from following years to eventually pay it back? What about thos people with higher incomes, say over $250,000/year, could they throw in additional money for elective proceedures? Trying to quantify what could be covered seems almost undaunting, to me. And, I don’t see how this would address inequities in the system without some type of price controls. And then we are back to the same concept of the government taking over the whole industry. What a sticky wicket!

    September 16, 2009
  1155. Peter Millin said:

    If illegal aliens were indeed excluded from the original bill

    1) Why was an amendment turned down twice in comitee?

    2) Why is it being added know?

    If it walks like a duck…….

    Paul i do agree that he should have considered the setting, but sometimes it is hard to keep your mouth shut in the face of a blatant lie.

    Patrick,

    All that disagree with his plan..not only did he call them liars we are now being called racist too.

    So we can’t disagree with him because he is black??

    So much for a post-racial president.

    September 16, 2009
  1156. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter,
    I have no idea where you’re coming from on that.

    September 16, 2009
  1157. Peter Millin said:

    Curt,

    In my fomer homeland Germany exchanges are the same as in GB.

    That’s why I was a bit perplexed around the hoopla surrounding Wilson.

    Passionate exchanges make more lively politics.

    September 16, 2009
  1158. john george said:

    Peter- Have you seen the Pioneer Press today? There is an interesting article about civility featuring Wilson, one of the Williams twins (tennis), Fedderer (tennis) and Kanye West. It seems that uncivility is not limited to racists or Republicans. (Perhaps I stated something twice, as it seems, according to some reports, that racist equals Republican.)

    September 16, 2009
  1159. john george said:

    Griff- Could you please ferret another comment with a link out of your spam filter? Thanks in advance.

    September 16, 2009
  1160. john george said:

    Here is another pot-stirrer in former President Carter’s claims.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32869276/ns/politics-capitol_hill
    It seems both parties are doing their best to keep ideological differences in the forefront. This only seems to delay any agreement and progress on the health care issue. In the mean time, as William S. pointed out, the coverage inequity keeps climbing. Just wondering what the delay in agreement is really about? It seems that neither side is really interested in advancing the cause. If they were, these types of devisive opinions would not be tolerated. Afterall, the Democrats do have a majority. I’m not a conspiracy theorist at all, but when both sides seem so locked in throwing insults, it makes me wonder what is really driving the division on the issue.

    September 16, 2009
  1161. Peter Millin said:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml

    The impact of cap and trade will be around $ 1700 per household. This is based on internal White House numbers.

    The mythical 40 million uninsuredis really more like 20 million. But whatever the real number is the price tag for the uninsured is around 1 trillion dollars seems pretty high to me.
    Nevermind the impact of having a public options. How is the private sector to compete against a taxpayer subsidized company?

    Speking of subsidies. Has anyone hears the latest GM commercial?
    The CEO has a priceless line in there “We put OUR money where our mouth is” ??????
    Maybe somebody should tell him that the money he is so freely spending is really not his…LOL

    September 16, 2009
  1162. john george said:

    Peter- Maybe he should have said, “We put your money where our mouth is.”

    September 17, 2009
  1163. john george said:

    Peter- (And anyone else who would care to see this) Here is a link you might want to take a look at. It puts the whole federal budget in a pretty clear visual perspective.

    September 17, 2009
  1164. David Henson said:

    John,

    1) Would there be a cap on the tota expenditures in a given time period, say a year?

    Yes, the debit card would be just a set subsidy each year. The individual could choose to buy insurance or pay directly with no insurance. This is a must as if insurance is required the companies are sure to collude on overhead %s and pricing but if also competing against no insurance they will be forced to offer value. Perhaps some super catastophic insurance could be built in (for over $50,000 or such). Also I think individuals should allowed to pool funds in some type of no overhead “insurance” pool.

    If funds were not used, could they be carried over into the following year?

    Yes, this is a must to keep expeditures prudent. I would even suggest when a large enough balance is reached that the excess funds could be spent however one chooses.

    If, in a given time period, there were care expenses that exceeded the card, would they be deducted from following years to eventually pay it back?

    I would think no borrowing forward as providers would milk that to no end. If you exceed the subsidy then you exceed the subsidy.

    What about thos people with higher incomes, say over $250,000/year, could they throw in additional money for elective proceedures?

    Yes, society would be cutting off it’s nose to spite it’s face not to allow new more expensive treatments to be paid privately.

    September 17, 2009
  1165. john george said:

    David H.- I’m answering on a new post, as #910 was getting umwieldy. Your answer to one of my questions in 910 was

    I would think no borrowing forward as
    providers would milk that to no end.
    If you exceed the subsidy then you
    exceed the subsidy.

    I would think might leave some people where they are right now- no coverage. Perhaps I’m not following your complete thinking, here, but I’m coming from this scenario. If a lower income person has X dollars on their card for care, and has nothing to contribute themself, and they just use it for direct pay, as their medical history seems pretty clean. Then, they have some catastrophic event, as an accident, or heart attack, etc., and there is not enough on their card to cover this expense. Do you perceive some provision with your card idea to cover these types of things? That is actually what is happening right now, and why some people are being dropped from plans.

    September 17, 2009
  1166. john george said:

    Jerry B.- Going back to your comment in 914.1, about greedy people, I decided to do a little comparison of numbers. When we start talking about trillions of dollars, I need something to help me relate, as those numbers are waaaay over my head. I found a site called Hoover something that gives salary breakdowns for various industrues. If I read the info correctly, health care executives receive about $907.7 million in annual salaries. Compareed to the estimate I found for the costs whole health care industry, at the time of that study, only $2.2 trillion, it ammounted to 4/100ths of 1 percent, or .04%. Cutting salaries for executives who make millions of dollars each year makes an emotional connection with people, as most of us view health care from an altruistic perspective. But, putting it perspective, it is not even a drop in the bucket.

    September 17, 2009
  1167. David Henson said:

    John, the idea would be that the health debit card would have enough funding to buy insurance if one chose to buy it. While your scenario could happen if they chose not to, I still think it better to let people choose. This gives people a base level of health care. If they bet wrong they could end up with a liability just as the can in auto insurance etc. Trying to make systems to the lowest common participant becomes very admin expensive, and “system operators” also make errors – see financial system for example.

    September 17, 2009
  1168. john george said:

    David H.- It is the gamble that I am talking about. Actually, those who do not carry health coverage right now are taking a gamble, and that is their choice. When it comes to those who cannot afford anything above and beyond the debit card, what happens to them if they have a claim that exceeds the ammount of insurance they are able to purchase? Would you propose some type of catastrophic fail-safe to cover them? When you have a car, there is a point of demishing return at which you do not repair it anymore. You just replace it. I don’t see how that can happen with health care. We don’t have an option of replacing our body if soemthing happens to it. I know it is administratively challenging to try to allow for those types of occurances, but one of the reasons so many people lose there coverage right now is because of these types of occurances.

    September 17, 2009
  1169. David Henson said:

    John, Right now the plans seem to be forcing people to buy insurance plans that have 20-30% admin costs, to me this is the biggest ripoff of the American people of all time. I think America is getting the worst of big business and big government and this is very disheartening. I deeply hope the country can eventually go to a 10% is enough program and a libertarian type structure before we turn into a ruined socialist shell game. I can’t really debate the insurance issue any more because fundamentally I just don’t believe in these programs. But if it gets really bad the private sector is still at work http://www.escapeartist.com/

    September 17, 2009
  1170. john george said:

    David H.- I can understand. I checked your link, and Karen and I do have a Costa Rican connection through our son-in-law. We have seriously considered going that direction if everything goes to pot here. There is probably enough room on the farm for the whole extended family. One thing about Central America is that you can grow crops year round. And, it doesn’t snow there. 🙂

    September 17, 2009
  1171. Patrick Enders said:

    Karl Rove to speak at St. Olaf!

    [He] will be in Northfield as a guest speaker at St. Olaf College on Thursday, Oct. 1… The presentation is free and open to the public. The event begins at 7 p.m. in the Skoglund Center Auditorium, with doors opening at 6:30 p.m.

    http://northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=49807

    September 17, 2009
  1172. Patrick Enders said:

    REUTERS: Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance

    Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year — one every 12 minutes — in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

    “We’re losing more Americans every day because of inaction … than drunk driving and homicide combined,” Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.

    Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.

    “For any doctor … it’s completely a no-brainer that people who can’t get health care are going to die more from the kinds of things that health care is supposed to prevent,” said Woolhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard and a primary care physician in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE58G6W520090918

    September 18, 2009
  1173. Patrick Enders said:

    Apologies for the weird formatting.

    September 18, 2009
  1174. Matt Sewich said:

    Love stats.

    Another interesting stat Per itsmylife.com, 90,000 Americans die each year in medical care due to medical error or lethal infection.

    September 18, 2009
  1175. john george said:

    Patrick- I admit that this is a little twisted, but I couldn’t pass it up. If 45,000 people die each year from lack of coverage, but only about 20,000 people lose their health coverage in a year, and there are about 40 million people without coverage right now, then if we drag our feet for a couple hundred more years, we will eventually run out of people without insurance just from attrition. A solution, albeit not a good one, but it will take a long time.

    September 18, 2009
  1176. Patrick Enders said:

    Matthew,
    Sounds like another thing (or things) that we need to work to improve. Still, I’m not sure what your point is re: the topic at hand.

    September 18, 2009
  1177. Matt Sewich said:

    Patrick,

    You can call me “Matt”, that’s why I use it as my name when I leave a post on here.

    Yeah, no real point to make other than to put the numbers into perspective…but it is interesting that twice as many people die while seeking the care some people want them to have coverage for compared to those who die because they don’t have coverage per this Harvard study.

    I haven’t read the study you linked a story to and so I don’t know what to think about it, but I’ll assume it’s thorough and takes into account that certain deaths may not have preventable with or without treatment/coverage or that people may not seek medical attention even with coverage for certain symptoms, etc…

    September 18, 2009
  1178. Barry Cipra said:

    john, there is a little flaw in your observation: That 20,000 estimate for the number of people losing health insurance is a weekly figure, not per year. (Actually there’s a recent report that puts it at around 40,000 per week.)

    Oh, and another little flaw: Even if you were right about it being 20,000 newly uninsured per year (not per week), it’d take a couple of thousand years to kill off all the uninsured, not a couple of hundred.

    September 18, 2009
  1179. john george said:

    Barry- I wasn’t trying to do a accurate mathmatical comparison. My point was that if we do nothing, eventually a lot of people will die off. Inaction on our part does have a negative effect on the whole population. I think it is easy to be apathetic about a problem if it doesn’t directly affect you. It is a little like Marie Antoinette’s comment, although not so callous. I agree with William S.’s comment about the problem only getting bigger the longer we delay action.

    September 18, 2009
  1180. David Henson said:

    Blockquote

    American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage

    This stat is clearly tweaked to make a point. There could very well be little cause and effect, meaning lifestyle factors may account for difference. Then the 40% increase may in fact be the difference between 1% and 1.4% but that lacks dramatic effect. Yes, having health insurance is nice but is it worth forcing mass participation. Then if the solution is to make these folks buy insurance what other area of their lives will suffer? And what is next for big brother, to define what they eat? Make sure they drink 5 glasses of water, limit TV to 1 hour per day? How far can society go in forcing conformity to the values of a band of political elites?

    September 18, 2009
  1181. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    Thanks for posting the link to factcheck.org’s analysis of Obama’s speech. In my opinion this is indeed a useful and reliable source. (Reliable doesn’t mean infallible, of course … they sometimes issue corrections to their own stuff, just as a conscientious organization should.) And factcheck does indeed offer some nuanced criticism of some parts of Obama’s speech.

    So much said, I wonder, Peter, how you square your admiration for factcheck.org with the fact that you and factcheck seem often at odds. For instance, you said earlier in ref to Wilson that (my emphasis)

    … he should have considered the setting, but sometimes it is hard to keep your mouth shut in the face of a blatant lie.

    Factcheck says quite clearly that Obama’s discussion of illegal immigrants’ access to healthcare “hardly makes the president a liar.”

    As another example, you said of uninsured Americans that

    … the mythical 40 million uninsured is really more like 20 million.

    According to factcheck,

    … The official Census figure for 2007 was actually 45.7 million persons in the U.S., but that figure includes an estimated 10 million who are not U.S. citizens, including 5.6 million who are here illegally, according to the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation. That still leaves about 35.7 million U.S. citizens without health coverage in 2007, well above the president’s figure [POTUS mentioned 30 million].

    Whom should we trust?

    September 18, 2009
  1182. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter,
    Your number is wrong, based on an old proposal that is not under consideration. Try $175 per household per year.

    http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=300

    September 19, 2009
  1183. David Henson said:

    You have approx an average 5/10,000 chance of dying before 64 (higher as you get older) according to social security acturarial tables. So maybe that is 4/10,000 with insurance and 5.5/10,000 without insurance. These numbers maybe off a bit but generally the difference does not scream out let’s fine these risk taking people $1000. a year for not having insurance. I think it quite within reason to not purchase health insurance as humanity has done for some 100,000s of years. Especially if funds are spent prudently or at least not on beer and cigarettes.

    September 19, 2009
  1184. Bright Spencer said:

    We should start by renaming the system. We are not insured of good health by having insurance. We are not insured of anything but some level of medical care. So, let’s name it appropriately.

    September 19, 2009
  1185. Bright Spencer said:

    Offer the people who work for insurance companies pushing paper around a chance to study in medical programs where they can learn to cut skin tags, and talk about how to most effectively take medication, check breathing, look into ears, simplistic stuff like that…(if they hear or see anything unusual, then call in the doctor)
    that would lower insurance premiums, give people more satisfying work, and probably keep them healthier too, having been given some good info on health care and life style and up from the desk all day. That way, my doctor could spend more time playing tennis and golf.

    Give the illegal immigrants
    jobs in senior homes. After all, they have been taking care of their elderly in a totally natural way for eons.
    And make them part of our citizenry.

    September 19, 2009
  1186. Patrick Enders said:

    Washington Post: Acne, Pregnancy Among Disqualifying Conditions

    A PacifiCare “Medical Underwriting Guidelines” document from 2003 lists under “Ineligible Occupations” such risk-takers as stunt people, test pilots and circus workers — along with police officers, firefighters and migrant workers.

    Uninsurable conditions included pregnancy, and being an “expectant father” was grounds for “automatic rejection.” So was having received “therapy/counseling” within six months of the application. There was also this more general disqualifier: “currently experiencing/experienced within the last 12 months symptoms for which a physician has not been consulted.”

    The PacifiCare document “is completely outdated and predates the acquisition of PacifiCare by United Healthcare,” Cheryl J. Randolph, a spokeswoman for the parent company, said by e-mail. She declined to provide current underwriting documents.

    “Underwriting enables insurers to adequately assess risks, keeping premium costs lower for more consumers,” she added.

    Health Net guidelines for 2006 say that people could be denied coverage or charged higher premiums if they were taking certain medications, including Zyrtec, an allergy remedy, and Lamisil, which is widely advertised as a treatment for toenail fungus.

    Pregnant women could be rejected, as could expectant fathers, the document said.

    A Health Net spokeswoman did not respond to requests to comment.

    Blue Cross of California guidelines for 2004 said potential disqualifiers included chronic tonsillitis and, under certain circumstances, varicose veins.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803501.html

    September 19, 2009
  1187. David Henson said:

    Patrick, this is not that unreasonable, people could sign up when pregnant and then stop after having a healthy baby sticking the insurance company with the tab. I have no sympathy for insurance companies but clearly they cannot exist if they lose money. No insurance company is going to want to attract all the high risk people. Even if a law is passed where everyone has to have health insurance (a terrible idea) and everyone must be accepted – companies will still come up with strategies for getting mostly healthy people – advertise at fitness clubs, etc.

    September 19, 2009
  1188. john george said:

    David H.- I think you have a good point there. If 20,000 people/week are being dropped from insurance plans, then who is going to assume the risk factor? The federal government? They are the only ones right now that seem to be getting away with spending more than they take in. Just let you or I try that, and the bank would be on our doorstep eventually. It is this question that I have not been able to find a verifiable answer to. If the insurance companies are not willing to take this risk voluntarily, will they be forced to by the government, or is the government going to gaurentee the risk with funds out of the future?

    September 19, 2009
  1189. kiffi summa said:

    Is there any other issue besides health care in the world of the”DNC/RNC, the Good the Bad and the Ugly ” ?

    Anyone familiar with the arrests at the RNC convention in St. Paul a year ago should be worried about the protection of their constitutional rights in our fair state. In reporting on the trial of protestors, including Joel Weisberg, Carleton Astronomy professor, the St. Paul newspaper reports that the judge advised the jury to look beyond (actually more narrowly) than the constitutional issues and look specifically at MN’s tresspass laws.

    WHAT?

    Forget the Constitution , folks; here in MN the Judge (maybe a friend of Gov. Pawlenty?) prefers states rights over the Constitution of the US…

    And what was this jury thinking? I don’t care what their instructions from the judge were; they should have stood up for the larger principles of the larger law of the land.

    September 19, 2009
  1190. David Henson said:

    John, being a serial entrepreneur – I just live where there is no doorstep.

    September 19, 2009
  1191. john george said:

    David H.- Can you bank on that not happening?

    September 19, 2009
  1192. Patrick Enders said:

    The thing is, “pre-existing conditions” don’t end once you have insurance.

    documents obtained by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce… show, for instance, that one Blue Cross employee earned a perfect score of “5” for “exceptional performance” on an evaluation that noted the employee’s role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.

    WellPoint’s Blue Cross of California subsidiary and two other insurers saved more than $300 million in medical claims by canceling more than 20,000 sick policyholders over a five-year period, the House committee said.

    “When times are good, the insurance company is happy to sign you up and take your money in the form of premiums,” Stupak said. “But when times are bad, and you are afflicted with cancer or some other life-threatening disease, it is supposed to honor its commitments and stand by you in your time of need.

    “Instead, some insurance companies use a technicality to justify breaking its promise, at a time when most patients are too weak to fight back,” he said….

    The committee investigation uncovered several rescission practices that one lawmaker called egregious, including targeting every policyholder diagnosed with leukemia, breast cancer and 1,400 other serious illnesses. Such investigations involve scouring the policyholder’s original application and years’ worth of medical and pharmacy records in search of any discrepancies.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17

    I highly recommend This American Life episode 386: “Fine Print.” Part 3, which starts 33 minutes in, and is titled “Restrictions May Apply.”

    It’s a report on the health insurance industry practice of rescission.

    http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1308

    September 19, 2009
  1193. Patrick Enders said:

    Griff, please rescue my post. Thanks!

    September 19, 2009
  1194. john george said:

    For whomever might care, regarding the Carleton professor, he admittedly removed a police baricade (a crime or civil disobedience?)to make a point about the RNC. He is charged, goes to trial and pays the price for his disobedience. He made his point and lived to tell about it. These are facts. Contrast the report in Peter’s post #907.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/11/michigan.shooting/index.html
    The man was not trespassing, removing baricades or commiting civil disobedience. He is randomly shot by a drive-by gunman. He died making his point and can never tell about it. These are also facts. So, where was justice served?

    September 19, 2009
  1195. David Henson said:

    John only if people accept change can I vault to the top.

    September 19, 2009
  1196. john george said:

    David H.- Someone will still have to check you out. Has anyone expressed interest?

    September 20, 2009
  1197. David Henson said:

    John, in my case they express a mixture of interest, blood, sweat and tears. I did just hear from a rich woman and I tried to teller but she just said, “your ideas aren’t current, see”

    September 20, 2009
  1198. john george said:

    David H.-She’ll probably send you a bill for the advice, too. You can get advice to make money from an ATM, also, but don’t let the security camera catch you swiping a card.

    September 20, 2009
  1199. Paul Zorn said:

    John:

    Re #936: Do you see some connection between these two cases? Has anyone suggested that the Michigan shooting was in some way justified, or that the Michigan victim deserved his fate?

    What’s your point?

    September 21, 2009
  1200. john george said:

    Paul Z.- No one has suggested there is any connection. The thing that struck me about the two incidences is that sometimes it costs you something to take a stand on an issue. The earlier reporting on the Michigan incident inferred that it was caused by a disagreement with the protest. Since I first read of the incident, it appears that the shooter has been found to have a personal vendetta with the victim and was mentally deranged. The professor’s charges were brought on by his own choosing. I agree that it is two entirely different scenarios, but I think the professor’s charges and conviction were justified.

    September 21, 2009
  1201. john george said:

    Griff- I have another link trapped in your filter. Could you plleeeeeaaaase rescue it? Thanks!

    September 21, 2009
  1202. Paul Zorn said:

    John:

    You say:

    No one has suggested there is any connection.

    With respect … the fact that you juxtaposed the two, and asked that we “contrast” the two cases, would suggest to a reasonable person that you were drawing some connection.

    If your point is that taking an unpopular stand can be costly or uncomfortable, then so be it, but does/could anyone disagree?

    September 21, 2009
  1203. david henson said:

    Good article John.

    The current cover of the Economist magazine seems racist to my mind (its not about health care). A bit shocking.

    I think those against further socializing the USA would not care about skin color but liberals are so certain they are right (when they are not) that they need to degrade the opposition’s thinking.

    September 21, 2009
  1204. Patrick Enders said:

    Calling the opposition racist is to liberalism as calling the opposition socialist is to conservatism.

    September 21, 2009
  1205. Patrick Enders said:

    Griff, please unmoderate my post. Thanks!

    September 21, 2009
  1206. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Do we have to have a disagreement with everything posted here?

    September 21, 2009
  1207. kiffi summa said:

    John : in 936 you make a connection, or at least imply there is a relationship between the two instances you cite; in 937.1 you say “no one has suggested there is any connection”
    But you just did …
    If you continue to make connections, but then deny they have been made, it creates an irrational set up.

    Is it your intention to lead these discussion astray? or at least in ever more diffuse circles?

    The frustration of an ever shifting ‘target’ is not productive and only obfuscates the goal of a logical, or at the very least, a subject-dominated debate.

    September 22, 2009
  1208. john george said:

    Kiffi- This was a response to Paul Z.’s question,

    Has anyone suggested that the Michigan
    shooting was in some way justified, or
    that the Michigan victim deserved his
    fate?

    if I understood it correctly, if anyone had previously suggested a connection. I answered

    No one has suggested there is any
    connection.

    I could have said “No one else…”, but in the context of my reply, I thought it was clear. I was the one contrasting the events, that the professor chose civil disobedience, and the Michigan protester did not. After I posted the comment, I found out more information about the shooter. He was not reacting to the protest. He was just deranged. The later revelation kind of shot my analogy, but that sometimes happens with unfolding news coverage. It is really great to have all the information before I post something, but sometimes I do not.

    September 22, 2009
  1209. john george said:

    Patrick- Now you really have my curiosity piqued about the phantom post of yours. I hope you have a copy somewhere.

    September 22, 2009
  1210. Patrick Enders said:

    The first post has reappeared as 934.

    September 23, 2009
  1211. john george said:

    Patrick- Those are good articles. This is the type of reform I think is needed, and from the speech the President made to congress, he is asking that this be part of the legislation. I am all for that type of reform, if there is a way we can make it work without breaking the bank (of course they are already broken, but that is another story). That is why I keep trying to find out how much this whole shift in gaurenteed coverage is going to cost. One of my friends shared a conversation he had with a surgeon friend in the Twin Cities. He said that from his perspective, no one really knows the actual cost. The concern I have is that there is no way to know until we actually get into the thing.

    September 23, 2009
  1212. Patrick Enders said:

    The cost is still in flux. A large part of it will depend on how the Baucus bill ends up being amended, since that appears to be becoming the kernel of the Senate legislation. As it currently stands, it will dump a whopping big underfunded mandate on working people who are not-quite-poor-enough-for-Medicaid. People (including Republican Olympia Snowe) are working to improve subsidies to these groups, but that will of course increase the public cost.

    September 23, 2009
  1213. David Henson said:

    Senate Finance Committee Democrats have rejected a GOP amendment that would have required a health overhaul bill to be available online for 72 hours before the committee votes.

    September 23, 2009
  1214. Patrick Enders said:

    Poll Begs Question: Is Extremism Mainstream?

    A new national survey from Public Policy Polling (D) has the firm asking a question: “Is extremism becoming mainstream in 21st century American politics?”

    The poll finds that numerous fringe views are either accepted outright or are open questions among significant portions of the party bases opposed to the politicians who are targeted by them.

    The poll found that only 59% of voters believe that President Obama was born in the United States, with 23% saying he was not, and 18% undecided. Among Republicans only, a 42% Birther plurality say he was not born here, 37% say he was, and 22% are undecided.

    As for the left, check out this question: “Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?” The top-line response is 14% yes, 78% no, and 8% undecided. But among Democrats, it’s a somewhat larger Truther contingent, at 25%-63%-12%.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/poll-begs-question-is-extremism-mainstream.php?ref=fpa

    September 23, 2009
  1215. john george said:

    Patrick- Your last comment

    that will of course increase the
    public cost.

    is very accurate, IMO. I think the sooner we come to grips with the concept that this health reform is going to increase the public cost, the sooner we will have something viable. What I hear from the conservatives is that an increase in taxes will cause an even greater downturn in the economy. I’m no economist, so I don’t know if that will happen or not. What I’m hearing from the President is that he wants the reform to be neutral (no?) cost to the deficit. I just don’t think that can happen, much as I would like to believe it could. A little candor on the subject would be enjoyable. I don’t like the idea of going into something this big with the idea that it won’t add to the debt and 6 months later find out that it does add to the debt and some proponents knew it was a possibility. That type of thing already happened in the last administration. If it happens in this one, then it will be evidence that this is something systemic to our society and not driven by politics per se.

