i just started reading 'the summer of 1787'. whenever i read about our founding fathers, it makes me that much more embarrassed about our current 'leaders'. my gosh, if this bunch of yahoos was around 200-odd years ago, where would we be now?

B, here is where I think you misunderstand liberals- most liberals aren't advocating more government- they're advocating BETTER government. I see no reason why subsidies to the oil and coal industries should continue, for example. End 'em. And gas will cost close to $13 a gallon, but that's true free market- if the gas companies really had to pay what it cost to produce their product (including cleaning up the environmental damage from creating it, which your and my tax dollars pay for), I'd be cool with it. Think that's likely to happen? People will scream bloody murder if they had to pay the actual cost of things like gas and oil. Though honestly, I'd be willing to do so if it meant an end to the energy subsidies.

Government size has been swelling, no question (and more under Republicans lately than under Democrats). But not swelling in any way to address the rising inequality in the US- it's rising as government gets even deeper in bed with Big Business. And it doesn't make economic sense. For all that the media has us running scared from the idea of national health care, for example, we still pay more per person than any other industrialized nation and we have higher infant mortality and lower life span than any other industrialized nation. France is rated #1 in health care; we're #37. AND IT COSTS OUR NATION MORE. Whaaaaa?

Social Security is a brilliant program- the government stealing the surplus is wrong. But again, that's where I'd say better government, not less.

I also don't see what the internment camps (which were wrong, duh) have to do with anything currently- I don't think I was nominating FDR for sainthood. To look at the other Roosevelt, there's a man that helped found the National Park system (another example of government doing the right thing- setting aside public lands so we can all have an opportunity to be in the great outdoors), and also was such a racist he said white women had an obligation to bear at least four children. Does the fact that Yellowstone is not owned by some rich corporation; that I can go there, suddenly become a bad thing because of TR's feelings on racial dominance? No, of course not. We're all complex human beings. I can separate the two.

B, the truly free market is a lovely idea if people all behaved honestly. But they don't- they're going to band together and lie and cheat and monopolize (another thing TR took on). It's why I favor regulated capitalism. Don't keep a close watch on something and you get the junk bond scandal of the late '80s-- which a whole lot of our tax dollars went to bail out.

Explain to me how wanting results right away is the path of liberals. If you're going to make a huge generalized statement like that, you need to back it up for me. Women had the first suffrage meeting in 1849. We got the vote in 1920. If that's not patience, what is? And don't try telling me THAT was a conservative movement. ;)

My point on socialism is that it wasn't seen in the 1930's as the great evil it now is, and it took men in gov't not to cave into it. I think maybe you didn't get what I was saying.

And of course, I'm well aware corruption in gov't is as old as gov't itself (like anything else). My point was, Watergate marked a shift in how Americans in the 20th Century viewed gov't- I think that's when the cynicism REALLY set in. I'm well aware the Founders distrusted even their own ability to maintain a fair governing system- it's why the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms is for the purpose of forming a militia, not just 'cause people want to have a gun, right? So really, David Koresh and co. were being strict Constructionists. Huh. I just thought of that. How far we've come. They were ready for the revolution Jefferson thought would happen every few generations or so (or so I was once told; I'll have to look that up).

Dearie: that stuff is politics! Ebb and flow! You act like it's the end of the world. If you can't convince the opponent to change his mind, you have to come up with better legislation. BTW...nice group of friends ya got over there:rolleyes:

"Sweetcheeks," when the opposition will oppose anyone purely because he or she isn't a member of their team, one is kind of stuck. Did you even read the link? The Republicans aren't interested in getting anything done- they want to get back in power. So they're going to obstruct every piece of legislation the Dems propose and then they're going to shriek in '08 that the Dems didn't do anything. And then they'll get back in power and REALLY go back to not doing anything (2.5 day workweek, remember?).

Where did I say the obstructionist Republicans in Congress is the end of the world? I think I was just refuting your insistence that it's all the Democrats' fault. You're making up things I didn't say. Have you been taking debating lessons from Ann Coulter again? ;)

Hey, B!

I guess whatever your examples were about liberals expecting instant results, I didn't understand or see them- can you you expand on what you felt were your examples so I do?

I guess I am a real nerd- I read "The Republic" many years ago. I've often thought Plato's concept of a world where the perfect version of things existed (which is why, on earth, we can recognize both a Doberman and a cairn terrier as a dog, and know neither is a cat) is where Christians got the idea for Heaven.

