Never vote Republican, no matter what.

We see sprinkled throughout and constantly the bias, prejudice and hatred that the neocons have for the middle class. It is sad... Yet, they say there is no class structure - they do this because they have to convince those they screw that they really are "for" them

Why Bush can't be trusted.
**********************
Not So Frivolous
June 18, 2004
By BOB HERBERT

ALLIANCE, Ohio

President Bush traveled to Youngstown, Ohio, a few weeks
ago to talk about health care, and before long he was
reprising his complaint about "junk and frivolous"
malpractice suits, which he said are discouraging good
doctors from practicing medicine.

As he often does, the president called for reforms to make
it more difficult for patients to seek compensation and to
restrict the amount of damages that could be paid to those
who prove they have been harmed.

To bolster his argument Mr. Bush introduced a local doctor,
Compton Girdharry, to an audience at Youngstown State
University. Dr. Girdharry, an obstetrician/gynecologist,
said he had been driven from a practice of 21 years by the
high cost of malpractice insurance.

The president praised Dr. Girdharry and thanked him for his
"compassion."

If Mr. Bush was looking for an example of a doctor who was
victimized by frivolous lawsuits, Dr. Girdharry was not a
great choice. Since the early 1990's, he has settled
lawsuits and agreed to the payment of damages in a number
of malpractice cases in which patients suffered horrible
injuries.

"It's been four years since my son passed away, and I don't
feel any stronger or any happier than the day I lost him,"
said Lisa Vitale, whose suit against Dr. Girdharry and a
hospital was settled out of court.

During an interview in her home in Alliance, Ms. Vitale
said she went into Alliance Community Hospital on the
morning of Aug. 17, 1993, for the delivery of her second
child.

Her first delivery had been by Caesarean section, but Ms.
Vitale said she was told that a vaginal delivery this time
would not be a problem. While she was in the delivery room,
however, the fetal monitoring strip was not properly
checked and, she said, she was left alone and in pain for
long periods. Dr. Girdharry stopped by around 6 p.m. and
then went to dinner.

No one noticed that the baby was in serious distress.

Dr.
Girdharry blamed the ensuing tragedy on the nurse. Ms.
Vitale, he told me, "was being monitored by a nurse who was
what they call a casual part-time nurse, who was not very
well trained in reading fetal monitor strips."

By the time he was called back from dinner, he said, it was
"too late" to take the steps, including a Caesarean
delivery, that might have prevented permanent injury.

The baby was born with severe brain damage. He was unable
to even drink from a bottle. He lived six years and four
months, requiring nursing care the entire time.

Judy Mays, another patient of Dr. Girdharry, delivered a
son by Caesarean section on March 26, 1999. The baby was
fine. But, as alleged in a suit filed by Ms. Mays, when the
incision was closed, a sponge with a cord and a ring
attached to it was left inside.

Ms. Mays said she complained repeatedly to Dr. Girdharry
about the pain she experienced, which at times was
incapacitating. "When I brought it to the doctor's
attention," she said, "he told me, `Well, you just had
major surgery. You've got to heal."

After four and a half agonizing months, Ms. Mays felt a
bulging growth beneath the skin, "about the size of a
grapefruit."

She was petrified, she said, thinking it was a tumor. She
said an associate of Dr. Girdharry ordered tests, including
a CAT scan. The sponge was spotted, but by that time it had
adhered to her internal organs and her intestines were
surrounding it.

Dr. Girdharry told me he began operating to remove the
sponge but found the damage was worse than he had expected.
Another surgeon was called to complete the surgery.

Ms. Mays said she learned after the surgery that part of
her large and small intestines had been removed, and that
she probably would have died if the sponge had stayed
inside her for another month. The surgery, she said, has
left her with a variety of permanent ailments.

These are just two of the cases settled by Dr. Girdharry,
who told me that his appearance in Youngstown with
President Bush was "a dream come true."

Yesterday a White House spokesman said the president had
not been aware of the problems in Dr. Girdharry's
background. "Had this doctor provided that information,"
the spokesman said, "he would not have been at that
event."

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/18/opinion/18HERB.html?ex=1088562097&ei=1&en=fc8f84d791aacff5

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

And why should a person that is hurt in a minor way be able to sue for a gazillion dollars? I don't have a problem with limits on these lawsuits. Should the person be awarded an amount of money for dismembership or a botched surgery or death? Yes, should they receive 100 million dollars for a mistake that was made? What if we sued everyone every time they made a mistake? Is that fair?

Edgar
Edgar, I can't stand the thought of you being a man without a country. So why don't we invent a country that would meet your standards.

What would your country be like and how would it be governed?

BBB

Actually, USA is the best country because despite the attempts of the neocons - USA was designed for the person Edgar describes himself

saint, It's evident to me you missed the whole message of my post.

My sentiments exactly c.i. this is what Bush, Rove et al have taught them. Obfuscate from the facts and then come back with a nefarious reply but claim that their replies are not hateful, prejudiced and filled with untruths. The populace appears to be getting this message, slowly (ie, that this is what the Bush regime is doing - the media has finally got the point; except Fox)....