    September 23, 2009
  1216. Patrick Enders said:

    John you wrote:
    >What I’m hearing from the President is that he wants the reform to be neutral (no?) cost to the deficit. I just don’t think that can happen, much as I would like to believe it could. A little candor on the subject would be enjoyable.

    He’s never said that it will be free. There will be fee/tax increases, and a bit of penny pinching, included as part of the overall package in order to make it ‘budget neutral.’

    In current bills, it looks like there will be:
    – an increase in the income tax rate (but not all the way back to pre-GWB levels) on those making >$250,000
    – an end to ‘Medicare Advantage’ subsidies/giveaways to private insurers
    – (perhaps) a tax on very expansive ‘gold-plated’ insurance plans

    September 23, 2009
  1217. Peter Millin said:

    I can’t believe that anyone seriously believes that the projected cost will be reality.

    We all should have learned by now that government never projects the actual cost correctly.

    Take the recent cash for clunkers…the original allocation was 1 billion dollars. The program ran out of money within 3 weeks. As a result the amount was doubled. !!!!

    Costs of health care, retirement and pensions are the biggest budget headaches in any country.

    Here is my prediciton ( and I am taking bets). Within 10-20 years the true health insurance costs for every citizen will be around 8% of their pre tax income. On top of that the employer (which could be your money too) will add another 7%.
    We will have increased waiting times due to less doctors.

    Maybe somebody here can explain to me why we are not taking a detailed look at other countries and their health insurance woes and learn from them???

    Is it on purpose ot is it out of ignorance?

    September 23, 2009
  1218. john george said:

    Patrick- I don’t think you quite understood my comment. Ether that, or some new presentation has come out to which I’m not privy. In the President’s speech before Congress, he said specifically that the plan would not add anything to the deficit. This is what I was refering to in my comment that you quoted. Now, if he has come out and changed his story, I would like to know, because it is this type of candor I’m looking for.

    September 23, 2009
  1219. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    Yes, that’s what he has said. Given that the deficit is the difference between revenue generated and money spent, there will be (and are in the proposals) increases in revenue to offset the increases in spending.

    (I thought that I understood your previous comment, but now I think that I don’t understand your most recent one.)

    September 23, 2009
  1220. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter, you wrote:

    Within 10-20 years the true health insurance costs for every citizen will be around 8% of their pre tax income.

    I am willing to bet that pre-tax health insurance costs for a person making 10 million dollars a year (current dollars, adjusted for inflation) will never approach 8%, or $800,000 (also adjusted).

    September 23, 2009
  1221. john george said:

    Patrick- If I remember the speech correctlty, the President said something like the funding for this will come from increased tax revenue and in-network savings. This is where I have my doubts. My concern is that the actual costs are going to be higher than the funding plan. This will in turn add to the deficit. What I ask is will everyone support the initiative whether it increases the deficit or not? Do we have accurate enough cost analyses to back up the funding claims? If the costs run over the funding method, are we committed to the plan for the long haul, or will we bail out when the going gets tough? I would be more comfortable with the whole process if I heard a few more leaders using this type of language.

    September 23, 2009
  1222. David Henson said:

    The Obama mandates are not going to effect people making 10 million dollars are a year, they already have insurance.

    September 23, 2009
  1223. William Siemers said:

    John G.

    Let’s assume that the projections on revenue and expense are honest and accurate as circumstances exist today. And that they address the demographic changes facing the country into the foreseeable future. What else can be done?

    The stated goal is to not add to the deficit. Reasonable people might say government always underestimates costs and that predictions of future costs are fraught with uncertainty since, well, it’s the future. This is common knowledge, but does not change the fact that we have to start somewhere.

    Any plan that will increase levels of coverage might add to the deficit in the future. That possibility should not stop government from acting now, in good faith, to establish a plan that today is deficit neutral. Want to see some really raucous town meetings?… let government suggest that medicare should not exist because it contributes to the deficit.

    September 24, 2009
  1224. Peter Millin said:

    William,

    If I follow your logic correctly you are suggesting that despite knowing that any government program will add to the deficit we should just continue?

    So you would be ok with having your income tax raised to 42 % or more. Not getting a deduction on your home. Paying a 14% VAT on everything you buy? just in exchange of covering 30 million people?

    Make sense to me…. 🙁

    September 24, 2009
  1225. Peter Millin said:

    Patrick,

    I don’t know anybody that makes that kind of money….

    September 24, 2009
  1226. john george said:

    William- I agree with you 100%. I have heard some conditions put on the legislation by both sides that it should not add to the deficit, raise taxes on the middle class, etc. As I have thought about this, I don’t think we should put those conditions on the reforms. What I would like to hear from our government is verbage to that effect. My concern, though, is that the revenue and savings projections are not accurate. Without an unconditional commitment, my concern is the measures will peter out after a couple years and we will be worse off.

    September 24, 2009
  1227. William Siemers said:

    You do not follow my logic…nor do I follow yours.

    September 24, 2009
  1228. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter,
    The super (or even just ‘very’) rich don’t walk in our circles, but they exist. The top 400 taxpayers in the US in 2005 earned an average of $214 million dollars apiece. By comparison, $10 million a year is chump change.

    Health insurance costs as a percentage of income vary widely based upon income – and will always continue to do so. The poor spend a very large percentage of their income on health care (already often more than the 8% you suggest as extravagant), while the rich spend a minuscule percentage of their income on the same.

    Therefore, “insurance costs for every citizen will be around 8% of their pre tax income” cannot possibly become true. So I am willing to take your bet. How much money would you like to put on it? 🙂

    September 24, 2009
  1229. john george said:

    Patrick- I think you make a very good point. If the contribution is set at 8% of income, I think this would be equitable. What this translates into gross dollars per household will vary, then. I think this is what makes some of this distasteful to populists is that those with higher incomes contribute a larger gross dollar amount, say the example of the $10 million income contributing $800,000. This appears to be an unjust inequity, depending on how you evaluate it, and it translates into those with higher incomes footing part of the bill for those with lower incomes. It is a little like raising a stink about the health care executives making big salaries when people are going without care. When you evaluate it according to the percentages, it is in the one-hundredths of one percent of the actual cost. Another example is the flat tax suggestion that has been bandied about in the past. It is really the most equitable, since each household carries the same % of income tax load, but the gross dollars contributed vary.

    September 24, 2009
  1230. David Henson said:

    John, if a super rich person pays $800,000 and $300,000 goes to creating 6 new bureaucrats rather than farmers or manufacturers and $500,000 to health care of which 30% is siphoned off in some wasteful fashion then society can actually suffer worse health. If that same affluent person decides not to invest in a new drug company because the risk reward equation is not longer favorable then society’s health can be further worsened. This is why I think a negative income tax or a nonrestrictive health debit are the preferred method of helping people. I know it is a bit extreme but imagine those ACORN folks (in the current video)employed in the health system verses just letting individuals consume as they see fit.

    September 24, 2009
  1231. Paul Zorn said:

    Nicely put, William.

    Indeed, it’s not possible to predict the future with complete confidence–in health care or in any other area. The best we can ever have is good faith estimates — aka, educated guesses. To do nothing just because the future is uncertain may seem prudent, but that’s often false: If we’re heading for trouble, or already in it, then change, even big change, can be the cautious choice.

    I’m not sure, John, what “verbage” you’d like to hear from the government. Can you explain? Whether commitment to health reform will dwindle over time is another of those unknowable future problems. But, FWIW, my hunch is the opposite. Government programs, for better or worse, tend to get more popular over time — even the town hall anti-socialism ranters want to keep their Medicare.

    September 24, 2009
  1232. Paul Zorn said:

    John,

    I’m not sure I understand your main point in 945.5 … are you for or against an 8% flat tax for healthcare? Do you find it “equitable” or not?

    What I really wonder, though, is why you think a flat percentage tax (whether for health care or anything else) is clearly “most equitable”. If by “equitable” you mean something like “mathematically equal” then so be it, but then wouldn’t a straight fee ($7000 per person, say) be more “equitable” still?

    To my ear “equitable” is not just a mathematical term, but means something like “fair” and “just”. In this sense, IMO, a flat percentage is by no means clearly “equitable”. A wealthy person who coughs up 8% of income may still be rich; a single mom who does the same thing may be destitute as a result. Yes, there’s a good discussion to be had about *how* progressive a tax system should be for the sake of fairness, but no progressivity at all is hardly a foregone conclusion.

    September 24, 2009
  1233. john george said:

    David H- I’m not normally for government intervention in business, but it appears I am in the minority, so if it is going to happen, then I have a few ideas about how it should be. You voice one of my fears in efficiency about government organizations, but someone will be answerable for it if it happens. I don’t see that it would be any worse than the present system, so at least some people who cannot get coverage now might be able to have it. Mandated coverage at least helps eliminate the frivilous dropping of the chronically ill. I think it is worth the risk.

    Paul Z.- Yes, I think a flat tax is more equitable than a flat fee. A low income person on assistance that has $18,000 of income. 8% (arbitrary, by the way) would be $1440. This is quite a large ammount for this level of income, but if I understood the president correctly, this person would be subsidised for the difference. This leaves the person $16,560 to put toward their living. If they are required to contribute $7,000, this leaves them only $11,000. The person making the $10 million contributes $800,000 @ 8%, leaving him $9.2 million. Perhaps a hardship from his perspective, but I wouldn’t mind that kind of hardship. If he only has to contribute $7,000, it is just chump change, and those who need some fill-in still aren’t covered sufficiently. That is one of the reasons I support a flat tax for income, also. I believe it is equitable, both morally and mathmatically.

    September 24, 2009
  1234. john george said:

    Paul Z.- What I don’t trust are the “promises” that this program will not contribute to the deficit or increase taxes. If the President said something like, “At this point, we don’t think it will contribute to the deficit, but there are some unknowns ahead. What we want to do is bring about these reforms and not be constrained by things we cannot predict or promise.” To me, this is just a little more candid. Does this make any sense?

    September 24, 2009
  1235. david henson said:

    John, my understanding is the left wing does not support mandates (which I agree with, go figure) so I am not so sure we will see any health reform that is meaningful.

    September 24, 2009
  1236. john george said:

    David H.- Your comment

    “so I am not so sure we will see any health reform that is meaningful.”

    is probably, unfortunately, going to come true. We can always hope not, but that would involve a Higher Power that none of us can agree on, either. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this. Until something comes up for a vote, all this is speculation, anyway.

    September 24, 2009
  1237. Patrick Enders said:

    David you wrote,

    John, my understanding is the left wing does not support mandates

    The left wing has embraced mandates as a necessary part of a mostly private, non-single-payer comprehensive health reform. In a curious bit of timing, the right wing suddenly decided it didn’t like them any more.

    September 25, 2009
  1238. David Henson said:

    Patrick, I do not know about the right wing but you can look over my posts since day one I have been against mandates and $1000. fines related to health care. I think you are wrong if you think the left wing is going to support fines against Obama’s base for not purchasing health care … even they will see this for what it is – a huge TAX on those making under $250,000. Only politicans who collect big special interest money from insurance companies will get behind this program.

    John, no health reform is much better than living with a rotten system.

    September 25, 2009
  1239. david henson said:

    Patrick, I do not think Obama was ever counting on right wing support. The left wing will defect from this bill also so it will not go anywhere. Remember, these people need to get reelected – once their base finds out they get unwanted insurance but have to give up owning an XBox, shopping for more expensive organic food at coop, or buying a new bike then some elected officals are going to get a bucket of cold water at the polling booths.

    September 25, 2009
  1240. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Predictions are always difficult when it comes to the future. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see whether or not you are right in guessing what liberals will do.
    I’d be willing to bet that you are not.

    September 25, 2009
  1241. Peter Millin said:

    Maybe this will help….do we want to ensure 30 million people regardless of cost? or the impact on those that have health care, jeopardize the great care we have and replace excellence with mediocrity?

    The cost projection that i made I made in 947 is what is happening today…..in Canada and Europe. The largest budget items in those countries are health insurance, retirement benefits and other social benefits.
    As a result most businesses have lost the incentive to produce and outsource even more than in the US to third world countries. Leading to a stagnant economy and a consistent unemployment rate of around 10%.
    Yes, we definitely need more government. Some Americans are dreaming of the European lifestyle anyway..well be careful what you wish for.

    September 25, 2009
  1242. Peter Millin said:

    If the GOP wants to have a prayer in 2010 they would be well advised to not vote on any of the current proposed health care legislation.
    Let Obama and his comrades go it alone and make them pay at the ballot box.
    If just one GOP member goes along with the health care reform nonsense in it’s current form, then Obama can claim bipartisanship, which will not bode well for the GOP.

    Let’s don’t forget the current standstill is because of the Democrats and not because of the GOP.
    The Democrats have more than enough votes to pass any bill they want both in the house and in the senate. They don’t need the right wing support whatsoever.
    I wonder why nothing has been passed yet. Obama would be better off trying to get hi party in line then counting on right wing support..right??

    Patrick,

    People with the kind of income you mentioned wouldn’t pay taxes anyway..so the 8% would be a mute point.
    I was obviously referring to those that are depended on a salary.

    Hopefully you and I will be still around..just so you can hear me say ” See I told you so” 🙂

    September 25, 2009
  1243. Peter Millin said:

    David,

    Obama has no choice but to move to the left on this issue. Knowing that he won’t get much (if any)support from the GOP. His only hope is to move left and twist the arms of the blue dogs so he can pass his bill…and build his own monument.
    If for some reason Rahm Emanuel doesn’t succeed intimidating the blue dogs, watch for Reid pulling a procedural option in the senate.

    Don’t forget Obama and Emanuel were raised in Chicago where this type of bare knuckle politics is SOP.
    Time to get the popcorn and watch this soap opera unfold.
    It would be funny but for the fact that “we the people” are getting the short end of stick either way.
    Obama and Emanuel will be gone in 8 years, but we get stuck with the bill.

    September 25, 2009
  1244. David Henson said:

    Peter, mandated insurance is not a move to the left, it is a move to the insurance lobby (you must buy private insurance or be fined $1000 or $2000). I have seen leftist activists say they will kill a bill with mandates. And Patrick is correct the right and libertarians are against this also. The administration is not going to force Democrats into accepting this without any members raising questions. And once questioned it will fall apart because it is the worst king of plan. Imagine if young healthy people start getting hauled into court and fined $1000s – this would not insure future votes. Will they fine you more for not having auto, not having health, not paying this or that … we will be living in a “fine economy.”

    September 26, 2009
  1245. David Henson said:

    “About 2,000 people — students and older adults who were in the majority — filled Northrop Auditorium at the University of Minnesota to cheer libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, as he joined Rep. Michele Bachmann to preach the gospel of a less powerful federal government” ~StarTribune

    September 26, 2009
  1246. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    I don’t follow your argument either.

    One might like or dislike the Canadian and European health systems; I think we understand that you don’t. These systems may have their faults compared to ours, but to argue that they’re more expensive — given the well-documented facts to the contrary — is illogical.

    And then this, about Europe (my italics):

    > As a result *most* businesses have lost the incentive to produce and outsource *even more than* in the US to third world countries.

    “Most” and “even more than” are *quantitative* assertions. Can you back them up? With what data?

    September 26, 2009
  1247. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    Yes, the Strib article was interesting. Others can find it online.

    Is the number 2000 surprisingly large? Small? What conclusions do you suggest we draw?

    September 28, 2009
  1248. David Henson said:

    I don’t think Ron Paul takes any special interest money and I do not think any of the two thousand attendees represented special interests (let’s remember that most Democrats and Republicans have financial interests in the party positions) so I would say it is a pretty big deal. The individuals who founded this country rose above their personal interests and unleashed a radical experiment in liberty maybe that can happen again. What sounds better to you Paul, “being slaves to a ‘fair’ system” or “being free to care for one another.”

    September 28, 2009
  1249. William Siemers said:

    David… Ron Paul does seem to bring up some interesting ideas and I enjoy his role of sticking it to republicans and democrats. But his, and other libertarians, use of the terms ‘slaves’ and ‘slavery’ demeans the experience of those held in real physical bondage. One might argue that this, in fact, one of the reasons that some on the far right use the terms. Judging from your posts, I don’t think that is true in your case. Still…isn’t there some other terminology that could suffice???

    September 28, 2009
  1250. David Henson said:

    “being part of a ‘fair’ system enforced through the threat of government violence against it’s own citizens” ?? or “being free to care for one another.”

    September 28, 2009
  1251. Peter Millin said:

    You be hard pressed finding the real cost of healthcare anywhere in those countries, whith the exception of Germany.
    There you can see on your paycheck how much of your Euros go to healthcare.
    Anywhere else you can see how much the government spends on healthcare, but not the cost of it. Since it doesn’t account for admin cost. Which we know is outrageous in just about any government run program

    I suggest Paul Z you go on the NPR website they did a whole study of healthcare cost in Europe and other places.
    Based on that study the current rate in Germany is 7% of gross income. This does not account for the matching contibutions from the employer.

    I have a good health insurance and pay substantially less than that.

    September 28, 2009
  1252. Peter Millin said:

    Well said David….

    September 28, 2009
  1253. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter:

    I’m not sure which NPR site you have in mind, I did find one, about the German system. To avoid Griff’s URL trap, you can find the site by Googling on

    npr healthcare germany knox

    Below is an excerpt from that article, referring to the (about 8%) bite healthcare takes from German salaries. If you read to the end you’ll see that the financial bottom line favors them, not us.

    (Quote starts here.)

    “Yes, it’s expensive. You know, it’s a big chunk of your monthly income,” Sabina says. “But considering what you can get for it, it’s worth it.”

    Actually, it’s about the same proportion of income that American workers pay, on average, if they get their health insurance through their job. The big difference is that U.S. employers pay far more, on average, than German employers do — 18 percent of each employee’s gross income versus around 8 percent in Germany.

    (Quote ends here.)

    September 28, 2009
  1254. Patrick Enders said:

    ‘Violence’ and ‘slavery,’ huh?

    Words just don’t seem to mean what they used to.

    September 28, 2009
  1255. Guy Lawrence said:

    William – The ‘slaves’ and ‘slavery’ to which you refer have not existed in this country for ~150 years. It’s time for the left to quit referring back to a dark time in this great countries history every time the word ‘slave’ is used (ADD moment: Wasn’t Lincoln a Republican?). No one alive has been a ‘slave’ in the context to which you refer. To use it as a means of deflecting the conversation from the legitimate issue, demeans the memory that you purport to protect. In this case, the fact that funding this healthcare initiative will reduce ourselves and our children (and their childern, …) to being unwilling servants (or ‘slaves’) to the state, I feel David’s reference is altogether too accurate; frighteningly accurate.

    September 28, 2009
  1256. Patrick Enders said:

    Guy,
    Wow.

    Your statement,

    “the fact that funding this healthcare initiative will reduce ourselves and our children (and their childern, …) to being unwilling servants (or ’slaves’) to the state…”

    is, uh, amazing.

    Both my wife and my daughter are descended from true slaves – not mere ‘taxpayers,’ but persons who were wholly and absolutely owned as the property of others.

    Quite simply, a mildly burdensome tax bears no resemblance whatsoever to the reality of slavery.

    September 28, 2009
  1257. david henson said:

    dy admitted earlier that if one calls socialists by the term “socialist” then they will in turn call libertarians racists. Thus to avoid being tagged a racist I think it best we use the definition they have not objected to of “a system enforced through state sponsered violence against its own citizens.”

    September 29, 2009
  1258. Griff Wigley said:

    Regarding “Griff’s URL trap”, I think the problem has been fixed by disabling the Rich Text Editor plugin I was using that didn’t like underscore characters. Like_this_!

    So AOK to paste those long URLs.

    And a tip of the blogger hat to Patrick Enders for helping to diagnose the problem.

    September 29, 2009
  1259. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,
    German employers pay about 7% so the total cost in Germany is 15%.For that you get an HMO type system.

    I was asking the question earlier. How many here have to pay 8% of their groos income for healthcare? I very much doubt that the average is 8% here in the US…but I was wrong before.

    I have stated several times that I don’t disagree that we need health insurance reform…what I disagree with is that a government run single payer option is the way to go.

    September 29, 2009
  1260. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    You can of course use whatever words you want, but do you realize that “a system enforced through state sponsered violence against its own citizens” is NOT a necessary, or sufficient, definition of socialism?

    You could just as easily say that capitalism, or christianity, is “a system enforced through state sponsered violence against its own citizens” and be equally inaccurate.

    perhaps you mean “military occupation” or “martial law,” like the post-coup government down in Honduras? Or maybe a system like that in Colombia, where state-sponsored paramilitary groups have ranged freely?

    I think it’s a safe bet that a lot of us are opposed to such things – even those of us who you think are ‘socialists.” Good thing those things mostly doesn’t exist around here – except perhaps in occasional military/police actions against citizen protesters.

    September 29, 2009
  1261. David Henson said:

    Patrick, I am talking about our system and what will happen when a million or so people do not comply with purchasing health insurance (assuming such an idiotic law is passed). The government then fines them $1,000s each and starts stripping licenses or what ever they decide to force compliance. Then someone gets pulled over and a confrontation ensues and they are gunned down by police. Or conversely someone gets so frustrated they commit suicide or kill someone. This will happen absolutely as a result of these laws. This is clear from a macro view also – as the US becomes more violent and aggressive as each year new social conformity laws are passed. To deny this is to be a fool, to accept it as a cost of large scale conformity is to be a socialist or a communist. To hate these laws and see them as antithetical to everything the America once stood for is to be a libertarian.

    September 29, 2009
  1262. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    That’s a lot of speculation you have there. Again, you throw out words like “socialist” and “communist” in ways that have little relationship to what those words actually mean.

    On a more factual line of thought, perhaps you could cite actual crime statistics (including a timeline of ‘social conformity laws’) to support your assertion that:

    the US becomes more violent and aggressive as each year new social conformity laws are passed.

    A very quick ‘google’ seems to refute your assertion, and finds the following facts – complete with easy-to-read graphs:

    “Violent crime rates have been generally stable since 2004 at their lowest levels after declining from 1984-2002.”

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

    “Since 1994, violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2005”

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

    (Much more detail available on the linked sites.)

    September 29, 2009
  1263. David Henson said:

    Patrick, I know one social conformity law enforcement lead to the largest single incident of multiple murder in MN history right hear in Rice County.

    Compare 2000 to 1900 (or 1950) and I you will see a radical uptick in violence (esp police violence against citizens). You would probably also note several million more people are locked up in prison today than at that time – such a large number of minorities as to appear as a modern day slavery.

    September 29, 2009
  1264. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Ah, slavery again. Of course.

    I note that you’ve also shifted your position from “the US becomes more violent and aggressive as each year new social conformity laws are passed” to “I know one social conformity law enforcement lead to the largest single incident of multiple murder in MN history right hear in Rice County.”

    Your one incident (whatever its particulars, and I have no idea what you’re alluding to) taken alone, cannot be said to prove anything about overall societal trends.

    Could you perhaps find any statistical evidence that supports your assertions about crime rates over the last two centuries?

    September 29, 2009
  1265. David Henson said:

    Patrick, this is a matter of definitions. How many people can be imprisoned in a country before you would concede that they are enslaved? 100,000, a million, two million or ? (of course, you do not answer these types of questions when asked)

    I did not shift anything but your time reference so you could go back prior to the “nanny state.”

    The nanny state at work:
    “Police detail grisly deaths before fire Father suspected of slaying 5 at farmhouse, officials say; [METRO Edition]
    Richard Meryhew, Pat Doyle, Staff Writers. Star Tribune. Minneapolis, Minn.: Dec 11, 1999. pg. 01.A

    Abstract (Summary)
    [Richard] Cook said authorities believe Rivas’ prospect of three months in jail for failure to pay child support triggered the murder-suicide.”

    September 29, 2009
  1266. Peter Millin said:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/europe/29socialism.html

    Germany had elections last week. For the longest time the SPD was the ruling partie. Finally after years of failed socialist promises the Germans got sick of the experiment.
    This particular election just confirms a trend in Europe.

    September 29, 2009
  1267. Patrick Enders said:

    David, you wrote:

    How many people can be imprisoned in a country before you would concede that they are enslaved? 100,000, a million, two million or ? (of course, you do not answer these types of questions when asked)

    Imprisonment for violation of a crime does not equal slavery, so I do not necessarily think that there is any particular number at which imprisonment would necessarily equal slavery.

    It would, however, at some point become increasingly a police state.

    Here’s a working definition of slavery:

    Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages).

    A subset of people who are imprisoned could be considered slaves only if they meet that definition. If there is a prison in which those requirements are met, then that might be slavery.

