Woman to Woman

By Carlton Wyatt

June 10, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

Shaunti isn’t satisfied until another Mussolini is on the ballot. Can’t have people expecting the freedom to assemble, parade, speak unless it is “approved” by her version of the Taliban.

By rcolarusso

June 10, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Ms. Feldhahn: In your comment today did you mean he/she or did you really mean to limit candidates to he? Ron

By Shannon, M.Div.

June 10, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

I take issue with this statement of Shaunti’s:

“Since many people think first of social issues when they hear ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative,’ …”

I think a statement like that shouldn’t go unchallenged. Personally, at least ten years ago, I thought liberal meant “more government” and conservative meant “less government.”

More troubling, Shaunti doesn’t address Diane’s basic point: the disappearance of the American political center. I think people are finally starting to wake up to the stifling vision of American society held by the fundamentalist right, and if the Democrats can battle the right-wing talk-show distortions through the next year and a half, we should have some reason to hope. I’d like to see the Republican party return to that “less government”—socially and fiscally—and away from being controlled by the fundamentalists who want government to stop providing most services but also want government to legislate a narrow vision of social morality.

Shaunti also fails to address the hypocrisy many of the candidates display, promoting “family values” while having their own families in the chaos of divorces.

Read some de Tocqueville, shiver at the phrase “tyranny of the majority,” and then we’ll talk. I’m a Christian, but I know that you can’t legislate Christianity. A Christian lifestyle can only be lived through the power of the Holy Spirit—it’s not possible without; the standards are too high.

It behooves Christians to offer grace to all. Here’s an example of unChristlike behavior: working hard to make sure that abortions are difficult if not impossible for poor women while at the same time cutting benefits to women who have more children than they can afford. It’s like sending men and women in uniform to die for their country while at the same time cutting veterans’ benefits… it’s like tying the hands of the public schools behind their backs with overburdensome regulations (unfunded mandates) while pushing charter schools… I could go on.

I miss the center. I probably wouldn’t live there anymore, but it’s an important part of American political discourse.

By Johndbxv

June 11, 2007 7:54 AM | Link to this

Beautifully crafted!

where are you google? i miss you!

By Johndbxv

June 11, 2007 7:54 AM | Link to this

Beautifully crafted!

where are you google? i miss you!

By SusieHomeMaker

June 11, 2007 8:18 AM | Link to this

But one of the most important ideas within conservative thought is that there are objective moral standards rooted in natural law, and that society should try its best to uphold

I don’t know about the rest of you guys, but that one quote from Shaunti made my skin quiver. That’s darn scary to think that “Conservative thought” and “moral standards” are in he same sentence! Perhaps Shaunti hasn’t been listening to what’s been happening within the Bush Administration these past 6 years…………..

By Craig

June 11, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

Shannon and Susie, you’re absolutely correct - I think Shaunti means well, but that wording scared me to death.

Conservatives used to be about freedom - now they want to use the power of government to enforce their own ideas of right and wrong on the rest of us.

We need to take back the definition of the term conservative to it’s original meaning - limited government, and freedom for people to make their own decisions, even if those decisions are not what we would like.

By Archie

June 11, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

Yes,a candidate can disagree with the party line and that’s a good thing. Hillary did not want to be seen as weak so she supported the invasion of Iraq and other Democrats supported the invasion because they were lied to and because they did not want to be seen as weak. Hillary Clinton knew years ago she planned on running for President and she knows she has to do something to appeal to the “right wing” people of America and Rudi knows he has to appeal to the “left wing” people of America and Rudi knows he is a “playa” or someone who romances more than one woman at a time and because of that he understands being pro-choice.

By JokesOn

June 11, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

SusieHomeMaker,

I agree. The terms used to loosely define how one thinks the government should be run. Now it means secular and religious government officials - that just is not right.

By Johnpbys

June 11, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right

where are you google? i miss you!

By 2D

June 11, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

Archie… There’s a difference between disagreeing with the party line and vating like Hillary Clinton.

Giuliani disagrees with the party line on abortion, gay rights, etc. Hillary Clinton doesn’t disagree with the party line. She puts on a front for voters. She uses her votes for politics, not for personal conviction.

By .

June 11, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

Here’s the phrase that scares me: objective moral standards rooted in natural law….

