A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not sure what S_A_M's issue is about "playing politics" with the war. The war is by far and away the most important to voters right now. If you check the polls, it comes in at 40-something%, and the next issue is in the single digits. Since Congress is expressing itself on policy but not tying the President's hands, what's the problem? How can they "push it too far"?

I mean, quite simply, what I said.

I fear that both sides may be formulating policy and taking actions based on considerations of political popularity rather than merit, with possible detrimental effects to the "success" of this important mission (i.e. getting the best possible outcome now).

Or, they all may be acting based on their best judgment, with which I disagree. Hard to tell.

Yes, the issue is critically important to the voters, and the Democrats certainly have to push the issue. I'm not suggesting they are wrong to do so. Both sides have to satisfy the folks who elected them and/or will be voting on them in the future, at least to some extent. (That's why I was hoping our party would have a less complete victory.)

As to tying the President's hands -- some members of the House would love to do that (i.e. prevent a surge and force withdrawal) through the funding mechanism -- but I don't think you can really use that in such a delicate and precise manner. We are far fromt the point where Congress would just cut off funding for the whole operation.

S_A_M

[SlaveNoMore]

CHICAGO - A graduate student living in Mississippi was an important Hamas terrorist leader directing thousands of dollars to families of members who were jailed or killed, a prosecutor said Tuesday in closing arguments of the trial of two accused militants.

"He's Hamas, and he's assisting the murderous terrorist activities of Hamas," Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph M. Ferguson told jurors, pointing at Abdelhaleem Ashqar, who was a graduate student at the University of Mississippi in the early 1990s. It was the second day of Ferguson's closing argument.

Ashqar, 48, later an assistant professor of business at Washington's Howard University, is accused along with former Chicago grocer Muhammad Salah, 53, of being a high-ranking member of the Hamas terrorist network.

The two are charged in a racketeering indictment with funneling thousands of dollars and fresh recruits to the anti-Israeli organization.

Ashqar, of Springfield, Va., does not support terrorism and has done nothing illegal, according to his defense attorney, William Moffitt. Ashqar was merely trying to get charitable contributions to impoverished Palestinians on the West Bank under Israeli army occupation, Moffitt says.

Moffitt is likely to get his chance Wednesday to address jurors, who have listened during a three-month trial to witnesses including an expert on torture and Israeli agents who testified under aliases.

Ferguson pointed to testimony that Ashqar directed money to families of Hamas "martyrs" killed in terrorist operations and those captured and jailed by Israeli authorities.

"We're talking about someone who is a graduate student at the University of Mississippi, Oxford, Miss., and you see hundreds of thousands of dollars coursing through his accounts," Ferguson said.

Federal agents found that Ashqar spoke on his telephone 568 times in several years with Mousa Abu Marzook, an alleged top Hamas leader who also is charged in the case and is a fugitive believed to be living in Syria.
link

Question: What will his defense be?

Answers:

(a) The Bush government illegally wiretapped me!

(b) Hamas is a legitimate political organization and I was only donating money to the anti-Zionist cause!!

(c) Islamophobia!!!

(d) All the above!!!!

(c)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
nothing give you a better sense of how unbiased the blog is. ALL blogs sound rational but if all the people commenting have the GGG intellectual firepower and extreme slant, you can know to ignore the blog.

I don't think that's quite right. On many popular blogs, there are so many comments that the bloggers don't bother to participate at all. I don't know why people bother to wade through those comments and add their own, but if the blogger isn't hanging around to engage, it's not much of a comment on the quality of the blog post.

like here's a liberal slanted blog I trust http://allintensivepurposes.blogspot.com./

why do i trust it? well there is a well reasoned frequent commentator named Hank there.

You're too kind. And Hank's comments certainly elevate the discourse over there.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hank's comments certainly elevate the discourse over there.

translation: But not here

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I mean, quite simply, what I said.

I fear that both sides may be formulating policy and taking actions based on considerations of political popularity rather than merit, with possible detrimental effects to the "success" of this important mission (i.e. getting the best possible outcome now).

Or, they all may be acting based on their best judgment, with which I disagree. Hard to tell.

Yes, the issue is critically important to the voters, and the Democrats certainly have to push the issue. I'm not suggesting they are wrong to do so. Both sides have to satisfy the folks who elected them and/or will be voting on them in the future, at least to some extent. (That's why I was hoping our party would have a less complete victory.)