Again, your argument is that government is going to attract nothing but crooks and liars and mine is that it doesn't have to be like that. I do think the current inability to win elections without huge amounts of money from Big Business leads to corruption of people running so I support efforts into election reform, though I don't think any of the proposed solutions are the best ones--- YET. But I don't think we should give up on looking for one. Mayor Bloomberg, here, is a lot of things, but not corrupt. How can he be? He's got more money than God; who could possibly bribe him? And so he funded his own election campaigns and didn't owe favors to anyone. I don't think the solution is just permitting the super-wealthy to run for office, but it indicates to me that climbing into bed with Big Business is a huge problem.

(If I could do one thing, actually, it would be to take away the taxpayer IDs for corporations- acknowledging corporations as individual entities was a grave mistake because it absolved the individual members of the corporations of most financial responsibility for wrongdoing.)

And again, when it comes to "but things REALLY suck in Europe/Canada/etc." I come back to, well, who says we have to do an exact copy of what they do for health care? Why can't we look at the things that work and figure out how to do what doesn't work differently? What happened to American innovation?

I do agree there are a number of factors that go along with Europeans better health (they're now getting taller than us, too!). And it could be an interesting study in whether a scarcity of a resource (waits for medical attention, for example) inspire lifestyle choices to make that resource less necessary. Cuba has a comparable life expectancy to ours, and there are theories that it's because cars are expensive, so most people walk or bicycle (exercise) and that while there is enough food, there certainly isn't an excess of it (at all) so people stay thin. I certainly don't advocate imposing that kind of lifestyle on anyone (I like being able to buy milk!), but it's interesting how we can also be victims of our own success in the mid-20th Century and now come out the other end overweight, out of shape and sick. And our current health system makes it hard to start up businesses due to health care costs for workers. We need to change something for our own economic health.

Do you support abolishing the National Parks system, so that rich folks can buy up park land and keep the average American off of it? I'm curious where you draw the line on smaller government. I'd go for a smaller defense system myself- which is one area where conservatives seem very content to keep throwing money at government.

My problem with the strict constructionist movement is the same one I have with people who insist the Bible is the unalterable, infallible word of God- we live in a different world now. Our country is bigger; we aren't an agricultural society; we have progressed to a point where we understand more than white, land-owning men deserve a say in government. (I have a good friend in Florida who is very much of "the Bible is perfect and all translations are perfect" school of thought and she, not surprisingly, believes homosexuality is a sin. I asked her about how she feels about wearing blended fabrics, since Paul also cited that as a sin, and she said, "Oh, well, things like that are archaic now." Uh-huh. Nice picking and choosing. Whose to say, in a now overpopulated world, homosexuality edicts aren't just as archaic?) And of course, strict constructionists will then say people like me want to junk the Constitution. Of course we don't; it's an extraordinary document; one of the greatest in history, in my opinion. But it's been amended over history and I believe our willingness to change to fit the world we live in (and then to change back if we screw up, in the case of Prohibition- whoops!) has kept it able to govern us.

Though in the wake of Cheney and Co., I'm not so sure anymore... :(

Anyway, my thoughts on a morning where I am being forcibly reminded that I can't drink hard alcohol after I've spent most of the day out in the heat (the actors at the zoo performed yesterday in the heat and as their supervisor, I think it's crummy to hide out in my air-conditioned office all day so I spent most of the day outside with them. And then had margaritas and am now reeeeaaallly sick. Speaking of Coke vs. red wine- Coke may not be good for you, but it sure does settle the stomach.). I'm enjoying this discussion immensely.

And in the "google and you'll learn something"- on his blog Andrew Sullivan has been discussing health care- he, as a former resident of GB, is very critical of their health care system. Here are some posts from readers about France's, which is currently rated number one in the world. I wasn't aware it wasn't completely socialized. Again, not perfect. But interesting to learn how and what they do:

<<As I understand it, "Sicko" also looks at the French system - which is very different from the NHS and shouldn't be placed under the rubric "socialized medicine."

The French system is a mixed public-private system that covers all residents of France. Social security "charges" paid by employees and employers pay all or part of most health care services. Many people also have a "mutuel," a private insurance company that pays for services beyond what Social Security, aka Secu, pays. (And the unemployed also are covered; if you lose your job you don't lose your health insurance.)

The U.N.'s World Health Organization surveys the health care systems of nations around the world and in its most recent survey named the French system as the best in the world. From my own experience, I concur.