BBB
I think I gave a pretty good picture of a world I could be at home in. Like Margaret Mitchell's old south, it's gone with the wind.

Edgar
Edgar, what about New Zealand?

BBB

My wife would never go there to stay. I would not leave her and certainly wouldn't try to coerce her to live where she doesn't want to.

What is the point behind this somewhat specious comment?

For whatever reason, there is no shortage of people who are willing and able to put out fires. If a municipality doesn't provide the service, volunteers will. A service that many people will perform for nothing more than a clubhouse and a chance to run red lights is not going to demand a high cost, irrespective of its inherent value to the community. There is nothing perverse about this.

It is far more effective and less controversial to allow the more impersonal forces of supply and demand to establish value in the market place than the personal opinion of appointed or self-appointed value designators.

Put 25 people in a room and ask them to identify the ten most valuable positions in a society, and I bet they would have considerable difficulty. Try it by yourself. And even if they could arrive at a consensus without too much hard work, what about the next ten, and the next hundred, and the next thousand? Is the dog groomer more valuable to society than the carpet cleaner? Is the farmer more valuable than the doctor?

Who is going to decide the relative value of skills and services if not market forces? Throwing up one's hands and saying they are all of equal value has been tried and has failed miserably.

Rather than bemoaning the situation, we should be grateful that the skills and services we truly need are so plentiful, and that we live in a society which can afford to indulge the truly gifted among us. It is a despairing society indeed that can not afford to be entertained. Entertainment is not a vice.

When the day comes that sports or movie stars demand more than the public is willing to pay for their skills and services, their incomes will be capped. Until then, why should they self-restrain their earning capacity? Have you put restraints on your own? Can you say with certainty that you deserve more money than all of those people who earn less than you?

I have helped make many a personality richer, most gladly. Entertainment is another world, more or less. The money paid entertainers comes from owners who would otherwise use the money within their own organization, not return to the public. So what do I care who gets it?
I will continue to press for better pay for the middle to poor, because the ones who make such decisions are using their position and influence to keep it unrealistically low.

First of all, the formulation cited doesn't deprive the word greed of meaning. On the contrary, the word has no meaning without the formulation. Greed is not self evident. To define it we must define what a person needs and deserves and what level of acquisition above these levels can be considered excessive.

Secondly, there is simply no logical connection between the difficulty in measuring greed and the conclusion that greed is good. I can appreciate your desire to introduce Gordon Gekko into the discussion, but even if we all agreed that greed is impossible to define, we would be no closer to Gekko's "greed is good" ethos.

Thirdly you have blithely bypassed the quite necessary consideration of what a person deserves. This is something other than needs and wants, and more difficult to measure.

Fourthly, if your gross exaggeration is correct and we live in a society of unfettered consumption and profit, then there would seem to be a serious lack of impetus for change. Better to concentrate on how to encourage charity rather than attempt a redistribution of wealth that will only materially impact the few.

Finally, I am not arguing that greed doesn't exist, simply that its definition isn't something we are likely to all readily agree upon, and, therefore, if it is going to be featured in laws that impose restrictions on our individual freedoms it is bound to be employed via a definition with which a great many of us will not agree. This is not the foundation of sound law.


No, "danger" in relation to current notions. The Romans you refer to would most likely not be able to legally amass the same fortunes they enjoyed if they employed the same means today as they did a few thousand years ago. If they did managed it, however, they would have to pay someone to fetch them their snow. Without a rich Roman desirous of a cooled drink how could any man support a family through snow fetching?

I'm passing on your comments on educational institutions and anti-intellectual traditions in America simply because I don't wish to depart on that tangent in this thread. In any case, you seem to be agreeing with me that there are not great expectations of teachers, irrespective of the reasons for why that may be so.



The issue is larger than CEO compensation, although this is, typically, the edge on which the argument gets hung up.

There have been a number of CEO's who have achieved enormous wealth through illegal or unethical practices. While these folks seem to be the focal point for wealth redistribution advocates, they really only have incidental relevance to the discussion. Not only is a compensation cap not necessary to curtail these individuals, it would be ineffective. Law breakers are typically not deterred by the imposition of new laws.The proper way to address these bad eggs is through more vigorous law enforcement of existing laws and a tightening of loop holes.

There are, however, CEOs who's incompetence is proof enough that they have been overpaid, however they would have been overpaid at $100,000 let alone $100 million. The problem with these CEOs is not that high compensation packages are available to their profession, but that they are lousy executives, and the fault lies with the corporation's Board of Directors who have increasingly become targets of D&O suits for their poor talent selection and negligent stewardship.