As to tying the President's hands -- some members of the House would love to do that (i.e. prevent a surge and force withdrawal) through the funding mechanism -- but I don't think you can really use that in such a delicate and precise manner. We are far fromt the point where Congress would just cut off funding for the whole operation.

S_A_M

What I meant about "expressing" is the Congress is talking a lot but not doing anything to actually constrain the President's freedom to act as he sees fit. And the President certainly doesn't care about what people think, since neither he nor Cheney are running in '08. If anything, we have policy too divorced from politics, not captured by it.

It's a peculiarly Beltwayish view that thinks that too much concern for what voters think will produce bad results, as if politicians can be trusted to formulate policy if they are just left alone to do as they will. Some will. Others will be corrupt, or stupid, or misguided. As in free markets, the accountability drives better results, in general.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
translation: But not here

As compared with the comment threads on other blogs.

But you certainly bring your A game there.

eta: As does S_A_M.

[Spanky]

“Hillary Care” Comes to California

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger started the new year with a bang: proposing universal healthcare for every Californian, including illegal immigrants. This Hillary Clinton-style healthcare bureaucracy will cost taxpayers $12 billion in new taxes. Orwellian in its scope, the plan would require every citizen of California to obtain healthcare. Small businesses with more than 10 employees would be required to provide healthcare for their employees. If a citizen chooses not to buy healthcare, they will be penalized either through paycheck garnishes or reductions in state income tax refunds.

“This is a massive expansion of government—one of the biggest in American history,” stated Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. “The Governor is proposing a government health bureaucracy that has failed every time it’s been implemented, including in several other states. We ask every single citizen to call or write the Governor and ask that he find another solution other than government control. Our Governor and legislators need to know that we will not allow our freedom—freedom to choose our own healthcare plans—to be taken away from us. This is nanny government at its worst.”

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
“Hillary Care” Comes to California

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger started the new year with a bang: proposing universal healthcare for every Californian, including illegal immigrants. This Hillary Clinton-style healthcare bureaucracy will cost taxpayers $12 billion in new taxes. Orwellian in its scope, the plan would require every citizen of California to obtain healthcare. Small businesses with more than 10 employees would be required to provide healthcare for their employees. If a citizen chooses not to buy healthcare, they will be penalized either through paycheck garnishes or reductions in state income tax refunds.

“This is a massive expansion of government—one of the biggest in American history,” stated Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. “The Governor is proposing a government health bureaucracy that has failed every time it’s been implemented, including in several other states. We ask every single citizen to call or write the Governor and ask that he find another solution other than government control. Our Governor and legislators need to know that we will not allow our freedom—freedom to choose our own healthcare plans—to be taken away from us. This is nanny government at its worst.”

Was there this much moaning and groaning when motorists were required to have auto insurance?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Was there this much moaning and groaning when motorists were required to have auto insurance?

I don't remember. This vote is going to be a drive right down the center. The far left democrats don't want to vote for anything the Governator puts forward and the Conservative Republicans don't like it for obvious reasons.

This would easy but for the gerrymander. There are a lot more zealot Dems and Repubs than there should be. It will be interesting to see how people line up on this.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What I meant about "expressing" is the Congress is talking a lot but not doing anything to actually constrain the President's freedom to act as he sees fit.

Its early yet.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And the President certainly doesn't care about what people think, since neither he nor Cheney are running in '08.

He's got lots of party pressures too.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If anything, we have policy too divorced from politics, not captured by it.

Under Bush, on some issue, perhaps so, which could be why it took four years and an election loss to force a serious reassessment. But in general, I disagree.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's a peculiarly Beltwayish view that thinks that too much concern for what voters think will produce bad results, as if politicians can be trusted to formulate policy if they are just left alone to do as they will. Some will. Others will be corrupt, or stupid, or misguided.

Nope. A good number of the Founding Fathers thought that way, long before there was a Beltway. It is really more of an "elitist" view, which has considerable merit.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As in free markets, the accountability drives better results, in general.

Of course, but that doesn't mean a politician should necessarily do what the constituency wants.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Its early yet.

Then you're not complaining about what's happening now, you're worrying that all this expressing of different opinons -- something we didn't have to worry about for several years -- might actually lead to something dangerous, like action.

I understand that it's frightening and exhilerating to have people in the nation's capitol disagreeing with each other, but many countries around the world have had experience with this sort of democracy, and it often works out OK.

He's got lots of party pressures too.