    Note that slavery does still exist:

    Although outlawed in nearly all countries, forms of slavery still exist.[2][3] Several estimates of the number of slaves in the world have been provided. According to a broad definition of slavery used by Kevin Bales of Free the Slaves (FTS), an advocacy group linked with Anti-Slavery International, there were 27 million people in slavery in 1999, spread all over the world.[103] In 2005, the International Labour Organisation provided an estimate of 12.3 million forced labourers in the world,[104]. Siddharth Kara has provided an estimate of 28.4 million slaves at the end of 2006 divided into the following three categories: bonded labour/debt bondage (18.1 million), forced labour (7.6 million), and trafficked slaves (2.7 million).[97] Kara provides a dynamic model to calculate the number of slaves in the world each year, with an estimated 29.2 million at the end of 2009. The weighted average global sales price of a slave is calculated to be approximately $340, with a high of $1,895 for the average trafficked sex slave, and a low of $40 to $50 for debt bondage slaves in part of Asia and Africa.[97]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Current_situation

    September 29, 2009
  1268. Guy Lawrence said:

    Patrick – Once as a tot, I was asking my father (a State Trooper, now retired) about why some things that were trivial were illegal. His response, to generate revenue for the state. I then asked, what would happen if everyone suddenly complied with the law, and the state had no one to give tickets to? His reply, they would keep making things illegal until they had generated the revenue they needed to function.

    While taken at face value, this seems ridiculous. Once you give it some thought, this is exactly what is going on today. First seat belts, then more seat belts, then car seats, then more car seats, next cell phones (14 states already have the use of them illegal while driving) – all increasingly oppressive rules designed to generate revenue for the state, so they can pass more laws to generate more revenue . . . For a non, banana republic example, take a look at Singapore, a industrialized socialist city-state. It’s illegal to spit on the sidewalk there (disgusting yes, but not illegal here yet). But I digress.

    David’s example is not far off. If the state continues to push the American people, people are going to get hurt. I too want to know, how many US citizens have to be unlawfully imprisoned before it becomes unacceptable?

    September 29, 2009
  1269. Patrick Enders said:

    Guy,
    We’re talking two different issues, and I think to some extent we agree on your current point. I think that we are already past the point where there are far too many persons in prison for non-serious crimes. (Note that I don’t agree with your blanket opposition to safety laws. However, I would agree that the punishments must be proportionately small for small violations, and certainly imprisonment for failure to wear a seatbelt would be deeply wrong.)

    My disagreement with David Henson was over his free use of the term ‘slavery.’ Excess imprisonment is not, by definition, slavery. It’s a whole different problem in its own right, and conflating the two does not help address either of them.

    September 29, 2009
  1270. David Henson said:

    Patrick, you argument over definitions is not with me, it is with Merriam Webster:

    (Slave)
    “1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
    2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence”

    I think forcing people to buy insurance certainly moves the citizen-state relationship in the direction of number 2. In fact, you have to view people to a degree as chattel of the state to find any logic for forcing compliance. I think your friend Paul Z refers to it in even more materialistic terms as “our having an interest.”

    September 29, 2009
  1271. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    That’s a very slippery slope that leads you from Mirriam-Webster to your conclusion.

    September 29, 2009
  1272. David Henson said:

    Patrick, are you saying that 1. forcing people to buy insurance is not making them more “subservient to a dominating influence (the state)” or that 2. you believe society reducing individual liberty is justified?

    September 29, 2009
  1273. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    There is a very big difference between “more” and “completely.”

    I am more subservient to Ken Bank than I am to you. I am not enslaved by Ken Bank.

    September 29, 2009
  1274. Paul Zorn said:

    David,

    In ref to 953.9: I’m not sure what you’re getting at in quoting me about the the state “having an interest”. But a society *does* have a legitimate interest, partly economic and partly moral, in promoting good health among its members, and adequate care for those who fall ill.

    Whether this interest justifies any particular policy, such as compulsory health insurance, is a legitimate question. One consideration is how to balance other legitimate societal interests, such as privacy and autonomy for individuals. Your view appears to be that privacy and autonomy trump almost everything else.

    That view may be defensible, but it certainly requires defense — not rhetorical overkill about slavery, violence, idiocy, socialism, communism, slippery slopes, etc.

    What I find missing in this line of thinking is any reasonable sense of scale or proportion. For instance, I suppose one could say that requiring people to buy insurance moves in the direction of demanding “complete subservience to a dominating influence”. So does requiring that library books be returned on schedule, or that we drive on the right side of the road.

    But these are all far cries from actually *arriving* at anything like “complete subservience” to any dominator, or dominatrix. We can and will disagree on how dangerous to liberty any requirement for compliance may be, and on whether some cost to absolute autonomy may sometimes be a price worth paying. That’s what might make this discussion interesting. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

    September 29, 2009
  1275. Guy Lawrence said:

    Patrick – I see a couple of problems with this line of thinking.

    (1) As a born and bred backwoods hillbilly, I (and apparently David) are not allowed full use of the English language to make my/our point. For instance, you and William took David to task when he made a reference to slaves/slavery. I would feel your position would be justified if you, your wife, or another family member were actually slaves, or were harmed by slavery. But I find that position very difficult to believe since slavery was abolished in this country ~150 years ago, long before anyone currently alive could have incurred actual damages (and I can’t resist – no amount of ObamaCare is going to make someone live that long). I’m sorry, I don’t buy the political correctness argument either, that we can’t use words in common usage in a civil discussion because we might offend someone. Perhaps we all need to toughen up a bit.

    (2) The idea that any tax is “mildly burdensome” is difficult to swallow. I saw an article recently that showed that given the current rate of growth of the government spending, that the amount of money to simply service that debt would exceed the national GDP sometime over the next 30 years. However, since I can’t find that one, I do have a similar figures for France: Today, France generates 44% of it’s GDP via taxes. Funding all of the social programs (free health care, free education, etc) takes 66% of their GDP currently. Without change, it will take 80% of their GDP in 2010, and 100% of their GDP in 2014. What happens then? What will happen to the US when we attempt to fund this monstrosity of a health care bill? Some estimates are a tax rate upwards of 80% to fund everything (Obamacare, Cap & Trade). So no, I don’t buy the argument that the tax will be mildly burdensome.

    Perhaps indentured servitude is more descriptive of what we’re headed for, but that would imply that we could work our way out of it – and I’m sure that won’t be allowed.

    September 29, 2009
  1276. William Siemers said:

    Guy…
    Interesting that your post finishes with a prediction of violence against ‘the state’. Not necessarily by you, I understand, but more of a broad, unspecific, prediction nevertheless. And while it can’t be said that you condone such action, I read it that you think such action is an understandable outcome of the enforcement of laws with which you do not agree.

    David…
    In the incident referenced, you seem to blame the ‘nanny state’, rather than the person who murdered his family for the tragic consequences of his act. Or at least that his guilt is mitigated by the fact that he faced jail for violation of a law with which you do not agree. In an earlier post you predict that a citizen will get so ‘frustrated’ that they ‘kill someone’ because they have to buy health insurance.

    Ok…so you both are willing to make arguments that use the threat of violence as reason to oppose laws passed, or under consideration, by our elected representatives. This to me seems to be real violence and coercion (“people are going to get hurt”), as opposed to your use of those terms to describe the use of law to give a ticket for not wearing a seat belt. This seems to say…’embrace my concept of freedom or your life is at risk’. Could you explain how that is not coercive?

    September 30, 2009
  1277. David Henson said:

    Guy don’t be intimidated by William accusing you (and I) of supporting violence. A favorite trick of liberals on this site is to misconstrue statements or attack specific vocabulary rather than debate straight up because their positions become too difficult to defend.

    William, the fact in the Rivas case is one can draw a direct line (in fact one almost cannot draw anything but a straight line) from policies that were to “protect children” to an outcome of dead children. What shocks me is the absolute unwillingness to discuss this publicly and admit the failure of these policies. If we as a society are to continue to relinquish more and more liberty to the state then let’s at least codify outcomes and a means to undo bureaucracy when those outcomes fail (as in the above case). Otherwise we get an ever growing and ever less effective governmental structure.

    September 30, 2009
  1278. Patrick Enders said:

    William,
    Vague threats of violence towards the government (“not by me, but by others”) seems to be becoming a bit of a theme in conservative circles:

    Washington Monthly: INCITEMENT RHETORIC GETS EVEN MORE DANGEROUS….

    Just eight months into a Democratic administration, Newsmax is running a piece speculating about a military overthrow of the elected leadership of the United States government. Seriously.

    Newsmax columnist John L. Perry encourages his right-wing readers not to “dismiss” the notion of an American military coup as “unrealistic.”…

    Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

    Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

    In April, a common Republican talking point was the notion that Democrats were creating some kind of “banana republic.” In retrospect, the irony is rich.

    September 30, 2009
  1279. David Henson said:

    Patrick, let me make sure I am clear: are people who do not support a socialist agenda* a) racist or b) violent or c) violent racists ?

    *I have heard objections to the term “socialists” by posters here but I am not sure what term would be acceptable – just let me know.

    September 30, 2009
  1280. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    Thanks for the link, Patrick. Healthcare reform seems to be the issue driving much of this inclination to violence. Note the Facebook poll (now removed) asking respondents “Should Obama be killed?”

    Choices:
    No, Maybe, Yes and Yes if he cuts my healthcare.

    The usual suspects, Rush Limbaugh and Ken Beck, are out in front with this type of thing, but I wonder wonder who is driving it behind the scenes. Karl Rove? That guy will be speaking at St. Olaf in coming days. Anyone have time & place?

    I am very disappointed that neither amendment (Rockefeller or Schumer) passed in the Senate Finance Committee yesterday, but glad they tried. It is critical that we get that public option. Seems to me even Ken Bank agrees.

    September 30, 2009
  1281. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Aside from throwing around a lot of inflammatory words, I don’t see the point of your last message.

    September 30, 2009
  1282. William Siemers said:

    David…I don’t think I misconstrued anything. You both virtually promised violence if laws you opposed were passed. That certainly seems to be a coercive political strategy. You have not explained otherwise.

    Just for the record…One mad man’s execution of his family does not prove that child support laws are a failure.

    September 30, 2009
  1283. Patrick Enders said:

    Stephanie,
    There will be several more opportunities to include a public insurance option in the Senate Bill before it is finally voted on. This choice – which will only of any use to anyone if it turns out that the government can in fact offer quality insurance for less than private companies can – may yet be an option for those of us who are interested in taking it.

    September 30, 2009
  1284. Stephanie Henriksen said:

    Karl Rove is at St. Olaf TOMORROW Thursday, Oct. 1, 7 pm at Skoglund Center Auditorium. Doors open at 6:30 and I imagine there will be a line to get in. St. Olaf website gives full details. There will be a question and answer segment.

    September 30, 2009
  1285. David Henson said:

    William, that’s it in a nutshell, when the health policies fail (which they will) then you will have some excuse that it is not the fault of a redistributive policies but just a sign that we need more government.

    The statement that violence is a proven side effect of the policies is the same as to “promise violence.” Either you are dumb (in which case we should not bother with discussing) or you are intentionally falsely accusing people of threatening violence because they do not agree with you – in which case you should either apologize or reexamine your values.

    September 30, 2009
  1286. David Henson said:

    make that “‘not’ the same as”

    September 30, 2009
  1287. William Siemers said:

    I understand this aspect of your argument: In order to avoid violence, do not pass health care reform. Whether it is your promise, or your prediction, it rests on the threat of violence. Bringing that threat, or prediction, into the debate adds nothing to civil political discourse except for an element of coercion.

    It is well known that there are unbalanced individuals who will use any reason to rationalize acts of isolated violence. Maybe it’s a bill for child support, maybe it’s a message in a Beatle’s song, maybe it’s because they DON’T have health care. But if you notice, no one is making the argument that we should pass health care reform or else we can expect violence.

    And since such acts are isolated and irrelevant, what is the point of bringing them into the debate except to frighten (coerce) those who don’t agree with you.

    Of course maybe you mean that these incidents of violence will not be isolated acts of deranged individuals. That somehow these acts will become commonplace, or even organized, and then we REALLY better watch out.

    I may be dumb, but I have a pretty good nose for hypocricy. And when you decry your perception of the coercion and threats of violence of the state, and then use the very same tactics to advance your argument, I get a real strong whiff.

    September 30, 2009
  1288. David Henson said:

    William, the state uses violence to enforce mandates, that is the point. It’s not a tacit threat by the state, it is an overt threat. Your attempts to deflect that force to peaceful opponents arguing against this state violence is silly.

    September 30, 2009
  1289. David Henson said:

    The man is guilty of the crime (no doubt) but without the policies the crime would not have occurred. The policies brought about a different outcome than intended. But big intrusive government folks such as yourself oppose removing failed programs. The teachers told reporters they were stunned that Rivas was a great guy and very helpful at school. Sadly, the event was never properly reviewed, but it would appear the government pressure cracked this man. This was not a lone event by a mile, you can see similar events all over the country but in this one the policy impact is crystal clear.

    September 30, 2009
  1290. William Siemers said:

    What’s “silly” is bringing up ‘threats of violence’ and ‘coercion’ in this discussion in the first place.
    And what is even more “silly” is using the very same things to then advance your argument…but enough of that.

    Governments at all levels enforce their mandates. And behind that enforcement is some kind of threat, including the threat of violence. This might include the violence of taking my money for safely driving my car at a speed above the limit set by law, right on up to an offense requiring capital punishment.

    The threats you decry are based on law. Law passed by our elected representatives. Perhaps you would have it otherwise, but for now that’s what we have. If I understand correctly, you object to the growth of such laws and mandates, as well as some currently in place. But what of the laws you agree with? Don’t they also include the ‘overt threat’ of violence? How would property rights, the basis of your version of liberatarianism, be protected without the threat of violence? Will you sue me in civil court when I move into your spare bedroom?

    Look, go ahead and object to any infringement on your ‘freedom’ that government causes now or in the future. But what is the point of continuing to bring up ‘threats of violence’ and ‘coercion’ when such threats are inherent in any law that contains as little as a $10.00 fine.

    October 1, 2009
  1291. David Henson said:

    My understanding of the health bill’s fine is not $10.00 but in excess of $1000.00 (I’m not sure if that is annual or how the government intends to collect). The key is to hold all societal areas of forced coercion to a minimum unless absolutely no other way exists – the current health care bills are unneeded expansions.

    October 1, 2009
  1292. Guy Lawrence said:

    William – I can see how you could draw that from my post, but please be assured, the last thing I want is to dictate to folks how they should live their life. In return I would like the same respect. This country was built on some fundamental ideals, among these self reliance. I paid for my college in order to provide a better life for myself and my family. One of the benefits that I work for is my health insurance, it is factored into the compensation package that my employer offers me for my services. Why should I be required to pay a tax to subsidize the health insurance of a deadbeat (something I am required to do today, just not overtly)? The Constitution does not grant the Federal government the right to mandate that we, the people, purchase any item. Thus this mandate, should it come to pass, would be unconstitutional, and thereby illegal. At some point the illegalities will mount to the point that it is incumbent upon any free man to throw off that mantle of tyranny, and that, my friend, is when people will get hurt.

    I’ve been in a war zone, and the last thing I want to see is that horror visited on American soil. I believe that that very sentiment is encouraging the left wing to push for the removal of our freedoms. That they believe that the conservative portion of our citizenry, the portion that stands up for our individual freedoms, will go along rather than see another revolution in the streets of America. I see it slightly differently, I see that if we continue to go along, and sacrifice our individual liberties for the sake of tranquil relations with those who do not believe as we do, it won’t be America any longer.

    I seem to be waxing poetic, but I will leave you with a quote from the greatest president in the 20th century:

    “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

    Ronald Reagan
    40th president of US (1911 – 2004)

    October 1, 2009
  1293. Guy Lawrence said:

    William – Please read 957.7

    In response to 962: As this country slides further and further towards a socialist tyranny the State will continue to take away essential freedoms that we take for granted today. If we don’t learn from the past (in this case, not our past, but the past of communism/socialism/totalitarianism) the we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past. Let’s take the German Nazi party as an example (Peter, please feel free to correct me if I’m off base), the Nazi party started out as the Socialist Workers party and the implementation of their ideals led to what – violence.

    Perhaps the Nazi’s were just misguided, lets try another. Obama surrounded himself with Marxists in college (from his own book), and is doing the same today. Karl Marx advocated the use of violence to bring about true social change. Vladimir Lenin was also a Marxist, his history is violent and bloody. His successor, Uncle Joe Stalin, his history is worse.

    I could go on all night with examples of where this country is being taken that have failed. Each one of them is bathed in a blanket of blood, and for the most part it is blood of the people (usually a disarmed people) by the State. The reference to violence is not a coercive threat, but a lesson that is staring us in our faces. All we have to do is look at it and understand it. Whether it is a group of concerned citizens refusing to pay oppressive taxes, then meeting the taxman at the end of the driveway with a gun (Waco, Ruby Ridge) or an oppressive regime running down peaceful protesters in a city square with tanks, it results in the same thing – people getting hurt.

    October 2, 2009
  1294. Guy Lawrence said:

    WRT fines, the numbers I’ve seen are in the range of $3000 – $3400 per person. One portion of the original bill was empowering IRS to collect the information and fines.

    What I find most disconcerting about this whole thing is that it’s not uncommon for the IRS to lose a laptop with taxpayer info on them. So now the plan is to give all of our health care information to the IRS to manage, that makes me feel secure.

    One final thing, we all know how the IRS collects it’s money. They levy your house, garnish your wages, and in general take first and ask questions later.

    October 2, 2009
  1295. Patrick Enders said:

    Guy, you wrote:

    socialist… tyranny.,.  communism/socialism/totalitarianism…  Nazi… Socialist Workers party… violence… Nazi’s… Marxists… Karl Marx… violence… Vladimir Lenin… Marxist… violent and bloody… Uncle Joe Stalin… bathed in a blanket of blood… blood of the people… violence… oppressive taxes… meeting the taxman at the end of the driveway with a gun…Waco, Ruby Ridge… 

    And, to finish off:

    an oppressive regime running down peaceful protesters in a city square with tanks

    Wow.  You’ve pretty much nailed ’em all there, huh?

    BTW, you left out ACORN.  

    October 2, 2009
  1296. Anthony Pierre said:

    looks like guy loves fox news to no end

    October 2, 2009
  1297. Paul Zorn said:

    Guy:

    In 957.7 you say that the Constitution doesn’t allow the feds to mandate any purchase, and conclude that requiring people to purchase health care is therefore unconstitutional, illegal, etc. Such “illegality”, you fear, might help drive patriotic citizens beyond some breaking point, with hell to pay.

    I have no comment on the legal substance of this constitional argument. But — if you’re right — wouldn’t the first step be to seek redress in the courts? If indeed such a requirement were so obviously unconstitutional, wouldn’t this be clear to the courts? The Supremes, for instance, are not exactly a cabal of Marxists.

    Speaking of Marxists, you say that “Obama surrounded himself with Marxists in college … and is doing the same today.” Could you mention some of the Marxists Obama is now “surrounded” by?

    October 2, 2009
  1298. Guy Lawrence said:

    Food for thought:

    You can try to control the media ->
    http://www.breitbart.tv/chicagoans-for-rio-not-everyone-in-illinois-wants-the-2016-olympics/

    You can try to control the guns -> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

    But you can’t control the people ->
    http://www.kctv5.com/news/21176602/detail.html

    Paul – I’ll get those names, they’re not hard to find – just look at the ACORN membership list (that one’s for you Patrick :-)). Off to work.

    October 2, 2009
  1299. Patrick Enders said:

    Guy,
    Watch out for the taxman. He’ll probably try to steal some of your wages. 🙂

    October 2, 2009
  1300. William Siemers said:

    Guy…Are you saying that if the people elect representatives who promise to address certain inequalities in society that it is the right of people who oppose such a promise to forceably remove them from government? Correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I read your post(s).

    Just what would be substituted in place of representative democracy? Who would determine the political direction of the country and how would such a determination be accomplished?

    My point rests on the idea that “freedom” has many meanings. You might feel that providing health care to all citizens, at some cost to you, violates your freedom. But I feel that providing such care promotes my freedom, and the freedom of society in general. Your concept of freedom does not trump mine. One could argue that the very idea that it could, violates an underlying principle of almost any concept of freedom: the ability to choose. Anyway, the only way we have to resolve such disputes is through our elected representatives, and if the constitutionality of law they pass is in dispute, through the courts. Isn’t that good enough?

    October 2, 2009
  1301. Guy Lawrence said:

    Today’s payday. So sir, you are indeed correct.

    October 2, 2009
  1302. David Henson said:

    Merriam Webster-Freedom: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

    William, you want to coerce Guy into paying for something you deem increases your freedom? Why not find a way to accomplish your goals without coercion?

    October 2, 2009
  1303. Guy Lawrence said:

    Yes, the first redress should always come from within the system. It’s when the system fails (we are already seeing the balance of power become unbalanced) to the point that it no longer represents a significant portion of the populace, it’s the duty of the citizens to set the system right.

    As for the latest ‘Supreme’, we could argue her politics another day. Here are your Marxists in the Obama cabinet:

    Van Jones, Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. In his relatively recent past Jones was a Marxist revolutionary. From 1992 until 2002, Jones was a member of a radical communist group that was dedicated to “organizing a revolutionary movement in America.” Arrested during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, and briefly sent to jail, Jones met, he said “communists and anarchists,” and decided “ ‘This is what I need to be part of.’” He said that he spent “the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.”

    Mark Lloyd, FCC’s “diversity officer”. He’s a big fan of Venezuela’s socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez. Although Chavez has shot unarmed demonstrators, Lloyd has called socialist Venezuela a model, praised its authoritarian leader’s “incredible revolution” and defended his attacks on independent media.

    Arturo Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary of State (nominated). He has a reputation as a loud defender of Venezuelan dictator Chavez’s terrible record on freedom of the press.

    Carol Browner, Climate Czar. Member of Socialist International’s “Commission for a sustainable world society”.

    Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture. Proposed a Socialist agenda sufficiently early in his campaign that he got knocked out of the running

    I’m sure there’s more, but I figure I’ve set off enough alarms in the DHS/NSA databases as it is.

    October 2, 2009
  1304. William Siemers said:

    David…we have taxes, that’s a given. I’m not going to argue their coercive or voluntary nature. Is there a proposal on the table, that would bring coverage to virtually all Americans without increasing taxes?

    October 2, 2009
  1305. Guy Lawrence said:

    > Your concept of freedom does not trump mine.

    Nor does yours trump mine. There is an old saying that goes “Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.” In this situation I take that to mean, your right to spend money stops at my pocket. You have every right to purchase health care, with your own money, for whatever indigent you can find, and I will not try to stop you.

    I on the other hand have those same rights, plus the right to purchase health care of my choice for my family and not for the indigent sleeping in the town square. Your rights end when they begin to adversely affect myself and my family. This is a fundamental principle of rights in America, and if you don’t understand that then there is no reason to continue this conversation.

    Let’s try another tack . . .

    I don’t understand how you feel that it’s acceptable to take money from my pocket every week and spend it on whatever program you feel is appropriate. If I met you outside your home every payday afternoon and absconded with 35% of your paycheck to use for my own purposes, what would you call it? I would call it theft.

    So in short, what gives you the right to take 10% more of my check and spend it?

    October 2, 2009
  1306. Patrick Enders said:

    Just in from the party that hates America…

    Conservatives Revel In America’s Olympic Defeat

    “Cheers erupt at Weekly Standard world headquarters,” wrote editor John McCormack in a post titled “Chicago Loses! Chicago Loses!”…

    “Please, please let me break this news to you. It’s so sweet,” said Glenn Beck on his radio show…

    “Hahahahaha,” wrote Red State’s Erick Erickson…

    The Drudge Report announced the news like so: “WORLD REJECTS OBAMA: CHICAGO OUT IN FIRST ROUND. THE EGO HAS LANDED.”

    “The worst day of Obama’s presidency, folks. The ego has landed. The world has rejected Obama,” echoed Rush Limbaugh….

    “ChicagP\/\/n3D!” tweeted Newsmax, of recent fame for running, then pulling, a column about an impending military coup against Obama…

    There were one or two sane voices, but was anyone else listening?

    “Note to GOP officials/consultants – resist the temptation to pile on about Chicago losing the Olympic bid just because Obama made the pitch,” [Scott Stanzel] wrote, advice reportedly passed on by Former Mitt Romney spokesman Kevin Madden.

    October 2, 2009
  1307. David Henson said:

    One sad thing in this debate is the confusion between health care and insurance. Americans are not being forced to buy health care they are being forced to buy insurance … they could very well get less or inferior health care as a result. If Guy’s number of over $3000.00 is correct, which seems very high, then one has to wonder if this is not just away to rob the American people to refill the coffers of financial institutions.

    October 2, 2009
  1308. David Henson said:

    Patrick, you are right, we should all be sad the Chicago will not have an empty bird’s nest like China.

    October 2, 2009
  1309. john george said:

    William- Your question “Is there a proposal on the table, that would bring coverage to virtually all Americans without increasing taxes?” is a good one. If I remember the president correctly, he said he did not want to add to the deficit. I think the discussion here has revolved around this concept that not increasing the deficit would necessitate raising taxes and how much that would be? That is the question for which we need the answer.

    October 2, 2009
  1310. Paul Zorn said:

    Guy:

    In 964.1 you say: “It’s when the system fails (we are already seeing the balance of power become unbalanced) to the point that it no longer represents a significant portion of the populace, it’s the duty of the citizens to set the system right.”

    I want to be clear on your point here. Are the citizens supposed to set things right if *any* significant portion of the populace feels unrepresented? Or is this supposed to happen when the “system” represents *no* significant portion of the populace? I’m not splitting hairs — the difference is crucial.

    Your list of “Marxists in the Obama cabinet” also raises some questions. Least important, have you checked how many of these are actually “in the Obama cabinet”? More important, how many are actually Marxists? (Van Jones might qualify, or formerly have qualified, but he was never in the Cabinet.) Are “socialist” and “Marxist” the same thing? Does having said nice things about a socialist make you one?