Then there are the CEOs who make a considerable difference, who's corporations grow, who's employees prosper and who's shareholders are rewarded. Interestingly enough, quite a few of these individuals voluntarily restrain their compensation levels.



source
source 2

Auten, G.E., Clotfelter, C.T. & Schmalbeck, R.L. "Taxes and Philanthropy Among the Wealthy," in Joel Slemrod (ed.), Does Atlas Shrug? The Economic Consequences of Taxing the Rich (New York: Harvard University Press, 2000)
Although it may not be the most visible manifestation of wealth, charitable giving is and has been a hallmark of affluence. Wealthy patrons occupy prominent place in the life of the nonprofit sector. Those occupying the top rungs of the income and wealth distributions make a disproportionate share of all charitable gifts: the one percent of American households with the highest incomes made more than 16 percent of all contributions in 1994,and the wealthiest 1.4 percent of decedents gave some 86 percent of all charitable bequests. This paper examines the charitable giving of the wealthy,noting the tax provisions affecting it and the institutional arrangements that have developed to foster it. The paper also presents data on the patterns and trends in contributions by the wealthy, both by living donors and through charitable bequests. The paper reveals the importance of gifts to higher education among the largest donors, the great variation in percentage of income contributed, and the high variability over time in giving by the wealthy. It provides evidence on the distribution of charitable bequests by gender and the magnitude of the permanent price effect on charitable giving implied by panel data on contributions during the 1980s. It also suggests that contributions as a percentage of income seems to have declined during the 1980s, and then recovered somewhat by 1995.



Greed is excess. It is not good.



Being of Norwegian heritage, I won't criticize the Homeland, but all is not well in paradise:

In the latest edition of the United Nations' Human Development Report, Norway was ranked the world's greatest place to live. Fabulously rich thanks to recently discovered oil, with a pristine environment and a well-functioning social welfare system, this nation of only 4.5 million people has been deemed a success in social challenges from gender equality to uniformly high-quality public schools.

Unfortunately, not everyone living in Norway is sharing the social harmony for which it is renowned. The non-Western immigrant population, 1.25 percent of the total population, has trouble finding jobs and housing, and sometimes faces outright discrimination.

Advertisements for cleaning jobs may specify a requirement for Norwegian language skills. Employers may screen applications for foreign names. Private landlords' ads for housing may specify "No foreigners" or "Europeans only."

"The problems you see here are not much different from those of any western European country," says Anita Rathore of the Institution Against Public Discrimination (OMOD). Norway, however, is so new to non-Western immigration that the immigrants face extra problems, such as a lack of ethnic monitoring and anti-discrimination legislation.

Funny how this problem keeps popping up in Europe.

finn
I have to rush out. Have you read John Rawls?

ps...not a trick question. I've just become bored to tears with with the political discussions here and wouldn't mind something a bit different.

The most disheartening thing about it is the Republicans, neocons, and growing segments of society, truly believe their viewpoint(s) is correct and can spout reams of information "proving it." The Democratic party, recognizing this, generally voice only token opposition anymore, hoping to snag enough undecideds to win the presidential election, meantime losing more and more ground at the state level.

edgar, I've come to the conclusion many years ago that politics is similar to religion when it comes to faith and beliefs. No matter how much logic or scientific proof can be offered, it's of no use. Their minds are already set in cement.

Of the quick drying variety

Edgar writes:


I think it's those reams of information that convinces the average Republican/conservative though Edgar, and it is the sometimes idiotic arguments of the leftwing fringe that alarms so many conservatives. I've said many times, the reason conservative talk radio is so successful is because the conservatives can articulate their reasons for their beliefs so much more clearly than can the liberals articulate their beliefs. (And this relates to the general consensus here that conservatives are more likely to be Republican and liberals are more likley to be Democrats, though neither are universally exclusive.)

This from my e-mail this week:

Understanding Democrats and Liberals

If you don't understand the liberal Democrats' version of tax cuts (and you are not alone), this will explain it for you.

Fifty thousand people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due. The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness.

After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the wealthiest ticket holders. That would be unconscionable.

The DNC plan says, people in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an "Earned" Income Ticket Credit".

People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that's only fair.

People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don't need a refund. If they can afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.

People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.

The people driving by the stadium who couldn't afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn't pay anything in, because they need the most help. Now do you understand?

If not, contact Representative Richard Gephart or Senator Tom Daschle for assistance.

To be a good liberal, there are some prerequisites you must have first. Compare the list below and see how you rate.

1. You have to believe the AIDS virus (or pick any disease of your choice)is spread by a lack of federal funding.

2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding Americans, are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of aggressive totalitarians.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are always artificial but being homosexual is always natural.

7. You have to be against capital punishment for any reason but support abortion on demand for any reason.

8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists from Seattle do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that corrupt politicians and not bad people start wars.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized test are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.

17. You have to believe all poverty is caused by greedy rich people, racists, and corporations and conservative policies and that family structures, education, lifestyle, or life choices are irrelevant.

18. You have to believe that broadcasts or public displays of artwork that ridicule or insult or offend Christians, Jews, etc. are constitutionally protected, but a nonsectarian prayer at a football game or public displays of artwork depicting the Ten Commandments or a manger scene violate the Constitution.

after reading the above I conclude that Edgar is right.

You had any reservations about that before Dys?