Pity for the Impotent Dick

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Is it an "unofficial American protectorate"?

It is the new Guam

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It is the new Guam

well, now that you mention it, what's up with the old guam?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well, now that you mention it, what's up with the old guam?

Still sunny I suppose

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well, now that you mention it, what's up with the old guam?

I haven't looked lately but I think some interesting sea birds make their nests there. Blue footed boobies.
Now I need to find another link.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Is it an "unofficial American protectorate"?

You'd have to ask the families of the dead Iraqi innocents what they call it. Somewhere between 70,000 and 650,000, depending on what you read.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

You'd have to ask the families of the dead Iraqi innocents what they call it. Somewhere between 70,000 and 650,000, depending on what you read.

S2S,
That's what I've heard. My guess is that besides the 2 million that have fled their country, the innocent people of Baghdad aren't really getting much protection. At least 40% of the neighborhoods have been secured.
So, I guess that the "surge" has been 40% successful.
Finally, we're getting back around to the discussion of Cheney! Any thoughts on his statements that contributed to the US invasion? Or the no-bid Halliburton contract? i'm thinking that "karma" is catching up to Big Dick for all the wonderful things he's done.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

You'd have to ask the families of the dead Iraqi innocents what they call it. Somewhere between 70,000 and 650,000, depending on what you read.

you know, that's a lot of room between those two numbers...

i find it kind of funny tho (not in a ha ha sort of way funny) that we go in and trash the place, and now so many just want us to go hey, get your act together so we can go.

i didn't know that we were quitters when times got tough, that's for sure.

oh, it's hard, we need to leave.

that said by many of the same who think we should 'DO SOMETHING' about darfur. til that got hard....

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Ah, Timm, one can always count on you to toss out regurgitated Rush Limbaugh with nothing to back it up. I'll go check the Margaret Sanger thread since I think you've posted on it since then.

GR: I'm directing your icy gaze to posts #35-36, where Baba and Stud pointed out the ineffectual work that has(or hasn't) happened since the "New Conscience" took over Congress! The new math Dems have done one amazing thing.....they've stretched 100 hrs into damn near 8months with nary a constructive thing done!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

The people are in charge hardly have open contempt for government. They see government (ie "legal" force) as a tool for furthering their agenda...hell, the Bush administration has expanded the size of the federal government at a rate that compares only to FDR (and he may have even surpassed FDR at this point). The only difference is that liberals don't agree with the current admins agenda, but they certainly have no problem using government (ie "legal" force) to further their own agenda(s). That is why I don't get the term "neo-con", as conservatives generally stand against big government, etc. "Neo-liberal" makes much more sense to me.

Either way, this is something I don't understand about many liberals. We can bring up crummy administrations throughout our history - other presidents besides Bush have trampled the Constitution, infringed on our rights, etc. (some of them Democrats even <gasp> ). However, Bush has or should have highlighted for you how government has and will continue to be abused. Historically, the temptation and abuse of government power attracts more as$holes than not. Also, as Bush should also now highlight, advocating central power in government for things you want is tantamount to advocating that same amount of power in the hands of your enemy. Proof is in the pudding, as they say. We can simply say, "Well, I just don't like the way the 'neo-cons' are using the power; power in and of itself is not a bad thing so long as it is applied correctly." Fine, but, as I said, history shows that government power attracts more as$holes than not, so if the government should have this power, at the very, very best, from time to time it will get in the hands of as$holes (some may say it is with as$holes most of the time), and it will be abused - and Bush is hardly an illustration of the worst possible case. So, why or why do liberals still think that government is the solution to many of our problems?

But see, here is where I think 30 years' of propaganda in the wake of Watergate has radically affected the average American's view of what government can and can't do, and the fact that we can't seem to remember beyond ten minutes ago doesn't help. FDR was far from perfect (attempting to stuff the Supreme Court with 15 justices comes to mind), but look what government stepped in to do during the Great Depression- instituted Social Security, which, for all the current dour predictions, is one of the single most successful social programs ever created (and a model of efficiency). The WPA, which put thousands and thousands of people back to work in jobs created by the government, building roads, digging ditches, creating dams. We scream now about the evils of socialism, but in the 1930's, especially with 25 percent of America out of work and bread lines around the block, socialism was seen by many as the solution. FDR's government programs saved capitalism in the US. JFK's administration set us towards the moon. Nixon's brought about Title IX, and for all the screaming from the right about it, it's been a very, very valuable program for thousands of girls all over the country- girls who play sports are less likely to wind up in abusive relationships or get pregnant as teenagers. These are extraordinary things government accomplishes.