    Since you appear to use non-standard definitions of both “Marxist” and “cabinet”, I’d say the case has not been made.

    October 2, 2009
  1311. William Siemers said:

    Patrick…Very good point. These pundits and quite a few GOP leaders want the unemployment numbers to grow, they want continuing frustration with the health care system, they would love to see the markets give back the gains of the last six months. And they are gleeful when America loses an Olympic bid. They hate Obama and love their wealth and privilege much more than they care for ordinary Americans.

    As to this recent ‘failure’. I think the point is that Obama knew the odds going in. They had a good idea of how every member of the olympic committee would vote before they left. And yet he went anyway. To try to overcome the odds. Such a trip was not politically expedient. It certainly could be considered ill timed, given the recent lack of success by the administration. And still he gives it a shot…for a city and a country he loves and represents.

    October 3, 2009
  1312. john george said:

    William- This comment of yours, “They hate Obama and love their wealth and privilege much more than they care for ordinary Americans.” could have been written this way toward the Bush administration: “They hate Bush and love their entitlements much more than they care for ordinary Americans.” The Dems really felt they were robbed of the election in 2000, and the bitter vitriol was barely covered by a surface venier during Bush’s whole term. In fact, it is still spilled quite freely, even on this blog. I think these types of sweeping characterisations of adherents to a particular ideology are neither constructive nor do anything to address the problems we are facing here in the USA.

    October 3, 2009
  1313. Guy Lawrence said:

    Hosting the Olympics is a short term solution to a long term problem. We have a real economic problem in this country that short term projects and increased government regulation are not going to cure. A short term project, like constructing an Olympic facility will do nothing except give folks a false sense of security by making the employment numbers look better. This makes me think of some of FDR’s depression era programs. Olympic facilities require government spending to get built. Where is that money coming from? Oh, yeah, from me. Please see post for 966.2 – I have the same question here.

    The IOC has a long history as a corrupt body. This decision is simply a reflection of the Obama administrations inability to offer up big enough bribes, which may be the silver lining. But I wouldn’t expect anything less from the the man who gave the Queen of England an iPod filled with his speeches.

    And yes, I smiled when the results were posted, but it’s no uncommon from people on either side of the aisle to dance around the corpse of a slain foe, regardless of their hand in the slaying.

    October 4, 2009
  1314. William Siemers said:

    Guy…

    I do not have the right to ‘take your money’, but I believe government does have that right. It is a right, given by the consent of the people, to promote the public good. It takes your money for any number of purposes to promote that good. One such purpose is to improve the level of economic freedom of those who have the least. One method of promoting that purpose is, and has been, through funds raised by taxation. The constitutionality of such taxation has been upheld on many occasions.

    The definition of the public good, the programs to promote it, and the methods to pay for it, change as the peoples’ values change. The expression of those values is manifested in our electoral process. As you know, democrats won the last election, it should come as no surprise, that they are now attempting to carry out the peoples’ mandate to expand programs that benefit those with the fewest advantages. Doing so does not constitute ‘theft’.

    John G….

    Sorry if I seem vitriolic. I will attempt to calm myself. I guess since the the talking heads who despise Obama are obviously wealthy and priviliged there was no point in my mentioning it.

    Not that I expect you to comment on every unconstructive example of ‘sweeping charicterization’ that does ‘nothing to address the problem’, but how about the allegation that Chicago was not chosen because Obama did not offer big enough bribes????

    October 4, 2009
  1315. David Henson said:

    Of course, Oprah and the Kennedys are so poor

    October 4, 2009
  1316. john george said:

    William- I don’t have a problem with you being passionate about something. I allow you to have your feelings, just as I have mine. Passion is neither right nor wrong, but it is subjective. I just thought your comments were a little out of character from the many reasoned, level-headed comments you post.

    I haven’t heard anything about any “bribes” to the Olympic Committee, but I know that part of the process in securing a site involves incentives. This is just normal, so if someone is calling these “bribes,” I think it is a misnomer. The US has hosted the games a number of times, and, although I do not have any proof of this, I am sure that the committee desires to spread the hosting position around to all the countries involved. I don’t have a problem with them going to Brazil. As far as the President taking an extra trip to influence that decision, I really don’t have a problem with that, either, although it appears that many do have a problem. Nothing invested, nothing gained, so at least he tried.

    As far as your assesment of taxation, I think you are making a good point. The colonian revolution was not against taxes, but rather, taxation without representation. I think we have a good pattern for being represented in our government system. I may not agree with all the laws and regulations enacted, but I do have the freedom to vote for representation. I also have the freedom to communicate with those that represent my district and state. Not every country has that. I think there is a perspective that we Americans have lost as we have entered the age of instant communications. Governance still takes time. Just because I can communcate something instantly does not mean I will see any effect immediately. The process works, and I think we need to allow it to function.

    October 4, 2009
  1317. john george said:

    Guy- I think you hit upon a good observation in your post 971.2, in that most government projects last only as long as there is government(read: tax) infusion into the economy. I do not remember a government program that has translated into an economic base for the country. There may be something out there, but I am not aware of it. The latest example is the Cash for Clunkers program. As long as the $3 billion held out, the auto dealers were swamped with customers. As soon as the artificial influx of money was spent, there has not been a sustained trend of purchasing new autos. The other effect is that good used autos, albeit maybe not as fuel efficient, were removed from the market. This has left a very small selection of these types of vehicles for that segment of the market that cannot afford payments, licenses or insurance on a new auto. I wonder if anyone thought about this effect before they initiated the program?

    October 4, 2009
  1318. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    I’m not crazy about the Cash for Clunkers program (a neighbor, who has a spiffy new Prius, is probably happier with it), or about the long-term economic uplift potential of hosting an Olympic Games. (There may be other reasons to do such things, of course.)

    But I’m puzzled that you “do not remember a government program that has translated into an economic base for the country.”

    How about Hoover Dam? The TVA? The rural electrification program? The interstate highway system? The National Park Service? The US Forest Service? The National Science Foundation? The National Institutes of Health? The USDA? The Army Corps of Engineers? The FAA?

    One could say good and bad (very bad, in some cases) things about many of these “government programs”, but can one deny their contribution to our “economic base”?

    October 5, 2009
  1319. Anthony Pierre said:

    america first, eh guy?

    October 5, 2009
  1320. Guy Lawrence said:

    William – Sorry to be so long in replying. I’m looking up the exact verbiage, but it goes something like this.

    I respectfully disagree that “Doing so does not constitute ‘theft’.” To be properly accurate the proper noun is ‘extortion’ not theft, but the intent is still the same. The definition of ‘extort’ (as in ‘to extort’) from Merriam-Webster.com: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power. This last piece is the key.

    The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states (I’ll paraphrase): Everything that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution is decided by the States. The Constitution gives the Federal government (and this is what I’m looking for verbiage on) jurisdiction over 4 items: (1) defense of the United States, (2) maintenance of inter-state trade (largely construed as maintaining a working road system) – note this is trade between the states, not within the states; (3) & (4) I just can’t remember, but it is not maintaining a welfare state; making POTUS the CEO of GM; privatizing the banks; HUD; FEMA; Cash for Clunkers; etc.

    The Federal government has the right to levy taxes (section 8 of the original Constitution & 16th amendment) for these items only. Other spending programs, and the taxes levied to support such are unconstitutional and thereby illegal. Many of the taxes we pay today are unconstitutional, however, in this age of big government, this is the world we live in. At this point, I do not think it is possible for the Federal government to ever return to a position where they were not extorting taxes from the people it purports to serve, I would settle for 0 growth in government spending as a good faith start.

    Now the State (Minnesota) has the right to tax me for whatever they want (and they do), and I have the right to move to another state.

    October 5, 2009
  1321. Guy Lawrence said:

    John – You’re right on the money. What the left continues to forget is that for every dollar of government spending on a given program, at least 2 dollars is collected (I went looking for the exact numbers here too, and could not find them). So, if we siphon 2x dollars out of the economy and build a set of facilities in Chicago that will never be completely utilized again, we will cause more harm than good. The fact that Obama comes from Chicago, smacks even worse of cronyism.

    If Chicago (or any city) wants the Olympics, let them do it without Federal money. If having the Olympics is such a good deal, why aren’t the private companies lining up to build the facilities? (same argument can be made for a Vikings stadium too).

    The long and short of it is that if the Olympics were to come to Chicago, Chicago would experience an economic surge of hiring and building over the next 7 years (nothing like taking care of the home town crowd, huh?). After which, the economy would correct itself and unless Chicago can find a use for those facilities, they will experience bounce back – similar to what was seen by the auto dealers after Cash for Clunkers.

    Overall, we’re better off without them until the economy is in better shape.

    October 5, 2009
  1322. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Of all the things you listed above, which of these have produced products or revenue without a continuing influx of tax dollars? Which of these projects/services are now profit producing private enterprises? Infrastructure is not an economic base. It provides services for the economic base. I just returned from a trip to the UP, and coming across Wisconsin, I encountered rest stop after rest stop that had been closed. Were they no longer profitable? My point is that government programs/projects do not produce wealth. They redistribute it. Do the services have value? Yes. It is hard to get around if there were no roads or railroads or airports. Our homes would be pretty dark without electricity, and this blog would be worthless without it. But none of these public utilities produce any wealth. They must be supported by taxing the private sector.

    October 5, 2009
  1323. Paul Zorn said:

    John,

    True, government services are — by definition, not by any blameworthy fault — not “profit-producing private” enterprises. If they were private enterprises, they wouldn’t be government … can’t blame them for that.

    Many of the examples I cited are indeed related to infrastructure. But I’m baffled by (or perhaps just don’t undertand the syntax of) your assertion that infrastructure is “not an economic base”. As you remark, a lot of economic activity depends fundamentally on the built and human infrastructure, and so this infrastructure does indeed produce wealth, not just “redistribute it” — as your own examples illustrate.

    Nor do I get your point about closed rest stops in Wisconsin, or its relevance to this discussion. Rest stops, like street lights and streets themselves, are part of the infrastructure that helps us all build wealth.

    Reasonable people might differ about how many rest stops there should be, and how lavishly built. (I confess to being a big government spender on rest stops — the one about 30 miles southeast of Rochester along Hwy 90, heading toward Lacrosse, makes me proud to be a Minnesotan.) But to require that rest stops should be profitable as businesses makes no more sense to me than requiring each lamp post and park bench in Northfield to turn a profit.

    October 5, 2009
  1324. David Henson said:

    John, a bridge has no economic value unless people and goods want to use the bridge for commerce. This is why the stimulus bill is failing in a big way … they should stop right now and divide the rest of the funds out as debit tax gift cards for every American – a decentralized approach would rush the funds where they are actually needed and if such requires a bridge, one can be sure that it will get built.

    October 6, 2009
  1325. David Henson said:

    I meant above in reply to Paul

    October 6, 2009
  1326. Guy Lawrence said:

    Here’s a hard number on the Olympics. When Vancouver held the Olympics, it’s reported that they lost $1 Billion dollars (even in Canadian, it’s not chump change). Let Rio have the Olympics, at least they’ll get 2 good uses out of the soccer stadium.

    October 6, 2009
  1327. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Perhaps we are defining “economic base” differently. I would consider Malto-Meal part of Northfield’s economic base, in that it actually produces a product, sells it and pays its employees. It does not require any influx of taxes, but rather, adds to the tax base of the community. Shecler Park provides a recreational service to the community, but it requires an influx of taxes to do so. It is not self supporting and is a drain on the tax base rather than adding to it. See the difference? Perhaps it is just semantics. Both are necessary for society to function, but when government dicides to get into the private industry sector, it drains taxes away from other sources to do so. I therefore consider government buy-outs as artificial and not sustained growth.

    October 6, 2009
  1328. Anthony Pierre said:

    certain conservatives hate obama more than they love the USA

    October 6, 2009
  1329. Paul Zorn said:

    Guy:

    There’s no need to “paraphrase” the 10th Amendment. It’s easy to look up anywhere.

    Try Wikipedia, for instance, where it’s also remarked that “The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment “added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified.”

    I don’t Wikipedia as an infallible source of anything, but W’s point (and that of the 1931 Supremes) seems sensible to me: The amendment says, essentially, that the feds have only the powers the feds have.

    Concerning the four federal powers the Constituion supposedly delimits: You couldn’t remember two of them, so one can’t be sure, but perhaps you’re thinking of the so-called “enumerated powers” mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. (Again, it’s easy to look up.) There are about 20 of these in the Constitution, many of which have little or nothing to do with taxation.

    Here’s one that does have to do with taxation: … to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States … .

    I’m no constitutional scholar, but the term “general welfare” sounds more expansive to me than four tightly delimited areas would suggest. In any event, the main practical issue is not really my amateur constitutional scholarship against yours. The real issue is with how the Supreme Court has actually interpreted these parts of the Constitution over the years, and how it might reason in the future.

    You may be sincerely convinced of your views’ merits, and it’s certainly your right to advocate for them. But you have your work cut out for you — the Supremes haven’t sung this tune for a long, long time.

    October 6, 2009
  1330. Paul,

    Don’t look for a logical response. This thread has devolved far past your commentary based on such things as what the Constitution actually says.

    How dare you quote the Constitution and how the Supreme Court has interpreted it!

    Don’t you know you could simply paraphrase and guess at what you think are the powers of the federal government?

    You’re such a bastard for supporting your argument about the Constitution with the actual document!

    October 6, 2009
  1331. David Henson said:

    “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State”

    90% of crimes in the US do not go before a jury.

    Maybe it is time for a constitutional convention to define government’s role.
    ———————————-
    There was great debate about limiting taxation to 4% at the original constitutional convention but the objection was government would just jump the tax to 4% right away.

    October 6, 2009
  1332. David Henson said:

    “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime” (13th amendment)

    Imprisonment is in fact slavery by legal definition which was disputed in a prior post. So the USA now has over 2 million people enslaved far more than any other nation on earth.

    I would argue that we are all in involuntary servitude to the state given the levels of takings.

    October 6, 2009
  1333. john george said:

    Brendon- Re. your comments in 972.5, there has been two camps of thought since the inception of our nation between populists and powerful central government that I’m not sure either camp has definitive language in the Constitution to eliminate the other. IMO, the framers of the constitution recognized this and deliberately framed the document to force us to get along. As is usually the case in a disagreement, when one party runs out of arguments to support their convictions, the discussion disentigrates into name calling and subjective accusation. In this day and age of instant communcations, this process happens quite quickly.

    David H.- your comment, “I would argue that we are all in involuntary servitude to the state given the levels of takings,” is perhaps a matter of definition. Can “involuntary servitude” be defined as commitment? I could choose to not pay my taxes, but there are consequences for my choice. I can look at this as involuntary servitude. I can also recognize that for the country to exist, it must be supported financially. Since most people are inherantly selfish, the ideal that the government could operate on philanthropism is probably unrealistic. So, to establish some sense of equality, taxes are exacted form everyone. How this is done is a source of great debate which has been going on for many years. Our present system seems inequitable. That is why I believe a flat % tax rate with no deductions is most equitable. Everyone carries the same proportion of the burden of the government. I know there is an argument for making allowances for certain income levels and incentives for investments, but IMO, this is where the inequity enters into the equation.

    October 6, 2009
  1334. Guy Lawrence said:

    Paul – You are absolutely correct, I could have looked it up online. However that did not occur to me, I had it in my head to locate my pocket Constitution(which I still have not located). I paraphrased because I was being lazy, I had a hard copy of a portion of the 10th in front of me and I didn’t want to type it in. I apologize for posting a half assed response and will endeavor to do better going forward.

    Paraphrasing aside, the merit of my argument is not diminished. The Federal government does not have the rights it is exercising today. This, IMO, is why the Constitution was penned the way it was. The framers had just fought a war of revolution to be free of an overstepping (yes, this is an understatement) central government. With that fresh in their experiences, they would naturally take steps to control the central government of the new country from going down the same path. I believe the simplest approach is the most correct, read the words and follow their guidance. As I’ve stated before, as the central government reaches further and further into our lives, it will become incumbent upon all free men to resist that encroachment through the use of force if necessary.

    General welfare is not Social welfare. Prior to the New Deal Social Welfare was the purview of the church and other private citizens. It was part of what kept people together as a community, taking care of the deadbeats. Now, it has become an entire way of life (one day I can go into the story from my EMT days where we took an in labor 16y/o mom to the hospital to give birth to the 3rd generation of welfare recipient) with people looking to the great government teat instead of pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and doing something to solve the problem. When social welfare was under community control, deadbeats had to look the community in their eyes and I believe that provided some motivation for the person to become a contributing member of society. Now, all a deadbeat has to do is look in their mailbox to see if the check has arrived, and there is no incentive to become a more productive member of society. This form of peer pressure is now not politically correct, and I think that’s hogwash. But I’ve gone off topic again.

    I am an amateur when it comes to the Constitution also (in fact I dropped Con Law in favor of spending more time in the ComSci lab), so as far as I’m concerned, your argument, however misguided, is just as valid as mine 🙂

    October 6, 2009
  1335. David Henson said:

    John, I am not sure I agree with “Since most people are inherently selfish” but if true I would not put some of them in a position of central control of the rest.

    October 7, 2009
  1336. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    In 974.4 you contrast Malt-o-Meal, which “actually produces a product, sells it, and pays its employees”, without any “influx” of tax money, to Sechler Park, which does very different things, and therefore requires such an “influx”. Malt-o-Meal, you say, is part of our “economic base”, while Sechler Park is a “drain”.

    Indeed, Malt-o-Meal and Sechler Park are very different types of economic entities, and it would be wrong to confuse the two. Grass-flavored cereal sounds revolting, and softball among the giant cereal machines would be awkward. And I would stoutly oppose any governmental breakfast food (Public-Option-O’s? Federal Flakes?), however tasty.

    Our disagreement is not over such things, but over whether public goods — like Sechler Park and roads and streetlights and libraries and schools and police and libraries and public hospitals and public sculpture and the National Science Foundation and … — are indeed parts of our “economic base”, as I believe, or just “drains”, as you seem to suggest.

    My point is not just that these are nice things to have around, as indeed they are and as you acknowledge, but that they contribute, often quite directly, to our economic prosperity. Without those tax-draining roads, for instance, how could Malt-o-Meal distribute its products?

    It’s fair to ask whether Sechler Park is really needed, whether it’s worth what it costs (whatever that may be), and how much it contributes to the good quality of life that attracts tax-paying people and businesses to Northfield and keeps them here. But let’s not ignore or deny the economic, not just recreational, value of public assets.

    October 7, 2009
  1337. john george said:

    Paul Z. Again, I think we are just defining things differently. My comment about, “Both are necessary for society to function,” is what you are saying also. Perhaps “drain” has wrong overtones for Shecler Park. I was just differentiating between those entities that contribute to taxes and those supported by taxes. As far as your comment about infrastructure, “but that they contribute, often quite directly, to our economic prosperity,” is valid but not measurable with hard figures. Malto-Meal’s gross sales and tax contributions can be illustrated with hard figures. 5th. Street cannot. Also, could you give me an example of an infrastructure that contributes directly to our economic base? What I’m looking for is some $$ poured into the economy. As I understand an “economic base,” it is those entities and their output that constitute the GDP.

    October 7, 2009
  1338. john george said:

    David H.- Don’t look now, but that is exactly what is going on. Why are “special interest” groups so effective in influencing policy decisions? It is called political contributions.

    October 7, 2009
  1339. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, you really need to distinguish between voluntary private economic activity and coerced government economic activity (even if coerced through a democratic process). The private activity is far more powerful and dynamic because nobody is being forced into the choice. The personal computer and the graphical browser created a powerful engine because everyone wanted one and choose to trade their time and labor for them. Does some value come from the coerced activity – sure even the great pyramids have value – but the key is to limit it when ever possible as freedom is its own reward.

    October 7, 2009
  1340. David Henson said:

    John, I think you and I agree in general. I think selfishness comes from power structures (rather than fallen individuals). The power structure we have now leads to the ultimate in selfish behavior. The structure is failing globally and maintaining it requires ever more selfish behavior by those empowered. I am starting to think we focus too much on taxes rather than decentralization of decision making.

    October 7, 2009
  1341. john george said:

    David H.- I agree with the decentralization of decision making. When there are local leaders that you can talk to F2F, there is a much better sense of accountability. When you are one of a few million voters that call or write a representative, IMO, there is little hope of having an effect.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “power structures.” Is this levels of authority/accountability? I view government regulations and agencies as amoral. If they are set up in a way that enables selfishness, then they can be changed through the ammending process. When morally challenged people are in these positions of authority, then there will be problems however they are set up. This is the basic difference between yours and my evaluations.

    October 7, 2009
  1342. Patrick Enders said:

    The truth had to come out some time:

    Obama: Health Care Plan Would Give Seniors Right To Choose How They Are Killed

    October 6, 2009 | Issue 45•41

    WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama held a nationally televised address Tuesday to “clarify any misunderstandings” about his health care proposal, assuring Americans that under the new bill senior citizens—and not the federal government—will have the right to choose how they are executed.
    Enlarge Image Obama

    The president vows to systematically eliminate all American seniors in a manner of their choosing by 2011.

    “Let me dispel these ridiculous rumors once and for all and set the record straight: Under my plan, seniors are going to be killed the way they want to be killed, end of story,” said the president, who acknowledged that “wiping out” the nation’s elderly population has always been his No. 1 priority. “If your grandmother would rather be euthanized in the privacy of her own home than be gutted and hanged on a high school soccer field, she is entitled to that right.”…

    “Folks’ concerns over my plan are all based on bogus claims that we intend to set up death panels to kill off senior citizens,” Obama said. “Well, that is preposterous. A death panel is only one of many ways we can exterminate the elderly. Under my plan, they can be beaten or poisoned to death. They can be murdered by the Marines or the Air National Guard. They can die fast or they can die slow. They can even be drowned in their own bathtubs.”

    Proponents argue a government-based system could liquidate the elderly for much less than insurers currently do.

    “The point is,” Obama continued, “there is a way to die in this plan for everyone.”

    According to the 970-page bill, seniors would have access to more than 600 methods of execution, all of which would be covered by Medicare. The legislation would also allow aging Americans to keep their own primary care physicians if they prefer to be euthanized by their family doctor.

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybqwr87

    October 7, 2009
  1343. David Henson said:

    Patrick, did someone hijack your computer?

    October 7, 2009
  1344. Patrick Enders said:

    …Following the speech, White House sources said they expected full party support for the proposal. However, some far-left-leaning Democrats have openly criticized the president for backing down from his initial policy of death panels, arguing that a system offering multiple execution options completely undermines their ideal of a single, universal senior-killing policy.

    “The president has watered down a perfectly reasonable plan in hopes of placating the opposition,” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said. “Look, we started this health care crusade because we believe that death panels are the very best way to eliminate the senior population, and I, for one, stand firm in that belief.”

    The Republican reaction was even more sternly worded.

    “Seniors!” House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) said. “Run for your lives! Obama is coming to kill you! He will kill all of you!”

    However, many older Americans lauded the president for finally speaking to them like adults on the matter, and said that for the first time in months they felt they weren’t being taken advantage of.

    “It was refreshing to feel like I wasn’t being used as a pawn to settle one political party’s score against another,” 74-year-old Florida resident Rose Benzio told reporters. “I didn’t agree with everything President Obama had to say, but I think there is probably an option in his plan that will suit me. Decapitation sounds interesting.”

    October 7, 2009
  1345. john george said:

    Patrick- I really think this is a dead end subject with grave consequences. That lady from Florida has already lost her head.

    October 7, 2009
  1346. Patrick Enders said:

    In the (not fake) news today:

    Health Care Bill Gets Green Light in Cost Analysis

    By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
    Published: October 7, 2009

    WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee legislation to revamp the health care system would provide coverage to 29 million uninsured Americans but would still pare future federal deficits by slowing the growth of spending on medical care, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

    The much-anticipated cost analysis showed the bill meeting President Obama’s main requirements, including his demand that health legislation not add “one dime to the deficit.” Indeed, the budget office said, the bill would reduce deficits by a total of $81 billion in the decade starting next year.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/health/policy/08health.html?hp

    October 8, 2009
  1347. Guy Lawrence said:

    Also in the news:

    Government Medicine Kills
    Let’s compare America’s system with Canada’s and Great Britain’s.

    By Deroy Murdock

    As the Senate Finance Committee prepares to vote on its Obamacare bill, it would behoove senators to ask themselves why on Earth America should move even one inch closer to the government-driven health-care model that plagues Canadians and Britons. Thankfully, the Finance Committee bill lacks the government option for health insurance that sends liberal salivary glands gushing. Still, the bill is awash in mandates, regulations, subsidies, taxes, and plenty of other potential distortions that help make single-payer medical systems deadly.

    That’s right. Deadly.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhmOGU0MDdhM2Y5YmEyMzVmNjZhZWZiMTA3ZTQyOTA=

    October 8, 2009
  1348. john george said:

    Patrick- Lets hope the figures are correct. Also, I’m hoping we will not abandon the reform if it ends up costing more than what the GBO is estimating. Although, I guess there isn’t really precedence of that. I can’t think of any government program that has been abandoned over the last few decades. Some would argue that that fact is the reason we are in the financial straights that we find ourselves in.