The use of the word “objective” in conjunction to the word “natural”…..

And what is “natural law”? Evolution? Survival of the fittest? Dog eat god world?

It’s nonsense. Of course it’s good to think for yourself…if the party line don’t make sense then why align with it?

By 2D

June 11, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

SusieHomeMaker… It didn’t make my skin quiver, but it definitely exposed Shanuti as anything but a true conservative. If she were, she would not be in the business of legislating morality. I have many theories as to why conservatives have undertaken this project to legislate morality, but they are just that, theories.

By .

June 11, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

“Giuliani disagrees with the party line on abortion, gay rights, etc. Hillary Clinton doesn’t disagree with the party line. She puts on a front for voters. She uses her votes for politics, not for personal conviction.”

How do you make that judgment, 2D? Your personal conviction that Hillary is just plain evil (as my mother says)?

How about this…no politician makes decisions based on personal conviction…they make them all based on money and power. Cynical, true, but probably a better guide for decision making than whatever emotion you’ve got going on about Hillary Clinton.

By MrRogers

June 11, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

There goes the neighborhood.

By Rectilinear Propagation

June 11, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

Am I the only one wondering about ulterior motives when Diane embraces a “liberal conservative”?

Yes you are.

I believe Shaunti is guilty of a Strawman: she’s arguing against candidates hiding their real positions when Diane never said that they should. Diane was only arguing that candidates should be able to disagree with some of the platform positions.

I am also disturbed by the “objective moral standards rooted in natural law” bit. It is total BS and she knows it. Homosexuality occurs in nature. Deal with it.

By kimberly

June 11, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

I have not yet decided whom I’m supporting for the Democratic nomination, but I have a request:

If you wake up in the morning just itchin’ to say something bad about Hillary, and feel compelled to attack her at any opportunity, please do so with something factual. These assertions to the motivations, or what she “thinks,” “knows,” “wants,” and so forth, are boring. Do you have a crystal ball? Are you a mind reader? Does (insert name of media pundit whose conjecture you’re repeating) have a crystal ball or read minds?

Attack her voting record if you will, or any other verifiable fact. Opinions, ramifiactions, interpretations, and the kind of “analysis” you heard somewhere just don’t mean SQUAT. If all you have is conjecture on what she thinks or intends, then you got nothin’, seriously. (And if you HAD something, wouldn’t you be using THAT instead? Hmmm…) Thank you so much!

By Mara

June 11, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

Shaunti said “If a candidate hopes to be the one representing a particular ideological framework, surely he shouldn’t hide or sugarcoat it when he completely disagrees with it”

Wasn’t the question on whether the candidate should be expected to be a doctrinaire ideologue in regards to the party platform? She never states her opinion on that, just on the idea that we should all know if the candidate disagrees with a plank or two. I agree that we should be aware of it…but does that mean Shaunti wouldn’t vote for anyone who doesn’t rigidly support Republican (as opposed to “conservative”) orthodoxy?

My opinion? Sure, presidential candidates can disagree with the party line. How far can they stray from that line? It depends. There are only 4 issues of which my opinion is firmly set, one being the matter of reproductive choice. Even there I might be willing to support a candidate who is anti-abortion (as opposed to pro-“life”) if that same candidate were strongly FOR my other issues.

By lozen

June 11, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

Ah Kimberly, you go girl! SusieHomeMaker, yes the eyes roll and the skin shivers at that Shaunti comment.

By NetBanker

June 11, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

Well said Shannon and Susie! You’ve both pretty much summed up my position.

When reading the two positions, this phrase from Shaunti is the one that threw the red flags in my mind:

Unless the average conservative voter watches enough CNN to have heard his bold “I’m pro-choice, I’m pro-gay rights” proclamation back in 1999, most wouldn’t realize just how likely he is to institute anti-conservative social policies.

Shaunti is simply re-inforcing that Religious conservatives have taken over the Republican part and firmly believe that their position is what the party needs to be legislating. The entire concept of ‘instituting conservative social policies’ seems an oxymoron to me when the Republican position is supposedly to NOT legislate social policies and to allow (as so nicely put by Craig) “freedom for people to make their own decisions, even if those decisions are not what we would like.” I’d love to see her explain how the instititution of said policies doesn’t end up violating this Republican principle as well as how it contradicts the other favorite conservative manra of “Personal Responsibility.”