Goood government is a great thing. Bad government isn't. And yes, lots and lots of bad people go into government. And they become bosom buddies with people in big business and soon we're awash in crony capitalism. But to shrug and say, well, power corrupts, therefore government is for bunk is, I think, indicative of another American trait, which is that we hate complexity and we want results right away. Something goes wrong and we want to throw it out, rather than repair it. But we've been blessed with years and years of prosperity, thanks to the wise government of past administration (and, unfortunately, to cheap oil, thanks to the unwise government of those same administrations, which has created a whole wealth of new problems), and I think we get complacent and forget how long it can take to make things better, because we haven't really had anything all that wrong for so long. And so we blame government for all our problems, and think we'd be better off without it. And the media continues to villanize everything government does and we all stop thinking of government as a tool of the people and think of it as the enemy.

And maybe so many crooks and liars wouldn't get voted in if more than half of the population would bother to turn out to vote. Or read up on the issues. Or vote based on more than, "I just don't like him/her. I can't explain it." Or if more than a thousandth of them would bother to write their Congressman once in a while. Did any of the DTers who posted about their political leanings- specifically, that they don't care if gays get married, ever think to write their Congressman to that effect? Again, complacent.

Anyway, my eight dollars of opinion. Good government, good. Bad government, bad. Up to us to decide which is which.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

But see, here is where I think 30 years' of propaganda in the wake of Watergate has radically affected the average American's view of what government can and can't do, and the fact that we can't seem to remember beyond ten minutes ago doesn't help. FDR was far from perfect (attempting to stuff the Supreme Court with 15 justices comes to mind), but look what government stepped in to do during the Great Depression- instituted Social Security, which, for all the current dour predictions, is one of the single most successful social programs ever created (and a model of efficiency). The WPA, which put thousands and thousands of people back to work in jobs created by the government, building roads, digging ditches, creating dams. We scream now about the evils of socialism, but in the 1930's, especially with 25 percent of America out of work and bread lines around the block, socialism was seen by many as the solution. FDR's government programs saved capitalism in the US. JFK's administration set us towards the moon. Nixon's brought about Title IX, and for all the screaming from the right about it, it's been a very, very valuable program for thousands of girls all over the country- girls who play sports are less likely to wind up in abusive relationships or get pregnant as teenagers. These are extraordinary things government accomplishes.

Goood government is a great thing. Bad government isn't. And yes, lots and lots of bad people go into government. And they become bosom buddies with people in big business and soon we're awash in crony capitalism. But to shrug and say, well, power corrupts, therefore government is for bunk is, I think, indicative of another American trait, which is that we hate complexity and we want results right away. Something goes wrong and we want to throw it out, rather than repair it. But we've been blessed with years and years of prosperity, thanks to the wise government of past administration (and, unfortunately, to cheap oil, thanks to the unwise government of those same administrations, which has created a whole wealth of new problems), and I think we get complacent and forget how long it can take to make things better, because we haven't really had anything all that wrong for so long. And so we blame government for all our problems, and think we'd be better off without it. And the media continues to villanize everything government does and we all stop thinking of government as a tool of the people and think of it as the enemy.

And maybe so many crooks and liars wouldn't get voted in if more than half of the population would bother to turn out to vote. Or read up on the issues. Or vote based on more than, "I just don't like him/her. I can't explain it." Or if more than a thousandth of them would bother to write their Congressman once in a while. Did any of the DTers who posted about their political leanings- specifically, that they don't care if gays get married, ever think to write their Congressman to that effect? Again, complacent.

Anyway, my eight dollars of opinion. Good government, good. Bad government, bad. Up to us to decide which is which.

But of course the general population is too stupid to think, and they don't have all the facts.....So just let the Dems think for you and everything will be fine Don't forget posts 35-36!

[skippy3481]

DTS,
I didn't post for a reason. I don't really have enough information to accurately state how i feel about cheney. Do i like him as a person... NO? Do I like him as a vice president... I don't know. But instead of writing a paragraph about something I don't have a firm opinion on, I simply passed. Posting articles without comment is absolutely a waste a time, bu its fine I'll just put you on ignore and forget about it.

GR,
I agree that people posting articles is a good thing;however my premise still stands, I dont want just articles, i want the posters comment on the article. When you post articles you at least put your on idea's at the bottom. DTS has some valid points, but the problem is wading through postings of just articles to get to something interesting. But thats just me, and bababooyee, that was exactly what i meant.

[timmgirvan]

Skippy: Bud, there's no reason to put people on ignore! It's just a conversation,hopefully!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

DTS,
I didn't post for a reason. I don't really have enough information to accurately state how i feel about cheney. Do i like him as a person... NO? Do I like him as a vice president... I don't know. But instead of writing a paragraph about something I don't have a firm opinion on, I simply passed. Posting articles without comment is absolutely a waste a time, bu its fine I'll just put you on ignore and forget about it.