    October 8, 2009
  1349. Patrick Enders said:

    Guy,
    Of course it’s a deadly plan. That is, of course, the Democrat Party’s only goal in crafting this legislation. Barack Obama just said so explicitly, as noted in the article I quoted at #976, above. Here’s a more direct link to that article:

    http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_health_care_plan_would_give

    October 8, 2009
  1350. Patrick Enders said:

    Guy,
    Interestingly, ‘deadly’ intrusion of the government into the health insurance business is supported by a majority of American physicians – the people who would, presumably, be most concerned about maintaining independent decision-making and the autonomy of their patient-provider interactions:

    Overall, a majority of physicians (62.9%) supported public and private options (see Panel A of graph). Only 27.3% supported offering private options only. Respondents — across all demographic subgroups, specialties, practice locations, and practice types — showed majority support (>57.4%) for the inclusion of a public option (see Table 1). Primary care providers were the most likely to support a public option (65.2%); among the other specialty groups, the “other” physicians — those in fields that generally have less regular direct contact with patients, such as radiology, anesthesiology, and nuclear medicine — were the least likely to support a public option, though 57.4% did so. Physicians in every census region showed majority support for a public option, with percentages in favor ranging from 58.9% in the South to 69.7% in the Northeast. Practice owners were less likely than nonowners to support a public option (59.7% vs. 67.1%, P<0.001), but a majority still supported it. Finally, there was also majority support for a public option among AMA members (62.2%).

    http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790

    Perhaps we’re just deluding ourselves. Perhaps we just don’t understand how well the health care system works now, or how much more dangerous health care would be after the government gets into the insurance business. Or perhaps, it is just possible that we are positioned front-and-center, and are day-to-day witnesses of the mess that exists in health insurance (and the lack thereof) today.

    October 8, 2009
  1351. David Henson said:

    “The bill would require people to have insurance but reduced the penalties for those who violate the requirement.”

    Seems amazing that the article does not bother to mention the amount of these penalties.

    October 8, 2009
  1352. Guy Lawrence said:

    Patrick – Actually I’m in agreement that the heath-care system does need reform. We need less regulation, not more on the health insurance companies. We need to lift the restrictions about selling insurance policies across state lines and open up the market completely and allow these companies to compete for our business.

    I understand what you’re seeing, as a former EMT, the abuse of the system by those that received free health-care is one of the reasons I’m a former EMT rather than still current.

    The government has a long track record of making a shambles of whatever business (I figure this is because if they were really good at business, they’d be doing it instead of being civil servants) they go into (Post Office, Amtrack, etc). What in their track record makes people think that this will be any better?

    I would fall in support of the existing plan if the government could do 1 thing, if they could open up a series of clinic (similar to those we have today – Allina, etc) across the country and run them at a break even point, while providing free service to those that do not have health insurance. People who do, like myself, could choose to use or not use the clinic. If the clinic provided better doctors, services, etc than my clinic, I would go there. Call this a scaled down version of what the dems are claiming this new health-care bill is.

    Open the business, run it for 5 years. If they can do it, they’d be in a much better position with the American people.

    October 8, 2009
  1353. Patrick Enders said:

    Guy,
    These are not survey results that say that doctors are just generally in favor of doing “something” about reforming health care. These are survey results that specifically support offering a public health insurance option which would operate side-by-side, in competitions with existing private insurance plans.

    If Congress is in fact able to pass a bill creating such a public insurance option, people will be able to choose between a private insurance plan and a public one – which will be much like your hypothetical proposal about choosing between public and private clinics.

    October 8, 2009
  1354. Guy Lawrence said:

    Patrick – It’s not about what the Dr’s want, it’s about what the people want:

    Most Oppose Obama’s Health Proposal, but Give Low Marks to Republicans

    Voters oppose President Obama’s health care reform plan by 47 percent to 40 percent with 12 percent undecided, but they do support several key elements that are part of the proposal, according to a Quinnipiac University poll conducted Sept. 29-Oct. 5.
    They also trust Obama to do a better job of addressing the issue than congressional Republicans by a 47 percent to 31 percent margin, with 21 percent undecided. Overall, voters have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party by a 53 percent to 25 percent margin with 18 percent undecided, while they view the Democratic Party unfavorably, 46-38, with 13 percent undecided.

    But voters do not want Congress to pass an overhaul bill without bipartisan support. Fifty-seven percent hold that view while 37 percent say Democrats should push a bill through on their own, if necessary. That said, by 59 percent to 29 percent, with 12 percent undecided, they do not believe congressional Republicans are making a good-faith effort to cooperate with Obama and the Democrats.

    Fifty percent support the proposal to require people to have health insurance, compared to 45 percent who do not, with 4 percent undecided. (The margin of error in this poll is 1.9 points.) That’s a turnaround since Quinnipiac asked this question in July and 51 percent opposed the idea and 44 percent supported it.

    Sixty-nine percent support giving people the option of turning to a government health insurance plan that would compete with private insurers, compared to 34 percent who oppose it. That proposal is in the House bills, but a pair of Democratic measures that would create a public option failed in the Senate Finance Committee late last month.

    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/08/most-oppose-obamas-health-proposal-but-give-low-marks-to-repub/

    October 8, 2009
  1355. Patrick Enders said:

    Guy,
    “Most” usually equals 51% or more.

    October 8, 2009
  1356. Guy Lawrence said:

    More freedoms being taken as we stand by:

    States Enact Stronger Quarantine & No Free Assembly Laws

    In some states, like Massachusetts, public health doctors have persuaded legislators to quickly pass pandemic influenza legislation that will allow state officials to enter the homes and businesses without the approval of occupants; to investigate and quarantine individuals without their consent; to require licensed health care providers to give citizens vaccines and to ban the free assembly of citizens in the state23,24.

    Homeland Security, Department of Defense & CDC

    As Department of Homeland Security officials are declaring that any disease outbreak is a matter of homeland security26,27; as Department of Defense officials are defining public demonstrations as “low level terrorism;”28 as CDC officials make plans to re-route airplanes to designated airports with quarantine centers to screen all passengers for signs of swine flu29; and as fast tracked experimental pandemic flu vaccines are being created to be given to American children first, it is time for all of us – whether we are public health officials addressing what we believe is a true public health emergency or whether we are ordinary citizens simply trying to protect our health and the health of our children – to act in rational and responsible ways.

    http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2009/Swine-Flu-Vaccine–Will-We-Have-A-Choice–by-Barba.aspx

    October 8, 2009
  1357. David Henson said:

    The AMA used to big the second largest political contributor in the USA so opinions may be biased. Plus, respectfully, who got us into this mess? What are your qualifications to guard the chicken coop Mr Fox?

    October 8, 2009
  1358. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    In 974.7 you ask that I “distinguish between voluntary private economic activity and coerced government economic activity (even if coerced through a democratic process).”

    Leaving aside your highly idiosyncratic notion of coercion …

    Of course there’s a difference between public and private economic activities — I said, or tried to say, this emphatically in 974.2, 974.5, and elsewhere. This difference is one reason public goods (streetlights, roads, parks … ) shouldn’t be judged by exactly the same benchmarks as, say, Malt-o-Meal. The storm sewer in my neighborhood — which the public (including me) pays to maintain — does not keep books or run a balance sheet, but it’s not necessarily just a drain (thanks for the metaphor, John G) on society. It also helps me and my neighbors and the city control otherwise possibly costly flooding and other damage.

    We agree that public expenditure can, at least sometimes, have at least some economic value. Where we disagree, I think, is on whether public expenditure can ever give good value for money. The pyramids, as you say, may not have been the best buy, but all that Moses/bulrushes/Charlton Heston/ stuff happened around 4600 years ago, and we’ve made progress since then (in some areas, anyway). On the “coercion” front, for instance, those Egyptians had the real thing.

    Sure, some things are done best by the private sector, but hardly all. Seen any private sewer systems lately?

    October 8, 2009
  1359. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I’m surprised at your very progressive analogy. Under libertarian philosophy, wouldn’t the foxes and the chickens be best off if there were no guards?

    Personally, I’m entirely in favor of government oversight of health care, and agree with your analogy that the foxes need watching. One of the many reasons that I am not a member of the AMA is that I’ve never cared for their long history of absolute opposition to anything that might challenge the traditional fee-for-service model of medicine – sometimes to the detriment of providing the best possible health care to the largest number of persons.

    A few quick examples are included in this NPR story:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112345150

    – Patrick
    Sent from my phone.

    October 9, 2009
  1360. Anthony Pierre said:

    U KNOW WHO ELSE DID THIS???? HITLER STALIN AND POL POT!!!!! I THINK THE EMPEROR FROM STAR WARS DID IT 2.

    October 9, 2009
  1361. Patrick Enders said:

    A brief history of quarantine:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/typhoid/quarantine.html

    Every once in a while, a truly deadly illness spreads like wildfire through the population, and there is no effective treatment or cure. The most recent truly horrible pandemic was the ‘Spanish’ Influenza of 1918, which killed at least 50 million people worldwide.

    The 1918 flu pandemic (commonly referred to as the Spanish Flu) was an influenza pandemic that spread to nearly every part of the world. It was caused by an unusually virulent and deadly influenza A virus strain of subtype H1N1… Most of its victims were healthy young adults, in contrast to most influenza outbreaks which predominantly affect juvenile, elderly, or otherwise weakened patients…

    It is estimated that anywhere from 50 to 100 million people were killed worldwide. An estimated 500 million people, one third of the world’s population (approximately 1.6 billion at the time), became infected.

    For those who don’t want to to the math, that is the equivalent of 450-900 people dead in a town the size of Northfield – and that same rate of death taking place across the entire world.

    Mercifully, these kinds of plagues don’t come along very often, and hopefully, we will be able to rapidly produce vaccines and treatments to combat them when they do come along. However, when all else fails, the only option left is quarantine: isolating the infectious in order to protect the uninfected.

    It is good to have laws (and procedures) on the books that can be instituted in the eventuality of another such incurable plague – because someday, we will face one again.

    October 9, 2009
  1362. Patrick Enders said:

    My quote was from Wikipedia’s “Influenza 1918.”

    October 9, 2009
  1363. David Henson said:

    Patrick, clearly medicine is operating with price fixing models as a hybrid monopoly and the consumer is losing. The current plan just locks this in and sends even more money to insurance companies. The big clinics that you state are more efficient than past models of medicine are mainly more efficient at controlling pricing of services. The answer is fee for service and more competition. This can be done now or after the government intervention program fails. As consumers have been moved out of the equation the costs have soared, moving them further out will cause either pricing to soar further or over all service to decline. Moving consumers back into the control loop is the only hope for success.

    October 9, 2009
  1364. David Henson said:

    Paul, I could come over to your house and steal all your money and then use it to create a nice public space for people, but the nice public space does not justify the taking. And if this was easy to get away with then you would probably be demotivated to add value to society and rebuild that nest egg. Parks and sewers can, are and have been built based on private voluntary decisions. But, be honest, our government has moved WAY beyond parks and sewers.

    October 9, 2009
  1365. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    You wrote:

    .. I could come over to your house and steal all your money and then use it to create a nice public space for people, but the nice public space does not justify the taking

    Help me here: What you describe above is outright theft by one private citizen from another. Do you really see this as morally or legally equivalent to a governmental requirement that, for instance, people pay property taxes? To put it another way: Is all taxation “theft”? If not all, which? Do speed limits count as “coercion”? Does all governmental enforcement (tax penalties? library fines?) count as “violence”?

    I don’t mean to quibble over diction. But it’s hard to communicate when we disagree, or seem to, on what these loaded words actually mean.

    October 9, 2009
  1366. David Henson said:

    Paul, taxes are taxes but my point was more to your logic. Just saying parks are nice therefore taxes are justified is no different (logically) than saying parks are nice therefore stealing to pay for them is justified. The fact that parks are nice does not justify taking taxes to pay for them. I think Just Foods and The Cow are nice features of Northfield but people voluntarily choose to participate. I think Ray pointed out the soccer fields building was built privately. Personally, I would prefer to see an all in % of income that can be justified for taxation (including mandates) (like 10%) and then determine what it best be spent on.

    October 9, 2009
  1367. Patrick Enders said:

    Another brick in the wall:

    Baby too big for insurance coverage

    Imagine having a perfectly healthy two month old baby and having your insurance company tell you they won’t cover him. One local family says that’s what’s happened to them.

    Baby Alex is a happy, adorable, big baby. And now at three months old, the family’s insurance company says he’s not eligible for coverage.

    Alex eats well, is growing fast and has no pre–existing conditions. But his mom Kelli says their insurance company says he’s just too big. “Insurance standards say if he’s above 95 percent he’s uninsurable.”

    Because of his size, Alex was turned down for health insurance, his height and weight put him in the 99th percentile according to CDC guidelines…

    Dr. Speedie at Rocky Mountain Health Plans [the family’s former insurance company] says all babies are evaluated for insurance the same way. “In children it’s based on a combination of height and weight.”

    But he says it’s also possible for a baby to be above the 95, or “cutoff” percentile, and still be healthy.

    He says, “Your weight is not an absolute determinate of health.” But says as with all insurance companies, the line has to be drawn somewhere. “Unfortunately when we try to sell people insurance, a number has to be used as a cutoff.”

    http://www.nbc11news.com/localnews/headlines/63813127.html
    from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_10/020396.php

    October 13, 2009
  1368. john george said:

    Patrick- I think the insurance company has reversed its decision and is now going to cover the child, so your point here is moot. But, you do bring up a good point in how insurance companies analyze risk. When a bunch of bean counters get together to set up some guidelines, they can only relate to numbers and relative risks involved. You would know better than I how much additional risk might be involved in a child ranking above 95. This leads to another question. In the new coverage plans being proposed, will ANYONE be at risk of being dropped from coverage? And, if there are greater risks with providing coverage to everyone, what is it going to cost and who is going to pay for it? I doubt that those with high risk and insufficient funds to pay for it this year will be in any better position to pay for it next year.

    October 13, 2009
  1369. Jane Moline said:

    Right, John. As soon as the insurance company starts getting some publicity about how ANOTHER arbitrary decision is affecting policy holders, THEN they reverse their decision and the question is moot–but they would not have reversed their decision if the public was not riled up about how they are continually abused by the insurance companies–coverage denied, cancelled, or priced out of their ability to pay. The insurance companies are doing a terrible job, and it is time for us to step in and regulate what is going on so we are going to pass health care reform.

    I say again, my not-for-profit insurance company has increased prices every year for the last 7 years–going from $550 per month with a copay to $1135 per month with a major deductible amount before any benefit. For profit insurance is worse, and more people are dying every few weeks as a result of NO INSURANCE than died in the one-day 9/11 attacks.

    We need to act responsibly, realize that access to decent medical treatment should not be reserved for the rich or the well-employed, and get it done.

    We have spent more money on the Iraq war than it will cost for 10 years of national, universal health.

    October 13, 2009
  1370. Paul Zorn said:

    I’m glad to read that the insurance company in question, “embarrassed by the publicity”, has “reversed course” in the case of the 95 weight percentile baby. So perhaps the point here is now moot for the family in question, but the story is still a useful illustration of the defects of our current health system — if indeed what we have can be called a system.

    It’s easy to dump on the insurance company, and perhaps they deserve it. The idea that a company could simply write off the upper and (presumably) lower 5% of its population sounds absurd on its face. But a profit-making company (or a single-payer system, for that matter) has to operate by some rules, and some of these will always be numerical — bean counting, if you will. The problem in this particular case seems to me to be the apparent silliness of the rule, not the fact that bean-counting rules exist.

    A larger problem, IMO, is the absence of any national standard for basic health coverage. In all the other rich countries of the world basic health care is considered to be a right of citizenship, and provided as such. This can be achieved through a national health service (like our VA system or the British NHS), through a single-payer system (as in Canada) or through (mandatory) insurance, often through private companies, for at least basic care (as in France, Switzerland, and elsewhere).

    Exactly what counts as *basic* (cosmetic surgery? homeopathy? Viagra? knee replacement for an 87-year old?) is properly open to discussion, and apparently varies from place to place. But I doubt that a 4-month-old child would be denied basic coverage in any of these countries — or have to have parents capable of initiating a campaign of embarrassment to get it.

    It’s mildly irksome that an insurance company would behave so foolishly. It’s deeply irksome that as the richest country ever, anywhere, we can’t guarantee each other access to basic health care.

    October 13, 2009
  1371. Paul Zorn said:

    On health care models here and elsewhere, I recommend T.R. Reid’s book The Healing of America . The link below is related.

    Reid looks in some depth at the health care systems in, among other places, France, Germany, Japan, and the UK, and finds lots of ideas in these places for improving what we do.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html

    October 13, 2009
  1372. David Henson said:

    I heard an author who traveled the world reviewing the various health care systems. He was in Canada and visited an MD about his sore shoulder. The MD said he would have to see a specialist. He asked how long that would take and the answer was several months. He said, ‘several months to get treatment.’ ‘Oh no,’ the physician said, ‘that is just for your first diagnostic visit, it could take a year to get treated.’ The author said, ‘that seems ridiculously long to an American.” The physician said, ‘well you see in Canada we do not mind waiting as long as rich people have to wait just as long.’

    October 13, 2009
  1373. Anthony Pierre said:

    I wonder if he would have gotten treated if he was a fat baby.

    October 13, 2009
  1374. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    The author you are talking about is in fact T.R. Reid, who Paul cites above.

    T.R. Reid writes:

    As for those notorious waiting lists, some countries are indeed plagued by them. Canada makes patients wait weeks or months for nonemergency care, as a way to keep costs down. But studies by the Commonwealth Fund and others report that many nations — Germany, Britain, Austria — outperform the United States on measures such as waiting times for appointments and for elective surgeries.

    In Japan, waiting times are so short that most patients don’t bother to make an appointment. One Thursday morning in Tokyo, I called the prestigious orthopedic clinic at Keio University Hospital to schedule a consultation about my aching shoulder. “Why don’t you just drop by?” the receptionist said. That same afternoon, I was in the surgeon’s office. Dr. Nakamichi recommended an operation. “When could we do it?” I asked. The doctor checked his computer and said, “Tomorrow would be pretty difficult. Perhaps some day next week?”

    The Japanese, he notes, “provide universal coverage using private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance plans. ”

    Sorta like the Democrats are proposing.

    I do recommend that you read Mr. Reid’s article, which Paul has linked to above. It is very short, and it is titled, “5 Myths About Health Care Around the World.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html

    Mr. Reid’s book is discussed briefly in this article, entitled “One Injury, 10 Countries: A Journey in Health Care”:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/health/15book.html?_r=1&em

    October 13, 2009
  1375. john george said:

    Jane- I think you bring up a good point, here, in that health care is expensive. My contribution where I work doubled for this current year (July to July). That is why I keep asking the question- What is it going to cost for everyone to be covered and who is going to pay for it? With our national debt where it is, where is the money to pay that off going to come from? How far into the future can we borrow?

    Another good point you touch on is the emotional side of this issue. It is one thing to talk about care for some faceless “individual” without coverage, but when it comes to making a decision about how much money we can pour into keeping your own daughter alive after a mid-thirties heart attack, there is an entirely different spin on the decision. Somehow, in trying to take a sometimes subjective process and make it into an objective process, there are people who fall outside the limits. Who sets these limits? Whether it is a private business or the government, there is still a beauracracy to wade through, and this is where issues get sticky. Seeing as how each situation is indivudual, can health care actually be “universal?”

    October 13, 2009
  1376. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    The author you heard was indeed T.R. Reid, and you’ve summarized his point quite accurately. One mild correction: It was actually the Princeton health economist Uwe Reinhardt (born in Canada) who said “Canadians don’t mind the watiing list so much as long as the rich Canadian and the poor Canadian have to wait about the same amount of time.”

    Indeed, Reid appears less enamored of the Canadian system than of some others, perhaps especially the French, which uses private (but nonprofit) insurance to cover everybody for basic care, along with a complementary network of private clinics, hospitals, etc. — some of them profit-making.

    Still, Reid doesn’t completely diss Canada, and he’s at pains to debunk some standard canards. There’s a popular impression, for instance, that huge numbers of Canadians scurry south for medical care, but apparently the available numbers suggests there’s only a trickle. Canadians are also as a group very fond, despite their complaints, of their health system. And, of course, there’s the possibly inconvenient truth that Canada spends about half what we do and achieves better life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and other good outcomes.

    Not half bad, eh?

    October 13, 2009
  1377. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Is that Canadian spending figure half per capita or half in total?

    October 13, 2009
  1378. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    Canadians spend about half of what we do per capita . And a good thing, too — if they spent half as much total as we they’d spending about 5 times as much per capita.

    To put it another way, Canada spends about 10% of its GDP (which is lower than ours) on health care; we spend around 16 or 17%. I’ve heard people whose views I respect argue that Canadians underspend somewhat on health care, but they have a long way to go before they catch us.

    A related statistic, this from the WHO, is the DALE (Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy), which essentially measures “healthy life expectancy” — the expected time one can expect to live in what could be called full health. On this scale Japan (with even lower health spending than Canada) ranks first at 74.5 years. Our country ranks 24th, at 70 years, behind Israel and ahead of Cyprus.

    October 13, 2009
  1379. David Henson said:

    I think Reid’s point was each country needs health care (notice lack of “system”) that best suits their values. Hopefully ours will be about liberty and freedom rather than socialism and sticking it too the rich.

    October 13, 2009
  1380. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    Yes, T.R. Reid would agree that a country’s health care system reflects its values, and that Canada’s tolerance for longer waits reflects a more egalitarian ethos than we have down here.

    And yes, our national approach to health care should reflect our national values. But among these values are freedom from bankruptcy due to illness, and the liberty to move from job to job or place to place without losing access to health care.

    Our present arrangement (as you say, David, what we have doesn’t deserve the name “system”) is far from securing those freedoms. Reid’s book demonstrates amply, with real-world examples, that these problems can be addressed far better than we do now.

    National values are important, and they differ from place to place. But I dare say the human value of offering care when people need it most, and expecting such care ourselves when we need it, is pretty much universal. Here, too, we have a long way to go.

    October 13, 2009
  1381. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Thanks for the clarification on the figures. I thought there were quite a few less of them than there are of us.

    It seems there is a lot of finger pointing in this whole process, but I’m still not clear just where the difference is in the cost of our care compared to other countries. It has been suggested that high salaries in the insurance industry are to blame, but the real figures on this show they are a fraction of a percent of the total cost. Others say that litigation drives up the costs, but, again, this is only a fraction of a percent of the costs. Are we dealing with some hidden cost that is driving the whole system? Or, are we just being nibbled to death by ducks? In other words, are the sum total of all the things we consider necessary gradually pricing us out of affordability?

    October 13, 2009
  1382. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    The Great White North has about 33m residents; we Yanks number around 304 million. (Thanks, Google.) Given our relative rates of health spending, Canada as a whole shells out around 1 loonie for every 20 bucks we squander. Good deal, eh? The other rich countries are somewhere closer to Canada, per capita, than to us.

    Why the difference? I suspect it’s a lot of things, no one of which fully or even substantially explains the big picture. Read Reid to get more insights and detail. Reid observes, for instance, that French doctors work in relatively Spartan offices and gross far less money than our docs normally do. On the other hand, European doctors typically pay *nothing* for medical school and pay much, much lower malpractice premiums. The Europeans are also far ahead of us in, and less paranoid about, standardizing and (appropriately) sharing medical information. A French doctor can put a patient’s carte vitale into a little machine or laptop and see the full record of every procedure, immunization, prescription, etc. for that patient over several decades. Records are encrypted and so, supposedly, not likely to be misused.

    IMO the biggest single factor, but still far from explaining everything, toward our high costs here is that health care “consumers” have almost no information about what anything really costs. One interesting feature of the French system, says Reid, is that patients actually pay up front, in cash, at reasonable rates, for essentially every medical service they receive. They are normally reimbursed for at least 75% of the cost within a few days, thanks to the carte vitale , which also handles billing. But every patient constantly sees that he or she is receiving a valuable and costly service. Here we have little incentive or even ability to find out what stuff really costs — it’s either covered, which means essentially free, or not, which means you can’t afford it. It’s hard to lower costs, or even know whether you’re doing so, when the costs are hidden.

    October 13, 2009
  1383. Anthony Pierre said:

    I wonder if jesus was a socialist

    October 14, 2009
  1384. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, “system” in the over arching socialistic sense is what we have fought major wars to avoid ~ sad to see the left take advantage of youth bereft of historical understanding to build yet another failed “system” for the world. The majority of the modern medical equipment and techniques used throughout the world were developed here in the USA without excessive government oversight … please let me know when I go to the hospital which treatments are “French” that have been developed in the last 20 years. Socialistic systems destroy the incentive to innovate.

    Here is a YouTube video on Canadian Health Care:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1TEsK0HCAo&feature=player_embedded

    And a website on the wonders of their ‘egalitarian’ society http://www.notcanada.com

    October 14, 2009
  1385. john george said:

    Paul Z.- I agree with your comment, “IMO the biggest single factor, but still far from explaining everything, toward our high costs here is that health care “consumers” have almost no information about what anything really costs.” That being the case, does the CBO have any idea what is driving the cost? And, if it doesn’t, how are we going to control costs that we aren’t sure of the source? Perhaps these details are out there somewhere, but I have not had any success in tracking them down. This doesn’t seem like rocket science. There should be some “smoking gun” somewhere, but I have not seen any evidence as to what and where it is.