On a different topic did anyone else get a chuckle out of the declared “Day of prayer for rain” in our state government? This gentleman’s editorial piece was a nice response:

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/06/11/0611edpitfield.html

By Nicki

June 11, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

A few random thoughts…

M. Div, great post!

Also, Hillary Clinton is very calculating, but most likely on those issues she isn’t personally decided upon. Ditto GWB, who has gotten where he is by compromising all the values he doesn’t consider non-negotiable. And Rudy Giuliani obviously doesn’t think abortion is a hill worth dying on.

And I have a variety of issues with Shaunti’s post. Namely with her wierd comment about moral/natural, which makes it pretty clear that she thinks the role of the ‘pub party is to legislate morality, and her use of the word “conservative” when what she’s discussing simply is not — in fact it would be more accurately describe as neoconservative or republican.

I also question the idea that there is a party line, per se. The Democratic candidates have a relatively cohesive set of party goals, but they vary a fair amount on individual issues. The republican candidates vary far more on a less well defined set of goals, and some of those goals aren’t even initiatives of the party so much as initiatives of party supporters such as the christian coalition.

By NetBanker

June 11, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

Do you have a crystal ball? Yes, Kimberly, actually I do have a crystal ball. Granted, it’s only an accessory for my home, but I’ve got one! Anyone except Laura Mallory would know, however, that it’s not simply having the ball that matters, but whether one has the gift of second sight/the inner eye…at least according to Professor Trelawney. I also have a “Voodoo Doll for Work” on my desk that is conveniently labeled with where to stick the pin to inflict discomfort various internal organs or to cause headaches, sinusitis, fever blister, hemorroids, etc.

By Bill

June 11, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

I’m not able to support Hillary due to her endorsement of government-run health care. There are problems in our system that need fixing, but socialized medicine would only make things worse, not better,IMO.

Also to consider: Hillary is a “divider”, not a “uniter”. Seven years of a divided country under Bush has been enough for me. We desperately need someone to bring us together if possible, whatever their political stripe.

By chuck

June 11, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

con·serv·a·tive /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

The lack of political understanding on this blog is astounding.The very definition of CONSERVATIVE tells you where this movement came from. You obviously confuse the terms REPUBLICAN and CONSERVATIVE.

For instance, this statement: Personally, at least ten years ago, I thought liberal meant “more government” and conservative meant “less government.

This statement would be more correct, though not perfectly so if the words democrat and republican were exchanged with liberal and conservative. Anyone who thinks that the Republican Party has always been conservative need look no further than the republicans of the 1950’s and 60’s. They were decidedly not conservative. They were social experimenters, and often messed around with traditional values.

While many social conservatives have become members of the Republican party, not all Republicans are social conservatives. The definition of a SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE is the following:

Social conservatism, is a political philosophy that supports what its adherents believe to be “traditional morality”.

If the Republican Party was a CONSERVATIVE party, it would be against the kind of social experimentation promoted by liberals. There would be no chance of Rudi Giuliani even being close to a lead in the nomination process. Many Republicans are Republicans because of the stance on lower taxes. Social Conservatives can support that as well, because we believe that we can do a better job of meeting needs in LOCAL COMMUNITIES than can the feds. The more of our money we keep, the more good we can do. The republicans who are NOT Social Conservatives, can support our positions because we help get tax cutters elected. They couldn’t care less about abortion or gay marriage issues. They stand with us to get tax cutters elected. PERIOD.

In the last election, their weakness showed. They blinked and Social Conservatives in many areas stayed home. They LOST. The Republican Party cannot win without Social Conservatives. Some of them realized that during the immigration Reform debate last week. Most Social Conservatives want to preserve the traditional AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE. Sorry, but we think it is superior to other cultures, get over it. Mark my words on this. Rudi Giuliani WILL NOT AND CANNOT BE ELECTED PRESIDENT AS A REPUBLICAN. It is not going to happen. He is the least conservative candidate running. I know that I and most of the people I know will NEVER mark his name down on a ballot. NEVER.

To recap:

That is the end of class for today. Tune in tomorrow when I will explain why liberalism in general and democrats specifically are bad for America.

By .