My wife and I have had stays in hospitals, public and private, and have been well satisfied by the quality of care. Hospitals we have stayed in are the equal of the best in the U.S. Fees are far lower than those in the U.S.

Does the French system have problems? Sure. It runs a big deficit each year. And, yes, Social Security charges (which pay health insurance, pension, disability and unemployment insurance) are very high for both employees and employers. Doctors who are under the Secu fee schedule (though they are self-employed) complain the fees are too low. Nurses also complain about low wages. According to the WHO, France spends much less per patient than the U.S. does. If I recall, France's per patient cost is a third less than that of the U.S.>>

AND:

<< I agree with your reader's positive description of the healthcare system in France. A recent commentator in Le Monde argued that, despite the US's anxieties about "socialized medicine," our healthcare system actually shows more evidence of "socialization" than theirs does. As the commentator points out, countless French physicians operate independently out of their own offices, whereas most US physicians, because of the burdens of paperwork, have to work in groups or in hospitals. French citizens have far more liberty in choosing the doctors they would like than most US citizens do.

I was treated for the same minor health problem in France and in the U.S. In France, I walked into the French hospital, spoke with a doctor in a few minutes, received treatment, and was charged $25. In the U.S., I was subjected to a barrage of bureaucracy before I could ever speak with anyone, and I left $600 poorer (after health insurance), on my graduate student's salary. In France, a visiting friend hurt her foot, so we stopped by a hospital. An internist examined her and told her what the problem was. When we tried to pay, she shrugged and said that there would be no bill, as we were from "le pays de la liberté." (This was admittedly before the Bush presidency.) If only U.S. physicians could function with the efficiency, common sense, and independence of their French equivalents.>>

Was up in Canada last week on business, and at dinner the topic of health care came up. I innocently asked if the US should copy their system because as everyone knows our system doesn't work and theirs is free.

You should have heard the laughter! the stories they told about the long waits, the poor pay for those in the industry, etc. "looks like you have a blocked artery sir, we'll have you back for an MRI in four months".

i think to some extent it's a case of the neighbors grass always looking greener. No system is real good and could be improved, that goes for us as well as France and Canada.

Partisan politics is "politics"! The current legislation is very important..so I wouldn't be ina hurry to rush it through! I said the Dems couldn't get out of their own way....because they haven't completed one thing on their 1st 100 hours agenda! Their "infighting" amongst themselves is what I was referring to, and if you want to talk about the workweek...how about Pelosi and the gang keeping their butts in the US to take care of business,instead of parading around the Middle East and such, acting like the the next big thing?
Of course I read the link...how else could I comment on your friends responses over there? On the Coulter thing...is there a sign-up sheet?:D

Hey Timm,
This is a bit off the topic that this thread has morphed into, but I'm curious on your view. Do you think the vice presidency is part of the Executive branch or the Legislative branch (tie breaker vote as president of the Senate)?
Or, should there be unequal roles, where does the "vice president" gain legitmacy, as part of the executive or part of the legislative?

Timm,
I guess I found the answer to my question in Sidney Blumenthal's opinion piece.
I was kind of amazed at Ashcroft's role in that he was the only one that stood up and pushed back.
Anyway, Cheney looks like he's getting gelded ( not literally, though some dicks need that too).
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blument.../index_np.html

This may be the most illogical, illinformed post I have ever seen.

AWWWWW comeon Chuck!
Cut her a break.
We all get a bit carried away at times (myself included).
LOL.

I should have prefaced with "Non-PG1985" illogical, ill informed posts

There ya go! Thanks for the qualifier. You too, huh?

I kinda liked him but he would say the dumbest things...

Hey, so do I at times. LOL.
Oh well, back to racing.
Just curious cause I read a thread you had something to say in a different forum about 90% of good horses going to a limited few trainers in NY.
Interesting.
Just curious, what do you think the reason behind that is?
Good trainers? Trusting owners? Or some that aren't improving what they've got? Really interesting.
I'd like to learn more.

because it's easier? go with a name you've heard of, rather than do some research?

or much like in school, i once heard the term 'better dead than different',because most feel safer to follow the crowd?

Because when any new money comes into the game, they are all pretty much advised to go to a supertrainer. There are a number of reasons, name recognition being one of them but many times the advisors are people who breed or sell horses who love to curry favor with the guys who can affect who buys their horses. Short term businesswise maybe a good move for the advisors but since they are slowly squeezing the life out of the upper level of the racing business, longterm it will probably lead to a decreased market value for horses. With a few notable exceptions, it rarely works out for the new money.