GR,
I agree that people posting articles is a good thing;however my premise still stands, I dont want just articles, i want the posters comment on the article. When you post articles you at least put your on idea's at the bottom. DTS has some valid points, but the problem is wading through postings of just articles to get to something interesting. But thats just me, and bababooyee, that was exactly what i meant.

Skippy,
I am not sure you will read this if you have me on ignore.
With due respect, all I will say is that the links I posted, especially the one from the Washington Post, and also the one that reports on Rahm Emmanuel's position regarding defunding the executive portion of the vice president's share should he claim to not be a part of the executive branch (an thus subject to oversite), because in my humble view, these events are currently in the "news" and perhaps would spark discussion.
We should be entitled to agree or disagree on relevant topics. Providing information (and opinion) on those topics is suitable. Perhaps it might not be of interest to you, nor something that you wish to comment on. That's up to you to decide.
Respectfully,
DTS

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

GR: I'm directing your icy gaze to posts #35-36, where Baba and Stud pointed out the ineffectual work that has(or hasn't) happened since the "New Conscience" took over Congress! The new math Dems have done one amazing thing.....they've stretched 100 hrs into damn near 8months with nary a constructive thing done!

And I'll direct your gaze to this link, about why nothing has been happening in Congress. Well, lookie there...

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...ves/11270.html

[Danzig]

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?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Well, I'd argue the exact opposite. That we are woefully uneducated. When we're taught by the government, why should we not expect our history to be whitewashed and ignored? Why shouldn't it be expected that we are taught everything has been mostly great and be lucky, if at best, many transgressions are given a footnote, and often outirght lied to? You think this perspective starts with Watergate? C'mon now...that's just silly - how much of the writings and debates from the Founders have you read? That's the whole point of the Constitution - limit government because of distrust of government. I mean, that isn't the best place to start, we could start with many things much earlier (because the Founders did not just pull the Constitution out of their asses - it was a result of a lot of education, research and debate). But Watergate?? C'mon now.

To put trust in government, to the extreme extent liberals do, is, in part, to outright ignore history (talk about a short attention span!) and/or be woefully uneducated. I mean, it is a blue print outlined by Plato a long time ago...people are to be but a cog in the machine, so you have to have the machine teach them - the machine is good, making the machine bigger is will make it all better.



Not to mention collecting a racial minority into concentration camps, and all that...(the same thing socialists were doing across the pond, btw).



Like take measures which prolonged the Depression?



SS is an example of a governmental success???? Really!??!?! You mean the pool money the government couldn't keep their hands off, said pool now being full of IOUs?? Eek.

Hell, one of the few things that government does OK is deliver the mail; however, that has a lot to do with the government being kind enough to let us have competition in that arena, so the USPS is forced to be efficient, etc. otherwise we'll take our business to UPS, FedEx, etc.



And socialism/collectivism was seen by many as the solution in Nazi Germany, USSR, China, Cambodia, etc. Internment camps, concentration camps, gulags, etc. Socialism has a great track record...and body count to boot.

I know what you're thinking at this point, but continue to the next part where I further explain...



Hardly. Let's say there is no government at all...what would type of economy would we have? Free market capitalism! People trading goods and services in return for goods and services. So, how can you say that he, by government, saved what would exist without government in the first place!?!? He didn't. His programs WERE socialist.




Wanting results right away is the path of liberals, and hating complexity is ignoring history, simple economics, and human nature. Wanting government to do so much is hardly complex - it is the simplest thing to suggest - pass the buck, let them handle it. Other solutions will take too long, so let's have the government do it!

"But government can handle it if goverment is set up complex enough (enough central planners, putting enough brain power into it)"...yeah, well that's what they thought in the USSR, too. Worked out wonderfully - about the only thing they did efficiently was trample on basic human rights (freedom of speech, religion) and murder.

Also, distrusting goverment is very healthy and is rooted in our history and tradition. It comes from a proper historical perspective whereby we understand and appreciate what happens to the individual as goverment grows - our Founders knew it way back when and tried to limit what the government could do and their concerns/distrust/fears have been proven warranted around the world over and over again: the individual becomes the servant to the government instead of the opposite (which was the whole point of America in the first place - which is another reason I questioned your take on the Founders).

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).

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And I'll direct your gaze to this link, about why nothing has been happening in Congress. Well, lookie there...

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...ves/11270.html

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

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

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

"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?

[GenuineRisk]

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.

[GenuineRisk]

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.>>