InaniTy
 

so you were against the publication of the abu gharib stuff?

InaniTy
 

Lighten up, Francis. I've posted maybe 4 times on this issue in the past week -- once a mere "2" (to Sebby, which was scary), the other expressing agreement with Spanky (even scarier. Next I'll be asking Fluffy to come over and hang.)

But, still, I'm glad to see I've made such an impression. But I don't think newspapers should make editorial decisions based on what will make people like or dislike the US. Particularly when many of the same people will dislike us in any event, and this will be just one more wrong reason for them to do so.

InaniTy
 

so you were for the publication of the abu gharib stuff? How about the result to the war effort of Americans soldeirs killed in the aftermath? Should a free press give aide and comfort to enemies?

InaniTy
 

Nope -- as you know.

Look, Hank -- this is all subjective and you can't turn it into any kind of general principle applicable to all situations.

e.g., I expect you would not agree that anything arguably newsworthy should always be published, no matter what. I certainly would not agree that anything that damages U.S. foreign policy efforts should never be published.

If I had to delineate my feelings on the distinction, I'd start with the view that the Abu Ghraib shots needed to be published because they revealed significant crimes by our military personnel with broad policy implications going forward (domestic and, unfortunately, foreign) and that their publication was important to inform our national debate.

That said, there were many more pictures and video footage connected with that scandal which have been classified and suppressed/held by the U.S government on the grounds that their release would harm national security. They held screenings/viewings for Congress, but only very general descriptions were published.

S_A_M

Didn't Know Less Was Italian
 

InaniTy
 

Yes.


That was not a result of press coverage. That was a result of the fact that the US was torturing prisoners.

Shoot the messenger if you like, but don't pretend it's his fault.



I wasn't aware that the press was hiring any aides for Al Qaeda, but leaving that aside, once again, it was our policies that were helping our enemies.

If you want to live with a press that is unwilling or unable to report on things that are unfavorable to the government, move to China.

Mnnnn, Danish
 

Jesus, man, is daytime cable that bad?

PS: I find your wish to see mankind driven to the brink of obliteration and forced to live in a Mad Maxian post-apocalyptic netherworld to assuage your boredom interesting and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Didn't Know Less Was Italian
 

shit. ncs. can i add Italy's Reform Minister Roberto Calderoli to my death pool list still?

murder
 

So, now Cheney's prey has a heart attack. If he dies, can he face negligent homicide charges?

murder
 

Dead men tell no tales.

Mary Jo needs a glass of water
 

Just as soon as they file murder charges against Ted Kennedy.

murder
 

Nah. Local authorities have graded this only a hunting accident. Presumably, if the prey croaks, it'll be upgraded to no more than a *fatal* hunting accident.

murder
 

2. Happens all the time. Ruled as judgement error by the hunter, but it's going to be essentially the same legal outcome as Laura Bush's running over and killing that guy 40 years ago.

murder
 

This goes with my theme for the day: Sometimes shit happens, and people die. It's sad, kinda, but it's part of life. Stop fucking trying to work around it.

murder
 

Helping with the marketing materials at work?

murder
 

Not that kind of death. The regular people kind of death. Death in that kind of death is not really as much of a "shit happens" thing. Cancer is a "shit happens" thing.

BTW, I won the fight. Yay!

ETA Die, motherfuckers, die! I say that for no particular reason.

Is this true?
 

This may have already been discussed and I missed it, but I was talking to Lew Butler, who was the undersecretary of HEW under Nixon, and he told me that they considered the prescriptoin drug option but decided it was just a boondoggle for the drug companys.

He told me, and I don't know if it is correct, that under the new prescription drug deal it is illegal for the US Government to buy drugs wholesale from drug companies. Kaiser can buy drugs wholesale, but the one entity with the greatest purchasing power in the world can't bargain to buy the drugs.

I would call that an example of the government not taking advantage of the benefits of the free market.

This policy would make Lenin proud.

Is this true?
 

Wholesale vs. not wholesale isn't the issue -- what *is* wholesale, anyway? Basically, yes -- Kaiser and BCBS and Medco (on behalf of clients, generally) can bargain, based on their bulk buying power, to get lower prices. But this isn't permitted under Medicare Part D (prescription drug benefit).

Though, I think that people covered by Medicare Part D have to enroll in plans, which may be able to bargain with the drug companies to get lower prices.

RT can probably explain better, but probably not tonight.

Is this true?
 

could you summarize the opt in/out provisions added by the '98 amendments please?

Is this true?
 

That is absolutely correct. That provision was the work of some very fancy lobbying by drug companies -- including the new head of PHRMA -- good old Billy Tauzin (or did he get the job just after the bill passed)? They argued that the givernment's negotiating power would distort the market.

The provision was the subject of some criticism from the Democratic side of the aisle. A GOP President and Congress passed the bill with that kind of corporate welfare provision -- remarkable, isn't it?

S_A_M

Is this true?
 

Not to be on the side of the GOP, but are the entities that Part D beneficiaries have to sign up with to get the benefit permitted to bargain? Not that they could get as good a deal as something that combined the buying power of EVERYONE eligible for Part D benefits, but it does at least mean that taxpayers aren't paying wholesale for the drugs.

I'm sure RT can educate us on how it works under the VA system versus Medicare Part D. Veterans get free drugs -- pretty cool -- and I think that the VA system uses it's huge buying power to get very low prices.

Is this true?
 

