gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 01:55 pm
Lola need not know.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 01:58 pm
The "Acme Kit-Presser And Wit-Honer In One" is a very fine product, let me tell you.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 01:59 pm
The Oregonian:

http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1201919105109970.xml&coll=7&thispage=2

Watched the video, without sound it was eh, but they did have a signing person who might have even been deaf! So that got me more enthused.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 02:00 pm
<scribbling furiously>
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 02:00 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Hug, Blatham? For old times?


My hugs are future-vectored.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 02:01 pm
Jeez! Soz, Blatham and I had something going on here and you jump in with some political bull crap?

I am more than a little upset with you, girl.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 02:03 pm
Related to the vote-counts I posted earlier (from Greenwald) which demonstrated rather transparently how uninterested the present Republican party is in actually behaving in a bi-partisan manner (all of which has consequences for what Obama or Hillary must do up the road)...
Quote:
Bipartisanship Misdirection

CAF STAFFBy Digby

February 1st, 2008 - 6:38am ET
There has been a lot of discussion recently about the urgent need to stop the "partisan bickering" in Washington, with elder statesmen gathering in groups to demand bipartisan cabinets and pundits wringing their hankies about government not "getting anything done."

Glenn Greenwald wrote about the actual record of bipartisanship earlier this week and set forth a long list of recent legislative initiatives in which the Republicans voted as a bloc and Democrats crossed the aisle to pass legislation. It's quite impressive. He concludes:

On virtually every major controversial issue -- particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism -- the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to "bipartisan" support. That's what "bipartisanship" in Washington means...Other than formally disbanding as a party -- or granting a permanent proxy of their collective vote to Mitch McConnell -- how could Congressional Democrats possibly be more accommodating than they already are?

When the Republicans won in 2004, conservative movement leader Grover Norquist made a famous statement:

"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such."

I could be wrong, but I don't recall any outcry about a lack of comity or civility in Washington over comments like that. People chuckled knowingly and explained "elections have consequences." Only now that Republicans are in the minority and may suffer an epic loss at the polls next fall do we see nearly hysterical op-eds imploring politicians to compromise for the good of the nation.

For seven years, when Democrats were in the minority, there was nary a peep from the "punditocracy" about bipartisanship despite strict party line votes specifically designed so that Democrats would not cross over (on the theory that the Republican base preferred legislation that featured no compromises with the enemy. ) Yet since the Democrats won the congress in 2006, there has been a non-stop keening from the political establishment about how the congress needs to stop the partisan bickering --- even as it is still only the Republicans who vote as a bloc on bill after bill and filibuster at twice the rate of any congressional minority in US history. These critics never name names. And lately, they've been demanding that a Democratic president must be willing to name Republicans to his or her cabinet, implying that Republicans are the ones who've been shut out of the process and must be included for the sake of bipartisan comity.

It's possible that the pundits and elder statesmen simply accept that Republicans can't be asked to compromise. After all, everyone knows that conservatism is defined by its philosophy of principles and integrity (except for all the corruption and hypocrisy, of course.). Therefore, in order that a Democratic majority "gets things done," progressives must be sensitive to that special need, even to the extent that they not complain about obstructionism or pass legislation that the president might veto. That causes unpleasant discord and dissension which can only be cured by Democrats agreeing to share power with the minority and compromise on their agenda.

This new obsession about bipartisanship, which blames both parties equally for the sins of one, comes at the moment of progressive ascension. That is not an accident. Conservatism is still considered the default philosophy of "real Americans" in the political establishment. The blame for any Republican electoral losses are placed at the feet of George W. Bush, not conservatism itself, and this hand wringing about the need for bipartisanship is a way for the protectors of the status quo to keep progressivism in check after a decade of failed conservative governance.

The fact is that conservatives understand how to advance their agenda, whether in the majority or in the minority, always blaming progressives or liberalism for what has gone wrong. The political and media establishments help them do it with "heads I win, tails you lose" calls for bipartisanship the minute the Republicans become a minority. That's why progressives need to make their arguments about conservatism explicitly so that they can begin to expose this game for what it is and make people understand that conservatism, not a lack of "comity" or "bipartisan cooperation" is at fault for the mess this country is in today. If they don't, if history is any guide, a new Democratic president will be under tremendous pressure to not only govern in bipartisan fashion but, perhaps more importantly, put the past behind him or her in order to "bind the nation's wounds" with a call for unity and cooperation which will naturally exclude "looking backwards."