    The other aspect of the healthcare reform needed seems to center around distribution of coverage. It is infered that this is cost driven because of deminished profits. What about the non-profit insurance companies? Why do they drop people from coverage?

    October 14, 2009
  1386. john george said:

    Jesus didn’t need health care. He healed those who were sick. Perhaps the Roman insurance companies saw this a threat to their profits, and that is the real reason He was crucified.

    October 14, 2009
  1387. Patrick Enders said:

    Anthony, you wrote:

    I wonder if jesus was a socialist

    He used to be, but there are people working very hard to fix that:

    Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:

    * lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ
    * lack of precision in modern language
    * translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

    Experts in ancient languages are helpful in reducing the first type of error above, which is a vanishing source of error as scholarship advances understanding. English language linguists are helpful in reducing the second type of error, which also decreases due to an increasing vocabulary. But the third — and largest — source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate.[1]

    As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]

    1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
    2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, “gender inclusive” language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
    3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]
    4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word “comrade” three times as often as “volunteer”; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as “word”, “peace”, and “miracle”.
    5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as “gamble” rather than “cast lots”;[5] using modern political terms, such as “register” rather than “enroll” for the census
    6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
    7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
    8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
    9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
    10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word “Lord” rather than “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “Lord God.”

    Thus, a project has begun among members of Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found here.

    (Emphasis is mine.)
    http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

    October 14, 2009
  1388. Patrick Enders said:

    …or not.

    October 14, 2009
  1389. Patrick Enders said:

    I particularly love this bit, from further down the mission statement:

    identify pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as “government”, and suggest more accurate substitutes

    October 14, 2009
  1390. Anthony Pierre said:

    john didn’t he charge 10k dollars for removing leprosy???

    if he did it for free doesn’t that mean everyone should do it for free?

    didn’t he say when you do for the lesser of us you do it for him????

    October 14, 2009
  1391. David Henson said:

    John, when pro governmentalists talk about the “cost of health care” in the USA, I am quite certain they factor out the tremdous export profits and employment that our country reaps. In MN that would include Medtronic, St Jude medical, much of 3M, etc.

    October 14, 2009
  1392. john george said:

    David H.- We probably have to be careful about bringing these companies into the discussion. They are, afterall, profitable businesses. I wonder how much R&D is included in the healthcare costs that is actually offset by company profits? Also, how much corporate tax is collected off these profitable companies? Sometimes I wonder if we are not killing the goose that lays the golden egg?

    October 14, 2009
  1393. Anthony Pierre said:

    people like david say govt doesn’t work, then they get elected, then they prove it. heck of a job brownie.

    October 14, 2009
  1394. john george said:

    Anthony- 1) Nope.
    2) Only if you have the anointing, but then, the laborer is worthy of his hire.
    3) Yep.
    Puts a whole new light on it, doesn’t it?

    October 14, 2009
  1395. David Henson said:

    Anthony, what does “brownie” mean?

    October 14, 2009
  1396. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    Not sure I follow all that stuff about “pro govermentalists” and whether or not they “factor” stuff in or out, whatever that means.

    But somewhere in there you make a good point: our medical system is not just a dry hole down which money is thrown and lost forever. Like other costly activities, health care spawns industries, some of them profitable and employment-making. The medical technology industry would seem clearly to be on this list.

    Wondering how large these numbers might be, and whether indeed “pro-governmentalists” unfairly ignore them, I did my usual 4 minutes of web surfing. It appears that in 2005 or 2006 (the most recent figures I found) the top 25 medical technology companies had gross sales of around $150B … I didn’t see profits listed but would guess from a few data that these might amount to something like $30B.

    Compare this to about $2000B spent annually in the US on health-related expenses to put the numbers in some sort of context. A careful analysis would, of course, involve other potentially beneficial spinoffs from health care spending, like hospital construction, employment of medical workers, etc. Any cost-benefit analysis should also take due account of the degree to which health care spending accomplishes its main aim: better health among Americans.

    So, David, I think you make a valid point. And as a “pro-governmentalist” (by my definition, not necessarily yours … ) I’m glad to hear you praise the side effects of medical spending, much of which comes right out of Uncle Sam’s pocket.

    A side point, but perhaps not unrelated: Of those “tremendous export profits” you rightly respect, a nontrivial fraction are earned by German, Dutch, British, and Japanese companies.

    October 14, 2009
  1397. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, I think it is important to understand the difference to the economy of an innovative new technology verses something like a hospital (both are economic activities). Use Northfield to make this simple. Assume a new Bloodiculator device is developed and becomes standard and the headquarters opens up here in Northfield. The gross profit over cost of materials (which end up being bought in Faribault anyway) is 90%. They do $10 million in sales. Bloodiculator pays shareholders (where ever they are) $1 million. $8 million dollars goes to R&D, admin, marketing, etc. a high percentage of which goes right into the Northfield economy. Now what is key here is that this is money from elsewhere flowing right into Northfield and everyone benefits. Compare this to a new local hospital doing $10 million. Most of the hospital purchases are from outside Northfield and most of the dollar flow is from Northfield. Bloodiculator Inc is really a source of revenue to the Northfield and the hospital (while important!) is an expense for Northfield.

    Scale this up and it is why innovation is so important to the US economy. The reality is innovation is a product of freedom otherwise we would all be living in the expanded USSR.

    October 15, 2009
  1398. Anthony Pierre said:

    david henson,

    is innovation trying to figure out how to put lcd tvs in the head rest of SUVS or getting better gas mileage .

    whatever makes money gets invented, whatever doesn’t, doesn’t.

    I am convinced that’s why there isn’t a cure for diabetes, just chronic treatment.

    the reality is: the stuff that doesn’t make money that is beneficial to the whole human race has to be funded from somewhere, and private entities aren’t interested in the stuff that doesn’t make money.

    also:

    October 15, 2009
  1399. Peter Millin said:

    Please call your congressman and senator and ask him/her nicely to make all public officials and workers to enroll in the proposed public option.

    This would save us the taxpayer a good junk of money. Since we are struggling with an ever increasing debt this would show sincere leadership.

    October 15, 2009
  1400. David Henson said:

    Anthony, I would think LCDs and the internet through Webinars etc are innovations that have and will have save a whole lot gas (I would not get bent out of shape about a few going into headrests). “Getting better gas mileage” is not an innovation but an aspiration. Let’s look at the auto industry. The US has 3 auto companies who are allowed because of union and wealthy families to operate as a ogliopoly based in Detroit (high government involvement – higher now). The product has changed very little from my grandmas 1964 rambler to todays autos (compared to phones, etc). The product kills 40,000 plus people each year. The city of Detroit is falling a part at the seams and becoming a case study in how to shrink an urban area. The auto industry is the closest thing to a “planned economy” that we have in America ~ it should be enough for you to not want a further planned economy.

    Health care is easy to solve just give everyone a health debit card (no taxes are even required just print more money ~ slight inflation would be the tax). Don’t make them buy insurance just let them spend however they choose, health care would be transformed almost overnight into the best in the world. But the current bills in congress will make our health care system as successful as the city of Detroit.

    October 15, 2009
  1401. David Henson said:

    Good idea!

    October 15, 2009
  1402. john george said:

    Anthony- You said, “…private entities aren’t interested in the stuff that doesn’t make money.” And your point here is what? Is it somehow immoral for a company to make money? If a company is set up as a non-profit organization, it surely provides an essential service and salaries for its employees, but it adds nothing to the tax base. A for-profit company adds the additional tax base. IMO, both entities are necessary for our society, and neither one is on some higher moral plane.

    As far as the cure for diabetes, since I am diabetic, that would certainly be advantageous to me. But, if I am going to have some chronic desease, diabetes is certainly liveable, for me, at least. Being type II, it is a matter of dietary discipline and a small dosage of oral medication to control my blood sugar. For those insulin dependent, it is definitely another story. But, until the medical researchers figure out how to correct the genetic trait that actually causes it, it will continue to be a chronic disease. It has nothing to do with innovative profits.

    October 15, 2009
  1403. john george said:

    Peter- Yep. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    October 15, 2009
  1404. Anthony Pierre said:

    they are on it already aren’t they?

    October 15, 2009
  1405. Anthony Pierre said:

    lets remove the tax exemption from churches!! that would broaden the tax base!

    October 15, 2009
  1406. john george said:

    Anthony- I wouldn’t have any problem with that, as long as the government doesn’t tell us what to preach. Then we can convert Blue Cross/ Blue Shield to a taxable entity, also. And, we can include the VFW, LWV, Boy & Girl Scouts, the Masons, Northfield Care Center, Three Links, etc. We certainly mustn’t discriminate.

    October 15, 2009
  1407. john george said:

    No. They don’t contribute anything to it.

    October 15, 2009
  1408. Anthony Pierre said:

    wouldn’t that be free health care then

    October 15, 2009
  1409. john george said:

    Free (no additional charge) for them. Not for us, who pick up all the charges through our taxes.

    October 15, 2009
  1410. Anthony Pierre said:

    why aren’t all of the old people in govt being killed off by socialized health care????

    October 16, 2009
  1411. Patrick Enders said:

    Anthony,
    They are getting killed off – one by one. A recent undercover investigation has revealed that just about everyone who enrolls in Medicare dies.

    Indeed, a recent undercover investigation by Fox News discovered the shocking news that every senior who enrolled in the Medicare program in its first 5 years is either dead, or nearly so.

    October 16, 2009
  1412. Patrick Enders said:

    Some more information that you may not have known about the Medicare program:

    As part of his cruel plan for extermination of old people, President Johnson hired mad scientist, and aspiring mass-murderer, Dr. No to develop the fiendish “I’m going to kill you, but first…” Plan.

    Under this plan, seniors are lavished with a bizarre array of life-extending measures, including but not limited to: radioactive decontamination showers, lavish meals, spa treatments, and sleep aids. However, all of this is intended only to prolong the agony that awaits at the horrible moment of Final Release, when the innocent victims of the Medicare program are finally allowed to die of any of a number of horrible natural causes.

    October 16, 2009
  1413. Anthony Pierre said:

    careful, you may get quoted on FOX news

    October 16, 2009
  1414. john george said:

    Patrick & Anthony- Does this mean that people are just dieing to get government funded health care? Funny thing about death. It appears to be caused by life.

    October 16, 2009
  1415. Anthony Pierre said:

    life is a terminal condition

    October 16, 2009
  1416. john george said:

    Yes. If I remeber the story correctly, it was an Apple.

    October 16, 2009
  1417. john george said:

    For thos of you who care, there is an interesting “letter of the day” in the Strib, today. You can read it here: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUQ7c4E7ME5U.
    For some, perhaps their feeling is that Rush is getting a taste of his own medicine. For me, this opinion expresses a concern I have. It appears that almost anyone, given the opportunity to smear someone, has the ability to do so in the modern media circus in which we live. I suppose that if a person is going to epress strong opinions like Limbaugh does, then they are naive if they think these opinions won’t affect their lives. In this case, though, when media hype can actually affect a business deal, it is the epitome of carrying out hatred against a person. Does anyone have a sense of outrage against this attack on freedom of speech, or are we so calloused by negative journalism that we have become apathetic?

    October 20, 2009
  1418. Jane Moline said:

    Rush can’t take his own medicine. He certainly has earned the contempt of many–it is not media-hype that got him–it was his own radio-hate-message. I will shed no crocodile tears for poor Rush.

    I really can’t believe that you would have any basis to defend him, John. He has made millions on being hateful. He is a drug addict that has repeatedly slammed drug addicts. He is certainly a big fat idiot.

    Sign me “Femi Nazi” Jane

    October 20, 2009
  1419. john george said:

    Does the object of one’s hatred justify the hatred? Can you justify Al Sharpton’s or the Rev. Wright’s speech? If speech is to be free, it must be free to all. I think David L. and Britt could shed some light on what constitutes libelous discourse. I read some of the comments posted on the Strib site, and they are quite interesting.

    Also, I don’t think you fit the term “Nazi” in any way, shape or form, at least the way I understand the term.

    October 20, 2009
  1420. Jane Moline said:

    It is Rush’s term to fit.

    He is hateful, spiteful, and mean. This alone is good reason to prevent him from owning an NFL team.

    October 20, 2009
  1421. john george said:

    Since when are character qualities, or lack thereof, a prerequisite for owning ball team, or anything else, for that matter? Just think. He could choose to run for a political position rather than just lambast them.

    October 20, 2009
  1422. Peter Millin said:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

    A must see documentary on the financial meltdown. it is very good despite the subliminal messages against the GOP.
    In the hearings against Brooksley Born they only show Graham asking question. Geez I didn’t realize that only members of the GOP were sitting on comittees.

    More disturbing is the fact that Larry Summers, who was a member of the triumvirate that is responsible, is now one of the economic advisors of P-BO ???

    The NFL has every right to deny anybody to be a franchisee in their company.
    It is however comical that they let thugs like Michael Vick, Ray Lewis and others play in the league…and now are pretending to take the high road.

    This comedy spectacle was only topped by Sharpton???

    Yup…change we can believe in.

    October 21, 2009
  1423. john george said:

    Peter- Great post. You brought in the rest of the arsenal.

    October 21, 2009
  1424. David Henson said:

    I think Rush’s quote (follows) was in poor taste and clearly not going to get player support for owning a team:

    “Sorry to say this, I don’t think he’s been that good from the get-go. I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”

    I don’t think the above was true, and even if true to small degree, for Rush to pick this one point from all the observations he could make shows an attempt to be racially provocative (if not racist).

    October 21, 2009
  1425. Jane Moline said:

    Excellent documentary, as Peter said. Many people, including me, protested Obama’s appointment of Summers, who was one of the acrchitects of the nations worst financial meltdown. It is creepy to see how committed three men were to undermining any criticsm of their “free” market–which has cost us plenty.

    Back to Rush–John George, Rush would never run for public office because he would not stand a chance–free speach does not mean that you get to say whatever you want and people must not judge you–free speach means you get to put your foot in your mouth–and the NFL is right to look at Rush’s record and determine that he is not of the character that they want for a frnachise owner.

    October 21, 2009
  1426. john george said:

    I didn’t say he would win. I just said he could run. Of course, so could Al Sharpton. I put both of them in the same radical bag. I agree with Peter’s point, “The NFL has every right to deny anybody to be a franchisee in their company.
    It is however comical that they let thugs like Michael Vick, Ray Lewis and others play in the league…and now are pretending to take the high road.” Perhaps money does not always buy influence.

    October 21, 2009
  1427. Peter Millin said:

    David,

    From a purely football point of view I think McNabb is overrated as a quarterback. Case in point his last game against the Raiders.

    Some time ago it wasn’t quiet as common to see a succesfull black quarterback.
    The first in my personal memory was the QB for the Redskins (sorry I don’t recall his name) who won the superbowl about 20 some years ago.

    Around that time I was really rooting for black QB’s, simply because he was one of the first to win an SB.
    Maybe that makes me a racist…..but I am not.

    October 22, 2009
  1428. David Henson said:

    Peter, I will go on record supporting your right to buy in to the St Louis team if you choose (however, I cannot loan you any money)

    October 22, 2009
  1429. john george said:

    Back on health care systems, I just got this e-mail from my friend who lives in Montreal.

    “While, thankfully, I have had few reasons to use doctors here I have learned a lot about the Canadian system.

    I will say that when it comes to emergency and critical care the Canadian system and its doctors are top notch. Internal medicine and other specialties are every bit as good as the U.S.

    However, from first hand experience, there are procedures that are common in the U.S. that are not even known by Canadian doctors. For an example when Dad fell and cracked a vertebrae in his back he had a procedure done that was routine there but unknown here even among orthopedic surgeons.

    The waiting lists here are very real. It is common to wait 6 months or more for an MRI or other scanning tests when they can often be done within hours or at the latest days in the U.S.

    And it is 100% true about doctors being paid per patient. The more they can squeeze in a day the more money they make. It is very difficult to get a family physician. Often people end up going to what would be considered in the U.S. “free clinics” where the next available doctor will see you. They have none of your medical history or records to look back on. From first hand experience you are truly only a number.”

    I think this is maybe what some mean who are saying we Americans have to re-think our expectations about how we receive medical treatment. I’m not saying this is necessarily bad, but it is different from our present system.

    October 22, 2009
  1430. Paul Zorn said:

    John,

    Your Montreal friend’s thoughts are interesting, and there’s no reason to doubt his or her account of personal experience. But note that these views are, as your correspondent notes, *not* based on much experience with the system itself. And, like all individual anecdotes, they are just that. I have Canadian friends, too, and none of them would choose our total health package to theirs.

    My information, like yours, is only anecdotal. More valid, perhaps, are some of the broader statistics, like the one that says Canadians pay about half what we do in total, and still live significantly longer. (Our “healthy life expectancy at birth”, according to WHO, is 67 years for men and 71 for women; the corresponding figures are 70 and 74 in Canada.) There might be other broad statistics that give a different picture, but I’m not aware of them. And a lot of people think Canadians would be even healthier and happier if they spent *more* on their health system.

    As for being only a number because docs don’t know your health history … that does sound bad. But:

    1. Are things better in this respect down here in the US?

    2. Recall the French carte vitale , that little credit-card-like thingy with a memory patch, from which le docteur can see the full record of every procedure, immunization, prescription, etc. for that patient over several decades? We and our northern brethren should get with le program .

    October 22, 2009
  1431. David Henson said:

    Paul, are you required in France to allow all records to be visible or does the consumer have any right to privacy?

    October 22, 2009
  1432. john george said:

    Paul- Statistics can be meaningful when a person is comparing like treatments for like maladies for like people. The greatest problem we have is how much of the population the statistics actually fit. As I said, the Canadian system is not necessarily bad, just different. One thing we Americans have in common is the expectation of immediate gratification, be it hunger (fast food) or health care (minute clinics). Things that used to take time, such as food preparation, we become impatient with if we have to devote a lot of time to it nowadays. From my friend’s testamony, and there are probably statistics to support this, emergency care seems to be unaffected. There are probably a number of optional care needs (remove a mole? get a bone scan?) which we are used to getting very quickly that will have more delays in the Canadian system.

    As far as “le carte vitale,” I side with David H. on this. I have no problem with, and even expect, my family doctor to have access to all my medical history, but I’m leary of having a card with my whole history on it that could be accessed by anyone with a card reader and a hacked software system.

    October 22, 2009
  1433. Paul Zorn said:

    David,

    If your question is whether French patients *must* present a carte vitale in order to receive treatment, the answer is I don’t know — presumably it’s easy enough to find out. Purely guessing … my hunch is that many doctors would be reluctant to treat patients who refuse to provide medical histories.

    Either way, however, keep in mind that one reason (not the only one, perhaps) many Americans guard their medical histories so jealously is for fear of being denied insurance or employment for having pre-existing conditions. In the French system, I don’t think either of those fears reasonably exists. And … still guessing … I suspect the French are culturally less fearful than we on such matters, for better or worse.

    In other ways, patients’ privacy *is* preserved, at least according to T.R. Reid. Medical information on the carte vitale is encrypted, for instance, so, supposedly, I couldn’t read the medical history of some guy whose card I found on the street.

    I suspect the system isn’t perfect, but none is.

    October 22, 2009
  1434. kiffi summa said:

    In the midst of all the criticism of our political system I must take time to say ‘they’ are doing some things correctly…

    The Senate passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill, and President Obama has promised to sign it by the end of the month.
    It was a long battle to get this essential piece of legislation; right wing groups lobbied long and hard with ridiculous assertions like the passing of it would”shred Judeo-Christian values in America”.

    I think it is a Shame that we need to pass a bill such as this in order to PRESERVE values in America.

    Congratulations to the Congress on this one!

    October 23, 2009
  1435. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    You write:

    Statistics can be meaningful when a person is comparing like treatments for like maladies for like people. The greatest problem we have is how much of the population the statistics actually fit.

    I think you misunderstand what broad general statistics, like those on healthy life expectancy, can tell us. Obviously they don’t tell us everything. If you want to compare success rates of midweek ingrown left middle toenail outpatient surgery on married churchgoing Protestant patients of Scandinavian origin, here and in Montreal, there’s a pretty clear research protocol.

    But if these are the only statistics you think “can be meaningful”, then we’ve got some communication problems. How would *you* suggest we broadly compare large systems, like the US and Canadian systems? Or do you say this is simply impossible? Are we already living in the best of all possible worlds?

    Concerning medical privacy, you say:

    I … expect … my family doctor to have access to all my medical history, but I’m leery of having a card with my whole history on it that could be accessed by anyone with a card reader and a hacked software system.

    Sure, medical data should be private. So should financial data, but almost all of us walk around heavy-laden with theoretically breachable bank records, ATM keys, credit histories, etc. Say lah vee.

    In any event, do you have any reason to think that medical data in a filing cabinet in Dr. Pangloss’s office is really more secure than properly encrypted data, with layered security, on an electronic card? And how would you like your medical data transferred if you move elsewhere, or Dr. Pangloss retires, or you’re run over by a truck while en vacance in France?

    October 23, 2009
  1436. David Henson said:

    I agree Paul, the French are used to living in a very class oriented society and so have less cultural fear about giving up their liberty to a “system.” America is generally split some between those whose ancestors came here for freedom from class systems (earlier) and those whose ancestors came here because of national wealth (more recent). Those who believe in freedom are going to question whether the government should have any roll in health care … but to the degree that any redistributive program would succeed in this culture, it will have to focus on individual consumer control vs system control.

    October 23, 2009
  1437. David Henson said:

    Kiffi, The “right wing” groups are concerned about free speech, not “values” – except in the “free speech” was a value once thought highly of in the USA. I do not understand the need to make laws that say it is illegal to do something illegal if the motivation is hate (it was already illegal – see)… it falls somewhere between infantile silliness and pandering. I disagree with James Dobson on many things but I agree that this is just a back door attack on free speech.

    October 23, 2009
  1438. john george said:

    Paul- I think we are maybe talking past one another here. Broad statistics can apply to broad sections of the populace, but specific statistics, say on needs for MRI’s in diagnostice processes, are hard to really compare. If broad statistics are all we have, then we can only be that accurate in our use of them. One of the things that worries me with the proposals before Congress is that they are a little broad. How the details are worked out and who is going to make those decisions are points of discussion. I think the term I have heard to describe this is “specificity.”

    As far as having my medical history on a card, since Alina has computerised their system, I suppose any hacker could probably get into this if he really wanted to. I have a couple sons-in-law in the IT industry, and security is not as sewn up as some would have us to believe. I don’t think my medical history would be of any value to anyone, but the idea of having this info out there in a magnetic strip just bothers me a little.

    October 23, 2009
  1439. john george said:

    David H.- Well said. I’m not sure how any premeditated murder is NOT a hate crime. Perhaps you lawyers out there can shed some light on this logic from a strictly legal perspective.

    October 23, 2009
  1440. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    You say:


    I agree Paul, the French are used to living in a very class oriented society and so have less cultural fear about giving up their liberty to a “system.”

    Thanks for your agreement, but let’s be clear on where our agreement lies. I guessed that the French are culturally less fearful than we about breaches of medical privacy, and perhaps more generally about being hapless victims of government. The idea that this amounts to “giving up their liberty to a system” is your formulation, not mine.

    And your analysis that a historically strong class system somehow leads a people to indifference to “liberty” seems novel, to say the least. Couldn’t it go the other way? As I recall, they once fought a revolution over that stuff. The French also have a history of oppressive religious rule, and this has hardly made them more submissive to religious authority.

    October 23, 2009
  1441. Peter Millin said:

    John,

    I could never understand the the whole hate crime provisions either.
    In my mind anybody that kills somebody needs to be punished to the fullest extend of the law..period.

    Are gay people more valuable then straight people? How can one determine if somebody was hating gay people when he killed a person?

    Symbolism over substance. IMHO.

    October 23, 2009
  1442. john george said:

    Kiffi- I think it is interesting how this legislation got passed. It was attached to a “must pass” defense funding bill. That being the case. I don’t see this as any bellweather of change in the country. It is just inside-the-beltway politics as usual.

    October 23, 2009
  1443. kiffi summa said:

    The result of attaching the Matthew Shepard Act to a ‘must pass’ defense spending bill must mean that SOMEONE thinks the passing of it is , or should be, a “bellweather change” in this country… Human Rights campaign activists don’t just sneak into the Congressional bills offices and attach their favorite little causes.

    Have ‘must pass’ bills ever NOT passed because of some other piece of legislation being attached to them? Is there a process for the non-defense subject matter to be removed before final vote/passage?

    I would say the way it was done shows the necessity of it being done, at least in the mind of someone important. Maybe you could research how/who caused it to be attached to a ‘must pass’ bill?

    October 23, 2009
  1444. john george said:

    Kiffi- According to this link in the Stonewall Democrats (?) website
    http://www.stonewalldemocrats.org/node/930,
    majority leader Harry Reid is being credited with getting the amendment through. I still say this is unnecessary legislation and mires Congress down from getting health care and the national debt taken care of. As David H. said, why make something illegal that is already illegal?

    October 23, 2009
  1445. kiffi summa said:

    Peter and John : I believe Franken’s “rape” amendment WAS stripped from the same bill, or another “must pass” bill, so there is obviously a process for doing so…
    So, I would conclude there was no, or not enough, political will to strip the Matthew Shepard act from this defense bill; i.e. there was a desire to get it passed.

    As to the principle (“if it’s illegal, it’s illegal” ) many states have legislation that calls for a higher penalty for killing a law enforcement officer than an ordinary citizen; do you also find that inappropriate?