?

Who is in a position to pressure him to do anything?

Under Bush, on some issue, perhaps so, which could be why it took four years and an election loss to force a serious reassessment. But in general, I disagree.

I was speaking only of Iraq.

Nope. A good number of the Founding Fathers thought that way, long before there was a Beltway. It is really more of an "elitist" view, which has considerable merit.

It is an elitist view, though I was avoiding the word.

And let's just say that the Founding Fathers were well acquainted with the kind of bad public policy that results when the government does not need to answer to the people.

Of course, but that doesn't mean a politician should necessarily do what the constituency wants.

Nor did I say that it should. But that's not what we were discussing. And there's surely a middle ground with some accountability, but without constant referenda to decide every issue of the day.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't remember. This vote is going to be a drive right down the center. The far left democrats don't want to vote for anything the Governator puts forward and the Conservative Republicans don't like it for obvious reasons.

This would easy but for the gerrymander. There are a lot more zealot Dems and Repubs than there should be. It will be interesting to see how people line up on this.

California has much more of a challenge than the smaller states that have tried it. There are more uninsured in California than there are people in Massachusetts.

Small business aren't going to like it because of the requirement to offer their people insurance or pay a penalty.

Physicians aren't going to like it (unless, of course, the number of visits goes up due to increased coverage) because of the new tax on their practices. Also, there's a question of what reimbursement will look like. Certainly it should be better than MediCal in order to get buy in.

Consumers? Dunno. It depends on how good the insurance is that follows. I don't know if most people are going to end up under Knox-Keen type plans or traditional insurance. Because of the way that managed care dominates the market, I'd assume the former.

I think success will be dependent on how much it's going to end up costing the average consumer. If some independent contractor making $45,000 a year who hasn't been had health insurance pays $40 a month for a physicial, prescription coverage, maybe a few referrals and catastrophic care, then maybe he'll be able to afford the lipitor prescription and keep his blood pressure and cholestorol down. On the other hand, if it's costing upwards of $200 a month, the whole thing may not be affordable at all, even if he is paying penalties on his state income tax return.

Someone running for Congress here a few years ago suggested that we should consider some sort of FEMA type coverage for catastrophic care in ordinary individuals. I kinda like that, so even if the insurance runs out, there's another safety net to catch the bypass surgery or the premature birth and subsequent two months of NICU care or other completely unexpected and potentially financially ruinous healthcare expense.

I like models that put nurse practitioner* clinics all over the place, especially in grocery stores, Target, near the post office, at Home Depot. Places where ordinary people visit fairly regularly and easily. These clinics operate without an appointment, and can get the little stuff like UTI's, ear aches, flu shots, and other minor conditions taken care of. Sort of like the way everyone used to treat the student health clinic back in college. In places that they work, the care isn't very expensive, even for people who don't have health insurance.


*I'm very pro-nurse practitioners. My personal physician I've never actually met. I just go to a nurse practitioner clinic annually and get everything taken care of there. If something comes out wrong or abnormal, they can kick it up to the physician. The nurses are wonderful and it's more cost effective for my insurance plan. I practice (healthwise) what I preach and try very, very hard not to use services unnecessarily. I'm also ridiculously healthy (more due to genes than anything else) so I don't have much to worry about that would cause a physician any concern.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Was there this much moaning and groaning when motorists were required to have auto insurance?

Of course! We had the best auto care system in the world, until the nanny-state liberal went and screwed it up for everyone. Now just look at the long lines you have to wait in to get even the most modest of collision repairs. God forbid you damaged car needs to see a specialist....

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Physicians aren't going to like it (unless, of course, the number of visits goes up due to increased coverage) because of the new tax on their practices. Also, there's a question of what reimbursement will look like. Certainly it should be better than MediCal in order to get buy in.

In theory, physicians should like health-care reform designed to (a) make care more available to more people, and (b) reduce the costs of insurers and other middlemen, all else being equal (which of course it never is). The former increases the size of their market, and the latter increases their share of spending. And yet these factors never seem to count for much.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Of course! We had the best auto care system in the world, until the nanny-state liberal went and screwed it up for everyone. Now just look at the long lines you have to wait in to get even the most modest of collision repairs. God forbid you damaged car needs to see a specialist....

Michigan has had mandatory no fault insurance for decades. I don't think anyone can post an article about a Michigan motorist needing to go to Windsor to get tires though. So. Shut. The. Fuck. Up.