June 11, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

*”Also to consider: Hillary is a “divider”, not a “uniter”. “

Only because people hate her so much. When I look at her track record…not so much. She’s been vilified to an extent that that’s what makes her a “divider”.

And that angers me. Because it’s retarded.

Right now she’s my fave and Obama follows….but Obama is still too wet behind the ears.

I used to like McCain but I think he must be going senile. I mean I used to really like him. He was true Republican…small government…but now he touts the whole moral thing and it sounds a bit to affected. And, of course, there are some other war-related issues that have come to light…

After spending a week up at Walter Reed the only thing I can support is bringing our boys and girls home. Our country is not in danger. Our way of life is not threatened by anything in the Middle East. But our boys and girls most definitely are.

By Bill

June 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

Only because people hate her so much. When I look at her track record…not so much. She’s been vilified to an extent that that’s what makes her a “divider”.

As Mr. Bush has (unfortunately) so well demonstrated, diplomacy, or lack thereof, are legitimate qualities to consider in a political candidate, especially the President.

By Nicki

June 11, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

• The republicans who are NOT Social Conservatives, can support our positions because we help get tax cutters elected.*

Boy, howdy, that’s going well. I mean, George W. Bush? What a tax cutter. NOT.

There is no REAL party line, HOWEVER, failure by Republicans to follow the Social Conservative LINE, will result in defeat.

Yeah, um, no. Wrong. Because the vast majority of the population values freedom over the legislation of religion or subjective morality.

And By., amen. Much like those who claim President Clinton was ineffective, but conveniently ignored the fact that our entire legislative body was ineffective at doing their jobs because they spent much of their session engaged in the Clinton witch hunt.

By Bill

June 11, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

After spending a week up at Walter Reed the only thing I can support is bringing our boys and girls home. Our country is not in danger. Our way of life is not threatened by anything in the Middle East. But our boys and girls most definitely are.

Couple questions for you: Are you a true expert on international intelligence, By. ? Can you understand why many intelligent, decent people DO consider the Middle East a grave source of concern?

Also, if you don’t think ALL American’s hearts break with the mouting casualties in Iraq, you’re wrong.

By Mara

June 11, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

and once again chuck illustrates why we call him “The King of Cut-n-Paste”.

chuck, darlin’…excerpt and link…please…excerpt and link.

By kimberly

June 11, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

Proposed new branch of Conservatism:

PRACTICAL CONSERVATISM - Subscribers support less government intrusion into personal decisions that affect individuals, and an adequate level of supervision of things that affect large numbers of people, the environment, the economy, and the general peace. These people care deeply about conserving and protecting our valuable, life-sustaining natural resources, and the health and cleanliness of our planet and all people who dwell here, realizing that, whether we like it or not, we are interconnected, and that peace is a practical solution.

Sounds like some good, practical, MORAL values to me!!

By chuck

June 11, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

Right now she’s my fave and Obama follows….but Obama is still too wet behind the ears.

I used to like McCain but I think he must be going senile. I mean I used to really like him. He was true Republican…small government…but now he touts the whole moral thing and it sounds a bit to affected.

So here is a question for you: In what way do you see Hilary and Obama to be for SMALL GOVERNMENT?!?!?

By .

June 11, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

When my 6-year-old son says things (think Spiderman role-playing) like, “He’s a bad guy and that’s why I’ve got to stop him.”

I think…and that’s what it apparently takes to run our country - kindergarten reasoning….

By chuck

June 11, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

Mara Sweetie. The definition of conservative came from dictionary.com. The definition for SOCIAL conservative appeared on many sites. I think I copied and pasted that wording from Wikipedia. The rest of what was written was purely original.

By Bill

June 11, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this

PRACTICAL CONSERVATISM - Subscribers support less government intrusion into personal decisions that affect individuals, and an adequate level of supervision of things that affect large numbers of people, the environment, the economy, and the general peace. These people care deeply about conserving and protecting our valuable, life-sustaining natural resources, and the health and cleanliness of our planet and all people who dwell here, realizing that, whether we like it or not, we are interconnected, and that peace is a practical solution.

Amen.

By chuck

June 11, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this

Kimmie, sounds like an IMPRACTICAL liberal to me.

By .

June 11, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

Can you understand why many intelligent, decent people DO consider the Middle East a grave source of concern?