    October 24, 2009
  1446. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    Yes, broad statistics apply to broad sections of the populace — that’s kinda the definition of “broad”.

    What puzzles me is your view, if I understand it correctly, that broad statistics are somehow less valuable (“meaningful” was your word) than narrower ones in the context of a broad discussion about health care policy. The current national health care debate is, and should be, about broad policies, and should properly be informed by general statistics about outcomes on a large scale. As a stats freak I’m glad to hear about comparative MRI use rates and anything else, but big picture stats are surely “meaningful” when we’re proposing to mess with the big picture.

    Whether the various health care proposals out there — as opposed to statistics about health care — are too general and not detailed enough is another question. I think you and I would both be glad to see more detail, not less. But a natural corollary of more detail is greater length and complexity in the bill. If you liked the original, 1000-page House bill, get ready for even more fun. OK with that?

    October 24, 2009
  1447. David Henson said:

    I was just playing with your notion of “culturally fearful.” I think it is just wordsmithing “fear” into a debate that is about choices and not about fear. The big difference, Paul, in our beliefs is you want to centralize and control peoples choices and I want to decentralize and let people’s good choices drive the “system.” I believe all the men and women on the street are smarter by a mile (in total) than you, I or the geniuses from Harvard. Europe historically has had elite control systems (Kings) and they are less fervent than Americans about keeping the power of choice at the individual level. Let’s not forget the airplane was perfected by two guys with a bike shop – not academics or government employees … why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

    October 24, 2009
  1448. john george said:

    Paul- I think it is evident that we are going down the road of universal health care. I personally don’t need any more broad statistics. What I, and I think many others, are looking for now are some specifics. The main two questions for me are who is going to make the decisions for treatments and who is going to pay for them? What is that old saying, the Devil is in the details? There are a lot of individual specifics about personal health care. My feeling is that unless we have some idea of and plans for how these details are going to be worked out, then we will get into a mess before we can actually get the whole program operative.

    October 24, 2009
  1449. john george said:

    Kiffi- Are you saying that gay people are on the same level as law enforcement personel?

    October 24, 2009
  1450. kiffi summa said:

    John: are you saying they are not?

    October 25, 2009
  1451. Peter Millin said:

    John and Kiffi,

    ” All people are created equal” I didn’t read the part where some are less valuable then others. Maybe somebody could point that out to me?

    October 25, 2009
  1452. victor summa said:

    RE: John George – 1002.7

    Mr. George, I don’t read this thread with great frequency and seldom have I commented on this line. Probably never. Sort of like going to a bad movie hoping for the one stunning cameo performance. I have that opportunity at home, as I live with Kiffi.

    When I do read the assorted comments of these threads, I’m almost always appalled at your narrow perspective (that’s my perspective) especially on matters dealing with gay concerns … a subject matter that you (and some others here) frequently tend to find a link to morph to in almost all threads. Amazes me.
    Your remark in 1002.7
    “Kiffi- Are you saying that gay people are on the same level as law enforcement personnel?”

    Leads me to infer that you feel there is an undeniable difference in the level of worth, between gay persons and law enforcement officials, blanket statement! The conclusion you lead me to is that you feel gay persons – across the board, are of lesser worth .. and the same numbers, if applied to law enforcement officials, will show their enforcement mode to be more humane and therefore better than that of the gays. Or else why do you bring in the cops?

    Yes … I read your remarks as a BLANKLET STATEMENT!

    What then do you say of the Gay Cop? Literally is he/she worth less than the straight cop”?

    How about the Gay Preacher?

    What of the cops who brutalize as a part of their professional conduct – wielding unbridled power over others, gay or not?

    How many times have you read of police brutality?

    How many times have you read of gay brutality? Gangs roaming neighborhoods seeking out skinheads they might engage in a head bash?

    Are gay men or women who are employed in these industries worth less than the straight?

    Is a preacher who forces himself sexually on a member of his/her congregation okay if it’s on a person of the opposite sex .. but not, if it’s: SAME SEX, GAY ON INNOCENT?

    Here’s one for you. The gay ballet dancer v the straight ballet dancer. Are they to be judged by their sexual proclivity or, their abilities in leaps, spins and pirouettes?

    Your assessment is beyond my belief. That’s probably why I don’t engage you on this blog. I simply cannot abide the tone. Even so, I haven’t stalked you with intent to do bodily harm.

    My point, while I don’t accuse you of those heinous kinds of acts, stalking, intent to do bodily harm, etc., I do believe you contribute to that thought process, and therefore enable that kind of conduct. Following this line of thinking, a less aggressive position on gays, and higher responsibility bar for the police, might lead toward a less aggressive lifestyle, and directly diminish the numbers of hate crimes.

    Lighten a bit. Please, for God’s sake.

    PS: I don’t consider this discourse to be an intellectual exchange. I will not respond to your response – if there is any – in fact, I’d be happiest if you simply read my remarks as, well intended … and contemplated their value if any.

    victor

    October 25, 2009
  1453. john george said:

    Victor & Kiffi- I’ll side with Peter’s comment in 1003.4.
    ” All people are created equal” I didn’t read the part where some are less valuable then others. Maybe somebody could point that out to me?”
    I see no reason to try to discuss this with either of you. Kiffi has quite firmly expressed her disdain of my beliefs about homosexuality, and that is your prerogative to disagree. I will not carry this discussion any further, but I will still exercise my freedom to express my opinion.

    October 25, 2009
  1454. kiffi summa said:

    Just for the enlightenment of others, John … what did you mean in your statement in 1002.7, i.e., ” Are you saying that gay people are on the same level as law enforcement personel?”

    (we were talking about hate crime legislation and the relevancy to legislation which allows extra penalty for killing a police officer)

    I can’t discern any meaning from that other than you think they (‘gay people’) are not…

    You didn’t answer before. Would you like to make yourself more clear now?
    I’ll be glad to have misunderstood your meaning, as I think it was/is very non-Christian.

    October 26, 2009
  1455. David Henson said:

    Laws should be applied equally to everyone. Many, in the past, felt morally justified enslaving blacks as they were a different legal class of people. ‘Hate laws’ follow the exact same mistaken logic of applying the legal system differently for certain classes of people. Proponents of ‘hate laws’ might think they are protecting certain groups, but they are not. They are weakening the logical foundation of treating all people exactly equally under the law … this moralizing or politicizing the application of laws can just as easily turn against their interests.

    October 26, 2009
  1456. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter,

    You say:

    I could never understand … hate crime [laws].

    I agree the topic is tricky, and that reasonable people might differ on the wisdom of such laws.

    If you want to understand more about all this, and haven’t done so already, you might check Wikipedia for some standard arguments pro and con; W. also gives some history and references.

    The ACLU (a useful organization, IMO, which catches equal opportunity flak from left and right) has generally opposed laws that criminalize speech of any kind, including hate speech. Laws that “enhance penalties” for crimes (not speech) that can be shown to have been driven by hatred against groups are, arguably, something else, and the Supremes decided unanimously in the early 1990s that such “penalty enhancement” need not violate First Amendment guarantees of free speech. Nevertheless, the ACLU has advocated consistently that hate crimes laws include specific language protecting freedom of speech.

    According to their blog, the ACLU supports the Matthew Shepard legislation “because of its very strong First Amendment protections, as well as the power it gives to the Justice Department to investigate crimes in which the victim was selected specifically because of their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.”

    You ask:

    Are gay people more valuable than straight people?

    The legislation, as I understand it, makes no such presumption. Seems to me the law would treat animus against straights in just the same way as animus against gays.

    How one actually determines — and then proves in court — that such animus significantly motivated a particular crime, as in the Matthew Shepard case, would indeed be difficult. But that’s a good thing — there should be a high standard of proof for applying such a law.

    October 26, 2009
  1457. Peter Millin said:

    Sorry, Kiffi.

    But your attack on John is not justified. I clearly understaood what he meant by
    ——————————————————-
    Are you saying that gay people are on the same level as law enforcement personel?”
    ——————————————————-

    IMHO he did not imply that gays are of a lesser value then police officers. From John’s comments in the past it is quiet obvious that he has strong religious beliefs. Most religion preach tolerance (that doesn’t mean they practice it)for anybody that is different.

    Myself I am very tolerant towards gays, this doesn’t mean that I approve of their lifestyle or particiapte in it.
    I grant them the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with my value system. Isn’t it just fair? Shouldn’t it be “Live and let live”?
    This goes both ways. In the past all to often people are getting demonized for not agreeing with the gay agenda. Not agreeing with ones agenda doesn’t mean that you don’t respect their freedoms.
    Isn’t that what real freedom is about?

    October 26, 2009
  1458. kiffi summa said:

    Sorry, Peter… asking a question to clarify a person’s position is not an “attack”.

    It is clear to all who read here that I will continue to question what I understand as discriminatory language towards gay people; if you do not see it that way, that is your understanding, and you may of course respond accordingly.

    I do believe”all people are created equal” and that is the point of my continuing campaign against harmful, discriminatory speech.

    October 26, 2009
  1459. john george said:

    Kiffi- I will afford you this one answer. Law enforcement personel are authorized by law to use lethal force in the enforcement of those laws. This puts them in harm’s way and they are subject to lethal responses to their duties. This makes them no more or less EQUAL than any other citizen, but their specific responsibility to the society requires a greater level of risk than the average citizen. If I correctly understand most of the intent of the laws addressing offenses against them, it is this greater risk that is driving the penal code. I don’t see the gay community as being in the same function or level of risk in our society, but they are no less EQUAL. (I don’t mean to be SHOUTING with my use of caps on this word. I just can’t find the italics function on this computer, and I wanted to accent the word EQUAL.)

    October 26, 2009
  1460. kiffi summa said:

    John: Thank you for “affording” me the one answer.

    Now we just need to have the bar bullies in places like Laramie, Wyoming agree with your statement of EQUAL, and then we wouldn’t need excess penalty laws.

    P.S. I don’t mind CAPS!
    kws

    October 26, 2009
  1461. john george said:

    David Brooks, of the NYT, has a good column in the Pioneer Press today. You can read it at
    http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_13654248?source=rss
    I think it gives a pretty good admonishment to government officials to consider the future effects of the regulations on the various industries they are proposing to enect.

    October 28, 2009
  1462. Peter Millin said:

    Northfield is a very small town and what is being said to one another will travel fast and reaches people.

    It is not a secret that most people disagree with most of my views and that’s ok by me.  I don’t agree with most people’s views here either.
    Openly disagreeing with one another and doing it freely is what America is founded on.
    Openly disagreeing with each others point of view but still respect the human being behind it is also part of what America has been founded on.

    Although I disagree with most of you here I never try taking it to a personal level and if some of you feel I have than let me assure you that it wasn’t my intention. It is simply a matter of my sometimes inability to communicate correctly.

    I would think that if we were to meet in person we could sit down and talk about the Vikes, the weather and other daily thinks, without hatred and contempt for one another.
    Speaking for myself I can assure I would. I never talk negatively at home about any of the posters negatively on a personal level.
    This includes Mr.Bly and Senator Dahle which whom I strongly disagree politcially.
    I have never said to any of my family members ” I really hate this guy” simply because I don’t.

    My daughter came up to me last night and told me that ” So and so’s father really hates you”.  That really took me by surprise, so i asked her why?
    She replied that he knows you from “locally grown”.

    This is pretty sad that anyone would tell their children that they hate somebody because of his political views.

    It teaches intolerance and hatred and this is not what America is all about.

    If some of you have any personal issue with me, be man/woman enough and speak to me personally and don’t use your kids as pawns.

    October 29, 2009
  1463. David Henson said:

    John, that was a good piece, I think David Brooks idea of replacing one centralized decision making cabal with another being a mistake is correct. But I wish he and the country could focus more on a decentalized approach to building the economy (which seems to be tanking much faster at street level than reflected in the media and Washington).

    October 29, 2009
  1464. Jane Moline said:

    Peter:  It is sad that adults model such unfortunate behavior for their children–and our children learn from what they see and hear from their parents–so we should all take a lesson and make sure we are modeling the behavior that we want them to follow.

    It is a small town and we know each other–which makes these discussions much more interesting and meaningful to me.

    I also do not allow for “hate” in my life and try hard to keep it out of my children’s lives–how can anyone “hate” someone for expressing their opinons?!  (That is a rhetorical question–no one has to answer it.)

    It is also difficult, sometimes, to be sure that we are typing out what we want to convey–sometimes the message is interpreted differently than intended–so readers may not get a clear view of what we are saying.

    That said, your responses regarding any of the discussions on gays–including gay marriage and the recent discussions on hate crime laws–are loaded with your highly prejudiced opinion that leaves no doubt that you judge gays harshly.  Many people (including me) are offended by these opinions-just as if you were stating harsh opinions regarding women, blacks, or Jews. 

    As an example, and I copies from your entry 1009:

    “Myself I am very tolerant towards gays, this doesn’t mean that I approve of their lifestyle or particiapte in it.
    I grant them the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with my value system. Isn’t it just fair? Shouldn’t it be “Live and let live”?
    This goes both ways. In the past all to often people are getting demonized for not agreeing with the gay agenda. Not agreeing with ones agenda doesn’t mean that you don’t respect their freedoms.
    Isn’t that what real freedom is about?”

    In this paragraph you insult just about everybody–You are claiming that there is a “gay lifestyle”, “gay agenda”,  claim that gays interfere with your value system (an insinuation that “gay values” are not good enough for you and must be “bad” values),  and finishing up with claiming that those that don’t agree with you are unpatriotic.

    Try substituting “black” or “Jewish” for “gay” in your paragraphs above and see if it won’t read as something –well hateful–that you think is OK because you don’t like gays. 

    In fact, the opinions you express are the reason there are special laws for “hate crimes.”  Because these kind of opinons become part of everyday speech and acceptable behavior–leading younger, less mature members of society to believe we condone treating other members as deserving less protection–that we think it is ok to treat some persons as non-persons.

    I frequently do not respond to your discussions because your opinion is stated in a way that is entrenched in judgement and leaves me with no doubt you have closed your mind to any other ideas–and I could be completely wrong–you may not have intended to shut out discussion.

    And I take your insults and slurs regarding gays personally in that I believe we must all stand up against bigotry, mysogyny, and racism–for if we don’t who will stand up for us?

    October 29, 2009
  1465. john george said:

    Peter- It’s really too bad that our children have to suffer for some of our convictions, but I guess the term “tolerance” can be applied differently. Some comments posted here and on other blogs I have read seem to convey that an opinion will be tolerated as long as in the end, the opposing opinion admits that they are wrong. I really don’t think human nature differs much from person to person. We all filter communications, be they written or oral, through our own prejudice filter. I have felt that these prejudices are often projected onto the commenter whether or not they have expressed an opinion that supports the accusation. For instance, a band of Muslim extremists piloted the planes that brought down the World Trade center. These people were motivated by a few verses in the Q’ran that talk about destroying infidels. Therefore, all Muslims must be extremists bent on attacking America. The falacy of this line of logic has been demonstrated, yet the pattern seems ingrained in some peoples’ thinking. Hopefully, communication can dispell some of these false preceps, but closed mindedness and “righteous indignation” can stand in the way of understanding and accepting one another. 

    October 29, 2009
  1466. Peter Millin said:

    Jane,
    It took me about a day to digest some of your comments. If you would know me a little better then you would realize that i am the last person that hates anybody. Especially not gays.
    When I first came in to this country in 1987 I embarked on my first business venture and my business partner at the time happened to be gay.

    Through him I got to spend quiet some time in the gay community and found them to be as diversified as any of the “breeders (gay slang for straight people)” that i found.
    I have experienced some of their intolerance and discriminations they experience in daily life and was quiet uphauled by them.

    To this day some of the people I have met in the gay commuinty are still my friends.

    It is a difficult balance for me to seperate the person from their sexually preference, which is part of the person.

    I just can’t reconcile their sexual preference with the people I have met. That doesn’t mean that I don’t tolerate and respect them or support their right to form a civil unions.

    If I gave you any other impression than the fault is clearly with me.

    October 30, 2009
  1467. john george said:

    There is an interesting article on the health care bills in today’s (Oct. 30) Strib. I couldn’t find a link, but the article was written for the Washington Post. One sentence stood out to me in the overview of the House bill, which calls for “sizeable penalties” for those who “don’t obtain coverage”:

    “People can apply for hardship waivers is coverage is unaffordable.”

    Oh, really? I thought this was what all the dog and pony show was about in the first place. One of the problems with the current system is that many people cannot afford coverage. Does this mean they are going to be in the same boat? What kind of reform is this, anyway?

    October 30, 2009
  1468. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    I don’t understand what you’re getting at here, why you refer to it as a dog and pony show, etc.

    Are you surprised that the requirement to purchase medical insurance would be waived for the very poor?    Or are you worried  that these very poor folks would not get  access to medical care?       Do you see such a provision in the legislation?

    Maybe I’m dense, but I can’t decode this.    What’s your point?

    October 31, 2009
  1469. kiffi summa said:

    Paul : I think what John means by “dog and pony show” is the concept that the goal  would be to have essentially affordable insurance for everyone… the concept that some people who absolutely cannot afford  it, no matter what can be ‘waived’ out is offensive to some, who feel that they will end up paying for some who cannot.

    In truth, there are many things we all pay for in some way for the “common good” … and we don’t bother to parse out every penny in the ledger.

    I think this objection is a red herring presented as  a fair dish…

    October 31, 2009
  1470. john george said:

    Paul- Sorry to confuse you with my terminology. As I have heard the phrase used, and as I used it here, a “dog and pony show” is any elaborate presentation of an idea or product. It is all about marketing. The concept I heard way back in President Obama’s speech about health care was that all those people who cannot afford health coverage now will be provided this coverage. The phrase I quoted out of the article seems to suggest that those on the lower end of the economic spectrum, who cannot afford coverage now, will be exempted from any surcharge for refusing coverage if they cannot afford it. To me, this is a disconnect with the original plan presented. You asked this question,
    “Do you see such a provision in the legislation?”
    Isn’t this what is being stated in this sentence I quoted? I haven’t read the whole multi-ream health bill, but it seems that if health care was going to be provided for these people, then there would be no need of a rider like this one.

    As far as your question,
    “Or are you worried  that these very poor folks would not get  access to medical care?”
    well, yes I am. I have been in that group before. I have no problem with medical care being provided for those who cannot afford it. There is a concept I live by, freely you have received, so freely give. I consider it sowing against an uncertain future need when you give to another’s need now out of your ability to do so. Every person in need has not gotten there just out of laziness. Time and circumstance can overtake any of us.

    So, what is my point? This type of phraseology does not sound like the change that was promised by the President. It sounds like the same old system with a new name.

    October 31, 2009
  1471. john george said:

    Here is yet another link giving a little more insight into the two plans moving through Congress. It is on an MSNBC website.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33564275/ns/politics-health_care_reform
    This quote from the article pretty well sums up what I think many people are feeling.

    “For the same reason, employer groups also remain wary. Big companies don’t want to lose control of their health care budgets and instead have the government send them a tax bill.

    “That cost is going to come back to you one way or another … and it’s coming back in the way of taxes and liabilities,” said Eastman Kodak’s chief executive, Antonio M. Perez, speaking for the Business Roundtable. “We just don’t believe that there are miracles out there.”

    October 31, 2009
  1472. David Henson said:

    The plan is clearly to take healthy middle income people (what will be poor?) and force them to buy health insurance at a cost far higher than their risk reflects. This is a tax plain and simple on a group Obama specifically said he would not tax. This will be chaos when people understand what is being done to them. One needs a very large income to have several $1000s whacked off each year without feeling a lot of pain.

    November 1, 2009
  1473. Paul Zorn said:

    David,

    You say:

    The plan is clearly to take healthy middle income people … and force them to buy health insurance at a cost far higher than their risk reflects.

    If your point is that many healthy people would pay more for insurance than they receive in benefits, then that’s true, but it’s a truism, not a scandal:   it’s the principle on which insurance is based.

    If your point is (as I expect) the more interesting one that people will be overpaying in some actuarial sense for health insurance, then so be it.  But that claim is quantitative, so please defend it quantitatively.   How would you propose that healthcare costs (now north of 15% in our economy) be actuarially distributed?

    November 1, 2009
  1474. David Henson said:

    Paul, if the free market would offer a $2000.00 deductible hospitalization plan for a few $100s  to a healthy 20 something and the government forcing them to buy a several $1000s plan then this is just another form of tax on “people making under $250,000.” (which Obama promised not to do). Selling out your base to private insurance seems a huge mistake.

    November 1, 2009
  1475. Paul Zorn said:

    David:

    You say:

    …  if the free market would offer a $2000.00 deductible hospitalization plan for a few $100s  to a healthy 20 something  …

    Again I ask:  are these specific numbers ($2000, “a few $100s”) specifically defensible, or are you just using them for illustration?   In the latter case, why not $3000 deductible?  Or $1000?   Or $100?

    And — more important — whatever the figures may be for the  “healthy 20-somethings”, how, if at all, would you propose that society provide for, and pay for,  the health care of unhealthy 20-somethings?    Or healthy  80-somethings?

     

    November 1, 2009
  1476. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    The article you cite is not really about “the two plans moving through Congress”.    It’s about the so-called public option, which is asserted to be unattractive or unavailable to the large majority of people.

    The Kodak executive’s point about the absence of miracles is true enough in this context (let’s not argue here about whether Mr Perez’s point might also hold over in that intermittent atheism thread).   But Mr Perez’s insight is hardly earthshaking.    Health care is clearly an expensive proposition, whether or not we manage to “bend the curve”.   The point of health care reform is not to deny or hide or wish away its considerable expenses, but to join all the world’s other rich nations in investing in our own health, and in protecting ourselves and each other against catastrophic health expenses.       It’s not just prudent, but also the right thing to do.

    November 1, 2009
  1477. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, when you say “society” I think you mean, how can we through a centralized all powerful state structure provide for people’s health care. My answer is I don’t think people will be more healthy in an all powerful centralized state. I think the current economic melt down is the result of policy gone wild in such a state and the negative impact on people’s health far out weighs the good you hope can be achieved through socialized medicine.

    November 2, 2009
  1478. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    We can discuss some other time whether I favor a “centralized all powerful state” and whether the present health care proposals would indeed usher in such a totalitarian heaven, or hell.

    But for now let’s stick to the subject.      I’d still like to see evidence for  your  quantitative claims (that the middle class will  overpay actuarially for health care, and that $2000-deductible policies could be offered profitably to “healthy 20-somethings” for a few hundred dollars).     And how would you propose that medical expenses of less fortunate groups be borne?

    November 2, 2009
  1479. john george said:

    Paul- No, this wasn’t an in-depth article about the plans before Congress. If fact, I haven’t seen an article out there like that. I’m assuming it is because nothing has been decided yet about what is being planned. I think the news media likes to give us little glimpses as they are divulged. The danger in this, of course, is that when the plans actually get hammered out, none of nthe little tidbits will be in them anyway.

    As far as ” join(ing) all the world’s other rich nations in investing in our own health,” I think it is interesting that the Saudi King and his entourage frequently add to the economic base or Rochester, MN, when they visit the Mayo Clinic. I think what you were meaning, though, is that we raise the percentage of our citizenry that actually has health coverage from its present level to be comparable to the Europen nations so often cited. I hope we can, also. I also hope we do not put our great great grandchildren into debt in the process.

    November 2, 2009
  1480. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    Here’s a site that gives a reasonable amount of detail on the House and Senate plans.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gm81TTE7a0EUL9JlzVML1dnH2N2gD9BL9MB80

    Neither suggests to me that the poor would simply be left out, as you seemed to be suggesting.        The poorest, I think, would be covered at least by Medicaid.     I’d have hoped for more, but perhaps it’s a start.

    As for whether  “the news media likes to give us little glimpses …”, I think you overestimate the media’s ability to agree on and coordinate any  policy, good or bad.       They just do what they do.

    Yes,  Saudi Arabia may be to some extent an exception to the rule that rich countries invest in their own health — though I don’t know what access ordinary Saudis have to healthcare at home.    In any case, I don’t think either of us draws much comfort from being in the company of Saudi royalty.

    And  yes, we should worry about bankrupting our grandchildren.    But let’s worry, too, about taking care of people who need medical care here and now.

     

    November 2, 2009
  1481. john george said:

    Paul Z.-Re. Your comment,
    “Neither suggests to me that the poor would simply be left out, as you seemed to be suggesting.” (italics mine)
    actuallywas not my suggestion. The comment came from this phrase in the article that I could not link:
    “People can apply for hardship waivers is coverage is unaffordable.”
    I’m just deducing from this that there will be people still without coverage if the bill goes through unammended. I hope it does not happen.

    As far as the media doing what they do, yep, they are. And these reports do not create or ” coordinate” policy. IMO, they only succeed in fanning the flames of confusion among the populace.

    According to this article, 
    http://unix.dfn.org/Saudi_Arabia.shtml 
    you are correct about the general Saudi populace.

    And, yes, we need to get healthcare for the portion of our populace that does not currently have accessable healthcare. I would just like some honesty on the part of our congressmen on how it is all going to happen. Perhaps I am a little premature in my suspicions of how this is going to be accomplished, but I prefer to not just accept the idea that the Congress, and the government in general, always has the best intrest of the general citzenry in mind when they make these types of decisions.