And in 20 years we will likely see some of Dick Cheney's young proteges come to power in a new conservative administration determined restore the glorious conservative order that was cut so tragically short. by George W. Bush's mismanagement of the conservative dream.


http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/bipartisanship-misdirection
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 02:12 pm
Whatever the final outcome of this election,
The world longs/aspires/dreems
to hear a simple sentense from
the selected/approved/admired/ elected Resident of USA.
"So sorry for our mistaken misadventure."
Yet another unfullfiled Dream.
My observations are based on critical American authors.
Let me wish the new jackey of the old horse win the hearts and souls of the globe.
My wish is as noble as the Dreams of Americans.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 02:25 pm
****...here's one of those yike things passed on my Yglesias

Quote:
Dave Roberts notes that last night's CNN debate was the fourth such debate sponsored by a coal industry front group, and that, coincidentally enough, none of the four coal-funded debate broadcasts featured any questions about climate change. Your liberal media in action.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/31/221856/868
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 02:32 pm
Thomas wrote:
maporsche wrote:
I think it is in these situations where Obama earns his "naive" label.

In the interest of fairness, let's not forget that this particular "situation" is my translation of Sozobe's speculation of what Obama's haggling strategy might be. Maybe we shouldn't hold Obama accountable for that.


Well then perhaps his disciples that deserve that label.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 02:36 pm
nimh wrote:
snood wrote:
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-02-01-Picture2.png

How very Socialist International, anno 1973.


http://www.dogbreed-gifts.com/pug/art/pugs_rule.jpg


http://www.dogbreed-gifts.com/pug/art/pug_dogs_revolution.jpg
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 02:55 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Thomas,

Soz's link is right in that nearly everyone will purchase health insurance. Right now, we have a situation which is downright unaffordable for many and we still have 5/6 Americans will health insurance. With subsidies and a large pool, why wouldn't we expect there to be 10/11 in just a few years? Will there really be that much larger a pool if we get 19/20? In terms of percentage, it's more, but in terms of dollar value it isn't.

You wrote:

Quote:

2) How, in your opinion, will Obama handle people who don't show up in emergency rooms, but try to sign up for the system after their health deteriorates? Let's take a practical example. It's the year 2025. A diabetic signs up to the system, and within months it turns out he needs dialysis, which in 2008 costs about $70,000 a year. The diabetic could have signed up for the the National Healthcare Plan when it was first installed in 2015 He would have received $200 worth of medication for free, which would have prevented the dialysis. But he didn't. He was too stingy to even get a blood picture taken for $20 to find out if he had diabetes in the first place. Only now, when his symptoms are severe (but not yet severe enough for the emergency room), the patient decides he needs health insurance.


If only diabetes were that simple, I would understand what you propose.

But the truth is that you can do everything right, take certain drugs, eat right, and still develop diabetes. How is it in the end any different - in terms of cost to the system - if someone develops it after years of doing the right thing, or after not doing the right thing?

You can take the right drugs but have a poor diet and develop diabetes. Under the mandated system, are those people still covered? It's arguably worse then if they had no care at all - they were told what they were doing wrong and still did it! An analogous situation is cigarette smokers. There's not a smoker alive who doesn't know that it will kill them. As a guy who used to be addicted to cigs, let me tell you - you don't need to even see a doctor to know that those f*cking things will kill you. You can feel it every time you smoke.

So, those smokers who develop problems - are they going to be forced to quit smoking, or get kicked out of the system? Are fat people going to be forced to lose weight, or get kicked out? Are people who don't exercise going to be forced to run? I think that you will see that no matter how much prevention we give people there will still be a large amount who don't take advantage of it.


Good points. Universal Healthcare has been the norm in Canada for decades and yet the number of diabetes-related kidney disease has more than doubled there in the last 10 years.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 03:02 pm
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Good points. Universal Healthcare has been the norm in Canada for decades and yet the number of diabetes-related kidney disease has more than doubled there in the last 10 years.


As compared with what US-number?
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 03:03 pm
Soz,

I know you mentioned Susan Eisenhower's endorsement, but I just read it in my Washington Post. Ike's granddaughter is asking Republicans to cross over and vote for Obama in a rousing op-ed that I had to link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102621.html
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 03:05 pm
Thanks!

I like those pugs, too.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 03:11 pm
Finn is investing a lot of time on his image searches these days (but the Joker one was pretty danged good)
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 03:14 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Good points. Universal Healthcare has been the norm in Canada for decades and yet the number of diabetes-related kidney disease has more than doubled there in the last 10 years.


As compared with what US-number?


I'll look it up after we've had Universal Healthcare for decades. Then, it will be relevant.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 03:19 pm
Well, perhaps you should read the December 2007 issue of Diabetes Care
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 03:29 pm
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Universal Healthcare has been the norm in Canada for decades and yet the number of diabetes-related kidney disease has more than doubled there in the last 10 years.


It's not quite that simple. It's a very particular type of diabetes which is on the rise - Type II - obesity-related, and luckily, or unluckily, Canadians haven't caught up to the U.S. on obesity-related diabetes or its effects - including diabetes-related renal failure.

http://www.icis.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_07feb2007_e

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/

It's certainly a concern, but we're hoping not to catch up to the U.S. in this, and a number of other areas.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 03:31 pm
ehBeth wrote:

It's certainly a concern, but we're hoping not to catch up to the U.S. in this, and a number of other areas.


Hmm, we are trying not to do so as well.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 427
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 08/10/2025 at 06:14:56