I understand that what’s of concern there has been of concern there almost forever. I understand that what the media says about terrorism is largely terror-tactics that make the JFK “scare” sound as real as 9/11. I understand that what’s going on with this war has little to do with it.

I’m not saying other’s don’t heartbreak over the military injured and killed…but until you see it yourself….

By chuck

June 11, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

BTW Mara, you should just shorten that to an EXCERPT…KING.

By .

June 11, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

Where did I say I was necessarily for small government? I’m for practical efficient government. Non-intrusive but helpful…much like kimberly tries to define.

Right now the best shot at that is having these two extremes balance each other out. Lately, it hasn’t been working so well.

What about Hillary and Obama looks like great big government? On paper, that is?

Right now ALL of the Repub candidates look like much bigger government to me…

By Bill

June 11, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

I understand that what’s of concern there has been of concern there almost forever. I understand that what the media says about terrorism is largely terror-tactics that make the JFK “scare” sound as real as 9/11. I understand that what’s going on with this war has little to do with it.

I agree that there has been an ongoing battle in the Middle East for many thousands of years. And in years past, we Americans could pretty well ignore it and not be concerned, other than economically. With the increasing proliferation of nuclear weapons, however, I think the reasonable position right now is to be concerned. If you recall, the reason we attacked Iraq was due to Saddam’s stated goal of acquiring nuclear weapons. He defied the UN inspections, which, IMO justified military intervention. Even Hillary Clinton voted for the attack.

It appears that North Korea has folded their tent for now, but it looks like Iran is going to be a thorn in our side for a while. Any thoughts?

By .

June 11, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

I think Iran is the one to keep our eye out for. I’ve always been of the belief that our strategy should always be minimal - minimize the problem and minimize the danger and expense. You can’t ever eliminate it - only contain and minimize.

The problem I am having with our current war is that it’s just plain FUBAR. Nothing about it makes any sense. The whole thing with Saddam was made up and a schill for oil (this looks more and more true every day and something I think is truly evil - sending our kids out to fight for THIS). He was contained. Now the whole thing over there is in hell without even the handbasket.

By Archie

June 11, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

Kimberly thanks for coming to my defense with your 1:04 pm post because that’s how I feel. I don’t think Giuliani is socially liberal but like republicans who go to Canada to buy medicine he does what he has to do. A married guy paying for an abortion is not necessarily pro-choice as much he is covering his tracks if the potential mother of his child is not his wife and that’s how I feel about Giuliani. A politician needs gay votes even if only about 5 or 6 percent of the population is gay because that maybe just enough for a candidate to win the majority. It is not a bad thing to disagree with the party line because it shows you are a thinking person, a person that really understands life and what people go through. Being a centrist means you’re willing to give up some things to get elected and that you understand certain issues are important to people different from yourself. Also at some point the public has to face the fact that this new immigration bill by Lindsey Graham is really designed to save the rich not the immigrants so he’s going against the party line really because it’s mostly the rich in his party that are violating laws hiring these illegal immigrants and they have to cover themselves(insert Rudy rule) because sooner or later it will be discovered that many of the rich have knowingly hired an illegal immigrant. Some people are more concerned about superiority than they are practicality and people simply don’t want to admit that your favorite politician just may not have the good character you think they have. I means republicans are richer than democrats and thus they probably employ more illegal immigrants than democrats and they want to keep enjoying the benefits of low-wage labor without getting embarrassed about having illegals on the payroll. There’s no party line consensus on immigration because rich politicians are complicit to illegal immigration but the prejudice crowd can’t see that.

By Bill

June 11, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this

He was contained.

Agreed, but didn’t the reports of how he treated his own citizens send a cold, cold shiver down your spine? Grinding people up in large industrial palstic shredding machines? Making rape videos to send to relatives?

By .

June 11, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

Back to the topic at hand, though….

Any candidate that agrees totally with the party line is just a candidate for high suspicion…someone just trying a power grab.

We should know how well candidates match up to the party line. First, we can all read here so it’s on us to go find out. Second, it’s in our faces 24/7 come election time. Third, that’s not the point, Shaunti…

Sure, if a candidate gets too far away from the party line then the party can boot ‘em (can we say Zell?).