    November 3, 2009
  1482. Peter Millin said:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html

    Conflict of interest or just a case of free market capitalism?
    This issue illustrates the dangerous ground some politicians walk by condemning the excess of capitalism.
    Now that we make pay and money and issue…some politicians better be careful.
    “Don’t throw rocks if you sit in a glass house”

    BTW…I really appreciate the spell check function….

    November 3, 2009
  1483. john george said:

    I’m almost afraid to bring this up here, but, what the heck. I haven’t been shot at for a couple weeks, and this is news. In the Maine elections yesterday, the voters came out in favor, 53-47%, of repealing the law legalizing same sex marriage in that state. I found this interesting quote in an MSNBC article (at this link here : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33626383/ns/politics-more_politics) about the results.

    “Some California activists said the outcome in Maine strengthened their belief that it will fall to the U.S. Supreme Court — not the voters — to make gay marriage legal.”

    Hmmmmm. It sounds like the attitude in some camps is that if they can’t get a majority of opinion to support their agenda, then they will force it upon the voters via the court system. It is interesting that in every instance where the subject has been put before the voters, there has not been a majority that has supported the measure.

    November 4, 2009
  1484. kiffi summa said:

    OK… here comes the “shot”, John…

    Will you agree , that after many votes, by legislature or plebiscites presented to voters, a controversial issue has gone to the Supreme Court of the United States, which has then made a decision which may overrule either of the two aforementioned groups, and then becomes the Law of the Land?

    November 5, 2009
  1485. john george said:

    Kiffi- Yep. That is what is happening. To me, this is just an indication that the majority of the population is not quite ready yet to embrace same sex marriage. I wouldn’t use these results to support any type of moral judgement, though. This trend of using the courts to effect social changes in our country which do have moral overtones to them for some people is technically outside the democratic process of majority rule. I think it riles many Libertarians. I don’t agree with this trend, but I’m just a puff of breath in a windstorm when it comes right down to it.

    November 5, 2009
  1486. kiffi summa said:

    John: you didn’t get my point… not surprised…

    November 5, 2009
  1487. john george said:

    Kiffi- Sorry, I thought I understood what you were saying. I thought your comment- 
     
    “…which has then made a decision which may overrule either of the two aforementioned groups, and then becomes the Law of the Land?”

    was just stating that the Supreme Court has authority to overide popular opinion. This is true. What did I miss?

    November 5, 2009
  1488. kiffi summa said:

    John:   My point was: sometimes we need a larger more objective entity (Supreme Court in this instance)  to make sure that the “will of the people” is not, through their purely personal prejudice, removing the rights of some other people…

    And I don’t want to hear another circular argument about how those voters ‘rights’ were stripped; NO ONE has the right to hate another person because of their skin color, sexual orientation, etc. etc. etc.

    Disagree all you want, and as vehemently as you want, but in the end… DO  NO   HARM

     

    November 5, 2009
  1489. john george said:

    …and my only point was that the majority of the population at this point in time does not support same sex marriage. The general function of the Supreme Court, as I understand it, is to define legality of application of legislation. You and I differ on how we define same sex marriage. You define it as a civil right with merit for legal protection. I define it as a social issue whose popularity and support within the general populace changes from time to time, and therefore does not fall within the legal enforcement of the Supreme court. And, your association of my beliefs with hate driven factions of the society is unfounded.

    November 5, 2009
  1490. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    Since you ask, here’s my take.

    The Garvin piece is amusing,  but it works better as humor  than as serious analysis.    Sure, every administration gives itself the benefit of any doubt about the efficacy of its programs.       And I never liked  Cash for Clunkers as economic policy.   (As politics it had a kind of zany genius.)

    But  the writer, Glenn Garvin, plays a bit fast and loose, too.   He implies, for instance, that the idea of saved jobs (as opposed to newly created jobs) is a political fiction.     Wrong— saved jobs may be hard to meaasure, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    Where Garvin goes farthest off the rails is in comparing, even in passing, this stuff, even at its silliest  to the GWB administration’s systematic anti-science views and policies.   There’s no comparison.

    November 5, 2009
  1491. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    You say that

    the majority of the population at this point in time does not support same sex marriage

    and then that

    [same sex marriage is]  a social issue whose popularity and support within the general populace changes from time to time, and therefore does not fall within the legal enforcement of the Supreme court.

    You may be right about the majority’s view, but the second quote baffles me.    Are you really saying that the Supremes should comment only on matters on which public opinion is fully settled?      In that case we’d have no need for a Supreme Court — we could just have a plebiscite on any sticky issue.

    Seems to me that the Supremes (and lower courts) are there not to divine and ratify majority opinion, but to rule on whether particular laws or policies are consistent with broad principles and precedents enunciated in our Constitution and other elements of settled law.    Judges with fingers in the wind are not doing their job as I understand it.

     

     

     

     

     

    November 5, 2009
  1492. john george said:

    Paul- Thanks for responding to the article. I thought it was amusing, also. I don’t put a lot of stock in these columns. The writers have a bias they are presenting, so any of their assertions are going to be weighted that way. I get a little concerned that we citizens have some unrealistic expectations of how soon some of these things in the economy can be fixed. It doesn’t matter who would have been elected in ’08, we would be facing the same problems and the same time frame to correct them. They didn’t come on us overnight, and they are not going to be fixed overnight. I also agree on the science analogy with GWB. They are not equal.

    November 5, 2009
  1493. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Re. your question;

    Are you really saying that the Supremes should comment only on matters on which public opinion is fully settled? 

    No, I am not saying that at all. There will never be a time when public consensus on anything will be settled. I am just differentiating how I define same sex marriage. By social issue, I am asserting that sexual attraction is something that can be and is changed, as opposed to race, which one has from birth to death.  There is emperical evidence of people changing from heterosexual attraction to homosexual and vice versa. I have yet for anyone to present any evidence that a person has changed from one race to another. I have personal friends that have been in same sex relationships and have changed their attraction to the opposite sex. I have other friends who have lived in opposite sex relationships, raised a family, and then decided they weren’t attracted to the opposite sex at all, and have left those relationships for a same sex relationship. I have personal friends of various race and skin color, but none of them has chosen to or suddenly become another race. That is why I call same sex marrige a social issue and differentiate it from racial issues.

    Your last statement

    Seems to me that the Supremes (and lower courts) are there not to divine and ratify majority opinion, but to rule on whether particular laws or policies are consistent with broad principles and precedents enunciated in our Constitution and other elements of settled law.    Judges with fingers in the wind are not doing their job as I understand it.

    I agree with 100%, but I think that we are drawing two different
    conclusions from it.

    November 5, 2009
  1494. kiffi summa said:

    John: If your views  of other human beings’ personal choices align with that segment of society who would discriminate based on those personal choices, how am I to separate you?

    November 6, 2009
  1495. john george said:

    Kiffi- Maybe just get to know me rather than assuming you know me because of what I profess to believe. As far as your association of me with that church in Texas, look at my writings and tell me where I have supported any of their hate filled interpretation of the scriptures. I think you will find otherwise.

    November 6, 2009
  1496. Paul Zorn said:

    John,

    My computer makes it inconvenient to reply in a long thread, so I’ll start another here.

    In 1018.8, in ref to my question on when the Supremes get to weigh in on stuff, you explained that in your view sexual orientation is changeable, unlike a person’s race.

    There’s an interesting discussion to be had on the substance of that view.   A good case can be made, I think, that sexual orientation is actually  much more fundamental to a person’s makeup than his or her “race”, which is arguably an outdated fiction from the biological point of view.     (Skin color is of course not fictitious, but it’s only skin deep, if that.)

    In any event, what difference do you think this somewhat esoteric question makes to whether or not the Supremes get to weigh in on a matter?     Is there some reason the Court should keep mum on things that involve personal choices?     I don’t follow your line of reasoning.

    November 6, 2009
  1497. john george said:

    Paul- I understand the problem with long post replies. I almost started again,myself. There is a reason I use sexual preference instead of sexual orientation, but it is kind of fine hairs to split. Going back to your last paragraph in 1018.7, where you said something about the SC ratifying majority opinions, I see it doing the same thing with a present minority public opinion with same sex marriage. It seems that rather than wait until this generation that is against same sex marriage dies off, they can force compliance through legal caveate. I personally don’t see any difference in whether the court supports a majority or a minority opinion, the effects are the same.  

    Then, your statement,
    “but to rule on whether particular laws or policies are consistent with broad principles and precedents enunciated in our Constitution and other elements of settled law.”
    would seem to indicate that there is a standing precident to support this marriage law. I don’t see that. In fact, it wasn’t until the late ’50’s that homosexuality was taken out of the list of psychological deviations.

    November 6, 2009
  1498. kiffi summa said:

    John: regardless of what you actually write, you continually  make it clear that you think of  homosexuality as a “deviation”, or some sort of condition or disease that can be “cured”. You have repeatedly spoken of ‘friends’ who have been “cured”.

    By your own statement regarding the use of the term”preference” as opposed to orientation, you acknowledge that homosexuality is a choice a person is making, and in your opinion not an appropriate choice.

    Paul’s example of  the out moded concept of race as an example of a LESS determinant factor is a good one; I am part Native American… a very small part, maybe a sixteenth or thirty-second… There is no way for this to be known, unless I tell you, or you are my dentist. I have consistantly been told by dentists that my molars are Asian, not Caucasian ,(i.e.,tribal migration over the land bridge from Asia)


    November 7, 2009
  1499. john george said:

    Kiffi- What I have wondered about in your responses to my posts is why you lump me into the same mold as that hate filled group in Texas? It is as if you are using the same judgement on me that I here from people who think all Muslims are terrorists just because they are Muslim. That is why I say some of your accusations and responses to my posts are unwarranted, and I invite you to get to know me.

    In regards to your inborn racial characteristics, these can be traced to specific genes. Though there has been much research looking for the gene that governs sexual attraction, I have yet to hear of anyone actually identifying it. If this was possible, there might actually be genetic treatments for those in our society that are attracted to children and are motivated to various examples of sexual violence. At this present time, these behaviors are treated as what they are- deviant behaviors, and by deviant, I am talking about their deviation from normal heterosexual sexual attraction. I just don’t agree with the concept that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. This doesn’t mean that I am going to go out and kill them or even mistreat them. I have worked with many in my industry and have had no problems with interractions. But, if they want to know my convictions, I have no fear in sharing those with them, because I have already demonstrated my love and respect for them as fellow human beings. I don’t have to agree with or embace everything any other person believes to be friends with them or treat them civily and humanely.

    November 7, 2009
  1500. Patrick Enders said:

    FYI: The House is set to pass its health care reform bill today.  The fun is on C-Span right now-ish.

    November 7, 2009
  1501. Scott Oney said:

    I noticed that a couple of presenters on NPR this morning were having trouble pronouncing the name of the Muslim soldier who attacked Ft. Hood the other day. One of them was pronouncing it “Hossen,” as in the phrase “hoss n buggy,” and the other one kept giving it as “Hassen,” which rhymed with the word “fasten.” Shouldn’t it be pronounced more like the common Muslim name “Hasan,” which doesn’t really rhyme with anything because it ain’t English?

    November 8, 2009
  1502. Peter Millin said:

    John: regardless of what you actually write, you continually  make it clear that you think of  homosexuality as a “deviation”, or some sort of condition or disease that can be “cured”. You have repeatedly spoken of ‘friends’ who have been “cured”.

     

    Like it or not homosexuality is not “normal” however you define normal.

    Truth is that if homosexuality would be the norm than we all would be homosexual.

    Homosexuality by it’s very nature is a natural dead end. You will always need a female entity and a male entity to assure the continuation of the human race.

    Thus homosexuality could be considered an abnormality of nature….which is not the norm.

    November 9, 2009
  1503. Paul Zorn said:

    Peter M:

    Leaving aside the substance of your views on homosexuality, the logic of your posting quite escapes me.        You say, for instance, that

    … if homosexuality [were]  the norm than we all would be homosexual.

    If by “the norm” you mean “universal”, then your statement is true but vacuous.    Otherwise, the assertion makes no more sense to me than saying that since not everyone is male (or blond, or Republican, or …),  all of these traits must be abnormal.         I don’t think so.

    November 10, 2009
  1504. Peter Millin said:

    Paul,

    if homosexuality would be the norm or normal then humans would stop to exist.
    Two human males are incapable of reproducing on their own…no matter how hard they try.
    Your example implies racism mine states the obvious…huge difference.

    This doesn’t mean that I don’t like gays…it only illustrates the abnormal biological component of a gay relationship. It shows the anormality on the biological level.
    If humans would be able to multiply by being homosexual than nature wouldn’t see a need for a man and a women..but alas it does.

    November 10, 2009
  1505. Peter Millin said:

    The story around the Ft. Hood shooter is turning more and more in to a budged effort by the Army.
    It seems that he “officially” didn’t belong to AQ, but does that not make him a terrorist anyway?
    Red flags were up all around him…but did we ignore them because of political correctness?
    I hope not.

    November 10, 2009
  1506. john george said:

    Peter- I hope we didn’t, either, but I suspect that there may have been a more relaxed view of Hasan because he was Army. Who would really suspect that your own might turn on you? If this were a widespread attitude, then I don’t see how there could be any unified military unit. Suspicion is a poison that brings division and defeat.

    I really hope the media runs into a dead end with Hasan’s connections with AQ or any other Muslim extremist group. Their continued harping on it makes it more difficult for any religious group, IMO. I really think this was a very disturbed person who finally took out his fears on his colleagues. He could just as well have been a blue-eyed Lutheran named Hans. His religious affiliation has no being on his mental state, IMO.

    November 10, 2009
  1507. john george said:

    Sorry. That last sentence should read “bearing on his mental state,” not “being.” Spell check is of no help when you correctly spell the wrong word.

    November 10, 2009
  1508. kiffi summa said:

    Peter and John: re: the #1021 post series…

    It is always amazing how people can say  “I don’t dislike gays; some of my friends are gays” ,  and then proceed to talk like those human beings are some kind of sub-species.

    Would you say the things you say here to your “friends”? I guess that question is to Peter; John would probably say yes , because he  sincerely thinks he can ‘help’ by ‘curing’ them.

    So, would you say to your “friends” that they are not normal because they are gay?

    November 11, 2009
  1509. Peter Millin said:

    Kiffi,
    Your bias is clouding your judgement. I have NEVER referred to gays as sub-human. If i somehow gave you the impression that I did I am very sorry.
    I don’t try to cure them either. My motto is “Live and let live”.

    If my friends can’t be honest with me then I don’t consider them friends I call those acquaintances .
    “Normal” is a very broad definition normal means different things to different people.
    I don’t attack people because of their lifestyle, preferences or in this case a genetic abnormality??? If that what it is.
    The real test of accepting others is, if you can do it, despite of disagreeing with them.
    There are many more facets to a person then their sexuality. Although my business partner and friend knew my position we still managed to be friends.
    It’s not like we spend all of our time together discussing homosexuality.

    November 11, 2009
  1510. Peter Millin said:

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091111/D9BTACM80.html

    He could be mentally deranged but still be a religious extremist. The more we find out the more disturbing it gets.
    I am still waiting for all the facts, but it doesn’t look good.

    It is a difficult balancing act to consolidate security concerns with political correctness.
    ” Not every muslim is a jihadist, but every jihadist is a muslim”

    November 11, 2009
  1511. john george said:

    Kiffi- I’ve been mulling over your comment above, and I guess I am amazed that people would only consider people to be friends if they are in lockstep with their own beliefs/convictions. If we are going to live in a world of tolerance, then that alone would seem to indicate that there are other people who are different from oneself. Does your seeming definition limit those people whom you can call friends? Just wondering.

    November 12, 2009
  1512. kiffi summa said:

    John : It sometimes seems like we are speaking an unknown foreign language to each other…

    I have all sorts of different ‘friends’; some of whom I , and they with me, differ substantially on important issues. I do not have to be in “lockstep”  with ‘friends’…

    What I asked you was how you can have people that you feel close to, are your ‘friends’, that you feel are in need of “curing” of what they had considered to be an essential part of their self identity.

    You and  Peter have both expressed your beliefs that homosexuality is abnormal…

    I will tell you if you decide to  honestly try and define “normal”, you will run up against a lot of problems with offending all kinds of people.

    IMO you spend too much time “mulling over” what I have said, especially since I don’t seem to be speaking American English to you, or I am ‘losing it’ in my old age, or you just aren’t hearing  what I am actually saying.

    November 12, 2009
  1513. john george said:

    Kiffi- I represent your comment about old age. (Yes, “represent” is the correct word. It is an attempt at a self-depricating joke.) 

    Tell me this. If you had a friend who had a drinking problem, and he was gradually digging his own grave, would you keep silent and not say anything to him out of fear of offending him? I would hope not, for to let him continue in his path of destruction would not be demonstrating very much love, IMO. I equate homosexuality with alcoholism, so I use the same approach with each one. I don’t use the term “cure”, (that is your term) for I don’t think it fits. I use the term “set free.” This in no way means that either will not have to fight temptation the rest of their lives, but there is a place of freedom for each them.  In my circles, there is hope for those who recognize their sin. It is called grace.

    November 12, 2009
  1514. kiffi summa said:

    John: I distinctly remember you saying you have had ‘friends’ who were homosexual but they had been “cured” and are now happy in a traditional marriage. If that memory is  incorrect , I apologize,: I am certainly not going to back and look for the comment.

    But just look at the language you use in the above comment: “continue in his path of destruction”, ”  I equate homosexuality with alcoholism so I use the same approach with each one”, “fight the temptation the rest of their lives”, and “those who recognize their sin”…

    This is all the language of judgement, not acceptance .

    November 13, 2009
  1515. john george said:

    Kiffi- Sorry it took all weekend to get back to you, but we have been visiting grandkids in Grand Forks.

    Part of this difference in our approaches to “judgement” or “acceptance” is how we each view God. If God is indeed only a non-loving entity poised to throw lightning bolts at those who transgress His laws, then I suppose what I say sounds judgemental. If the only form of acceptance you recognize is the approach that everyone is free to do what he likes and has no fear of eternity, then this fits. I view God as a redeemer, not wanting any to perish, but for all to come to repentance (II Peter 3:9). If my approach is correct, then to turn a sinner from the error of his ways will save his soul from death, and cover a multitude of sins (James 5:20). I can only tell of what I have seen and heard, but if I do not, then God will find another means or person to present His truth to a perishing world. It is His power that brings redemption and change to a person’s life, not mine. I only get the opportunity to tag along with Daddy while He works.

    November 15, 2009
  1516. john george said:

    While we are on the subject (again) of homosexuality, I found a very good study on the origins of many of the terms and ideas we have discussed in this article:
    http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f.
    The writer is R. V. Young. His credentials can be found here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._V._Young

    There is one conclusion the writer draws:
    “While men and women who are possessed by an urge to commit sodomy with others of the same sex should always be treated with justice and charity, they should not be allowed to determine the norms of moral discourse.”
    that I think is worthy of note.

    November 15, 2009
  1517. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    Prof. Young has every right to his opinion on this or any other subject, and his findings on etymology may be of interest.

    But I see nothing in his “credentials”, as you put it, that gives Prof. Young any special standing or credibility as regards moral discourse.   Least of all do I see that he has any special right to allow or disallow others to help “determine the norms of moral discourse”.      On this subject Prof.  Young might be counseled to take his own advice.

    November 15, 2009
  1518. john george said:

    Paul- Yes, this is all we can hope for- opinions. Somewhere along the line, though, a person is faced with believing something. The only reason I posted the link for his credentials (he is a professor of romantic languages) is because I wanted to know something about him before I posted any link on the blog here. I suppose any person is going to present evidence that supports his particular bias. What would be newsworthy is if someone such as a practicing gay would write an article like this one.

    November 15, 2009
  1519. kiffi summa said:

    John :   Who should be allowed to “determine the norms of moral discourse” ?

    It seems to me that every time you are challenged on what you present as fact, or if not fact an opinion you presume will anchor your argument, you squirm out of it with either  your God, or some other questionable authority purportedly on your side.

    You did not respond at all to my questioning of your phrases in 1025…

    November 16, 2009
  1520. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Another thought on “opinions.” It appears that R. V. Young has done the research to back up his opinion. In the whole scheme of things, I would say that his “opinion” carries more weight than mine.

    Kiffi- I’m not sure what question you are refering to from1025. Is it this last sentence?
    “So, would you say to your “friends” that they are not normal because they are gay?”
    If so, then this is the way I approach anything like this. I only approach the subject in the context in which it is appropriate. This should be in privacy and non-accusatory. I believe that my God, being personally involved in my daily life, will give me opportunity to discuss the situation. If He does not, I will continue being “friends” and demonstrating His love for the person. Is that what you are looking for?

    As far as your question,
    ” Who should be allowed to ‘determine the norms of moral discourse’ ?”
    that is a good question for which I do not have a difinitive answer. In fact, that seems to be at the basis of all the arguments for/against imposing gay rights. Who decides? The supreme court? The legislature? A majority of the citizenry? Or, is there an absolute truth to direct moral decisions? I know what I believe, but I know that it is not a universal belief. IMO, we in this country are trying to find a moral compass to give us direction right now. This might be a stepping stone into a greater level of cultural development than we have experienced in the past, or it may be the demise of our culture as we have known it. Depending on a person’s perspective and convictions, this is either a discouraging or an encouraging time. We have limited ability to predict the future, but we have finite control over its direction depending on our choices.

    November 16, 2009
  1521. kiffi summa said:

    John : My previous questions as to your  ‘language’ is in 1025.5… but no matter..

    As to who should determine the “norms of moral discourse”, obviously it is not in the end the general populace who may vote, out of their personal prejudice, in favor of inequality. The clear need is then for a moral decision, by  objective parties, (supreme court) which will come to as close as possible a moral decision which gives all people  equal rights, without prejudice as to skin color, or sexual determination , or whatever…

    Unfortunately, the general populace will vote their preference, which may be prejudicial; they have a right to voice their preference, but not to legally burden others with their prejudices if that results in others’ lessened human rights.

    If we could always rely on the general populace for the most moral decision, we would have had no need of the Supreme Court to vote on equal schools for all children, slavery, or a myriad of other civil/human rights  issues.

     

    November 16, 2009
  1522. john george said:

    Kiffi- In response to your trust in the Supreme Court, as you know, the function of this branch is to uphold the constitutionality of various laws enacted by the legislative branch. I think Paul Z. made a good point above in 1018.8,
    “Judges with fingers in the wind are not doing their job as I understand it.”
    This branch is supposedly a-political, but since the debacle of the Robert Bork confirmation hearings, political leanings, rather than good jurisprudence, has had a greater influence on the justices approved. The legislative branch is political, and therefore responding to the winds of popularity, or at least the lobbying, of segments of the populace. I think the court has demonstrated since the early seventies that they will uphold what the legislature enacts whether there is constitutional precedence or not. It is this trend that dampens the trust of many of us in the Supremes exercising good constitutionally based judgement.

    November 16, 2009
  1523. kiffi summa said:

    John: At this point, the Supreme Court is the Final Word as to the constitutionality of any law of this land.

    IMO, you disagree with them because your  ‘preference’ (word choice is deliberate) is to deny equal rights to all.

    November 17, 2009
  1524. Jerry Friedman said:

    John and Kiffi: There is some romance and myth in what you write. The Constitution and its amendments are literally constitutional law. The U.S. Supreme Court (and every inferior court) purportedly does its best to interpret constitutional law. They do not define constitutional law, it’s already defined by the Constitution.

    We all have disagreements on the “justices'” ability to interpret the Constitution. What is remarkable is that the justices are supposedly the best lawyers but even they disagree on many, many rulings. This means either that the Constitution uses vague terms and/or sometimes justices have an ulterior motive. I think it’s probably both.

    Some laws are vague. Often, they’re vague to be more flexible. Rather than define every possible instance of “free speech” to an 18th century legislator, they use vague terms so that “free speech” is given room to grow. We shouldn’t be upset when the law is vague and justices rule differently. Sometimes husbands and wives with common backgrounds and common motives disagree on things. We can’t blame one or the other for being some degree of corrupt.

    Some laws are clear, but for whatever ulterior motive, justices rule against the law. Some ulterior motives are pristine, such as the rulings in the Amistad case, declaring that the legal “property” of slaves were no longer anyone’s “property”. Some ulterior motives are heinous. There is a California controversy, where state-employed judges are receiving an extra $48,000 annually from the County of Los Angeles. This should be interpreted as a bribe because the judges sometimes hear cases where the County is a party. When a judge was challenged on this by an attorney, the judge put the attorney in jail for contempt of court. He’s still in jail, now about 7 months later. And the judge’s association is trying to pass a law to grant judges civil + criminal immunity for taking the County’s bribes.

    We’d sure like to think that the judiciary is the most honest branch of government, but looking beneath the veneer may show otherwise. What this means, to me anyway, is that the justices create case law based on the constitution, and we should hope that their rulings are either constitutional or pristine corruptions. Regardless of their rulings, we should not grant them sole authority over what the Constitution is or means. If we know that torture is illegal, and the U.S. Supreme Court allows torture for whatever reason, we shouldn’t conclude that the Supreme Court was right because they’re mighty smart lawyers. In the same way, we know that bribery is illegal, so we should be outraged of this developing case in California.

    See http://issueswire.com/releases/Court_Corruption/Illegal_Judicial_Payments/prweb2390634.htm

    November 17, 2009
  1525. john george said:

    Jerry- Thanks for the input. I always appreciate your contributions, and it is good to hear from you again.

    November 17, 2009

Leave a Reply to Patrick EndersCancel reply