This kind of crap makes me feel better about having registered as a Libertarian out of sheer disgust.

I still can't get my hands around why states can't buy drugs from Canada. People should be able to buy what they want if they're willing to sign a waiver agreeing to take on reasonable risks associated with purchasing on an unregulated global market.

Is this true?
 

Yes it's true under Medicare Part D, no it's not true under other government healthcare programs, most notably the VA, which pays about 40 percent less for prescription drugs than Medicare Part D plans.

Is this true?
 

So he was right. This should be the Democrats motto for the next election.

corporate welfare = socialism

"Fair and Balanced"
 

You just cannot make this stuff up. Never mind about the guy in the ICU - is the VP all right?



http://images.dailykos.com/images/us...tochen.JPG.jpg

"Fair and Balanced"
 

(a) The amount of attention being paid to this is ridiculous.

(b) Even more ridiculous is the reason offered by Scott McC on why neither the VP's office nor the WH issued a statement on the shooting earlier -- something to the effect of "they were focused on more important things, like the health of [whatever shot guy's name is]. Cheney visited him in the hospital." That is so pathetically lame. Yeah, everyone on his staff and the White House staff was working toward the health of shot guy, and so they weren't available to issue a statement.

eta (c) that said, I wish that there'd been something on NPR this morning other than Scott McC's lame-ass explanation and descriptions of the heart attack.

"Fair and Balanced"
 

How long did it take Billary Rodham to report the suicide of Vincent Foster?

Is this true?
 

Why not make the same argument about any drugs? So long as you waive, you can take it?

I'm not saying I like the rule, but the issues are a lot more complex because with many drugs intellectual property is implicated. Drug companies like the cross-border bans because they can price based on the local market realities, without the arbitrage risk. If they had to price globally, prices would increase significantly in some countries other than the U.S. As a result those governments might decide not to recognize the IP rights, and allow generic production of the patented compound. At which point incentives for drug development would decline significantly. Of course there are good arguments against that point, but the argument is not trivial.

"Fair and Balanced"
 

for that to be a sensible question, the word suicide should appear in quotes.

But I think the answer is, more quickly than the shooting accident. I think it was reported the next morning, if not sooner.

"Fair and Balanced"
 

On a, true unless the guy dies.

On b, Russert made teh interesting point that cheney's constituency is 1, Bush, since he's not running for election in 2008. He can give everyone the finger, basically. Of course, that may cost Bush, but it doesn't cost Cheney, at least until Bush cuts him loose, which he won't because that looks even worse than letting him continue to fuck around (and I say that's true even if Scooter Libby implicates him in open court on Plame).

on c, listening to his explanations is good theatre. Sebby's description of him (it was more articulate than "fat fuck", but not too different) is still straight on. The guy is a hack who is really poor at explaining a bad situation. While he's not been blessed by spinnable stories, most people with that job still find a way.

"Fair and Balanced"
 

Your schtick on this has already been coopted by the left. Move along.

"Fair and Balanced"
 

If I were you, I'd keep my yap shut for a few days, criminal. You better hope you got some fans in the state attorney's office.

"Fair and Balanced"
 

On (b), my comment is that he looks like fuckup jackass and he's in the public eye. Like, Brittany has NO constituency, and I think that driving with the baby in her lap AND her pathetic explanations for it are annoying and stupid.

Cheney is a representative of the administration and of the GOP, and he's helping make both of them look bad/stupid/whatever in a whole new way to me. Which is kinda cool.

Is this true?
 

Liability for every adverse effect from any activity/drug should be knowingly waivable. But then some fucking lawyers will come along and claim the waiver wasn’t “informed” or some such shit to make a buck out of someone’s irresponsibility.

This is America. Responsbility isn't your business - thats a legal issue, to be decided by a jury.

"Fair and Balanced"
 

I think this issue will die when Cheney says “I haven’t spoken because I shot my friend, and if you’re as human as you all claim to be when you call me a soulless scumbag, you’ll of course understand how distraught this has made me.”

Of all the issues the press could glom onto, the cover-up of this incident (which isn’t a cover up at all) is the least salacious. The press is a fucking embarrassment.

"Fair and Balanced"
 

I don't see it as a cover-up -- it's a fuck-up. They should have done a press release quickly, and had Cheney give a short statement saying how concerned he is about his friend's health. Both should have mentioned that they wants to respect the family's privacy as much as possible. The whole story would be dead, with the whole heart attack demoted to a short little blurb.

It's not rocket science. Where the hell is Rove?

eta I wish the media would shut the fuck up about this other than to give a one-line update when his condition changes dramatically. And that only because total silence would be weird after all the attention. They were interviewing doctors about how those heart attacks work, for chrissakes. WHO CARES.

For Hank Only
 

• (CNSNews.com) - Reportedly armed with 12 hours of Saddam Hussein's audio recordings, the organizers of an upcoming "Intelligence Summit" are describing the tapes as the "smoking gun evidence" that the Iraqi dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
  
  The U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which according to the New York Sun has already authenticated the Saddam tapes, has reopened its investigation into the possible existence and location of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But some long-time liberal skeptics are showing no inclination to change their minds.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20060215a.html

"Fair and Balanced"
 

Maybe some of us are caring people and concerned for this guy.

"Fair and Balanced"
 

Go find some poor sick orphaned family and friendless person to be concerned for and visit him/her in the hospital. This guy is covered.

"Fair and Balanced"
 

I can do both. Don't i always answer your PMs?