But I want a variety…I want centrists from each party. I want someone who won’t legislate “morality” (whatever that is) and who won’t try to take away my personal freedoms. I want someone who will end the war and concentrate on Iran and Africa. Someone committed to public heath (which is, like public education, a matter of national defense). Someone committed to furthering our national prestige in math and science, as well as art and literature and music.

I’m asking for Jesus, I think….

By SusieHomeMaker

June 11, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

By NetB: I also have a “Voodoo Doll for Work” on my desk that is conveniently labeled with where to stick the pin to inflict discomfort various internal organs or to cause headaches, sinusitis, fever blister, hemorroids, etc.

Too funny!! (Can I borrow it, I have an ex husband……)

By . :I used to like McCain but I think he must be going senile. I mean I used to really like him. He was true Republican…small government…but now he touts the whole moral thing and it sounds a bit to affected. And, of course, there are some other war-related issues that have come to light… After spending a week up at Walter Reed the only thing I can support is bringing our boys and girls home. Our country is not in danger. Our way of life is not threatened by anything in the Middle East. But our boys and girls most definitely are.

I used to like McCain too; but now he’s looking like the poster boy for the mentally impaired!! As for this war, i think you are half way right. Our country wasn’t in danger until we invaded Iraq and made it into a country torn in half and is now in the grips of a civil-religious war.

AND By.:I understand that what’s of concern there has been of concern there almost forever. I understand that what the media says about terrorism is largely terror-tactics that make the JFK “scare” sound as real as 9/11. I understand that what’s going on with this war has little to do with it.

Amen to that sister. Amen to that. You see clearly even though the politicos are trying to make you see the illusion that they’ve created as fact. Whatever the reasoning behind this war, “WMD’S”, “Al-Queada”, and “Freeing Iraq”; aren’t any of them.

By SusieHomeMaker

June 11, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

Agreed, but didn’t the reports of how he treated his own citizens send a cold, cold shiver down your spine? Grinding people up in large industrial palstic shredding machines? Making rape videos to send to relatives?

AND? He was a dictator, that’s what dictators DO. But he was stable and contained and without any real power. I mean OF COURSE he wasn’t going to allow the UN people into his nuclear plants, what for? So that they can tell the world, and IRAN his dreaded enemy that he DIDN’T have the capability to wipe them off the face of the earth; what then?

By .

June 11, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

If those stories about Saddam are true then of course they give me the willies. I mean, we’re talking about human beings. And that’s why I am all for doing something about Darfur.

But what’s going on in Iraq right now never had anything to do with Saddam….they said “nucular” when they mean “oil”. It was never up front that our goal was to change the leadership over there.

And while that might have been a good thing, no one would have supported that since Iraq is a sovereign nation, like the United States.

What to do? What to do?

Oh, let’s go cause mass chaos over there and steal their oil and kill our teenagers to do it.

I don’t know the answer there. But look what we’ve got. A mess.

Clearly our brave leaders don’t know the answer, either.

First on my mind is someone who does.

By Monica

June 11, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

What about Hillary and Obama looks like great big government? On paper, that is?

How about universal health care? Every doctor I know has said that they will quit their medical practice if Hillary is elected.

I don’t like any of the presidential candidates on either side. I guess I will have to go with the one I dislike the least.

On a different topic… The Monroe County judge overturned Genarlow Wislon’s sentence! Of course, the state attorney general is already filing his appeal. The kid has already served two years for an act that is no longer classified as a felony.

By .

June 11, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

Why does everyone say Hillary = universal heathcare?

And, don’t we already have some fashion of universal health care?

And, isn’t it a physician’s duty to heal?

And, isn’t it a matter of national defense that our country be healthy?

But….where is this Hillary Healthcare Plan? Another schill.

By Mara

June 11, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

to . - I want someone who won’t legislate “morality” (whatever that is)

I believe it is “anything related to, or concerning, another persons genitalia”. I’ll have to check my “Big Book of Moral Values” on that, but I don’t seem to remember anything about climate change, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, land conservation, empathy, honesty, or honor…but I do remember a whole lot about Gays, Feminists, Abortionists, Hollywood Elites, and Planned Parenthood…

chuck - Mara, you should just shorten that to an EXCERPT…KING.

okay. All hail King chuck. Careful with that tiara, chuck…your friends will start to talk ;^)

By Archie

June 11, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

Monica, you don’t know many doctors because some studies have shown most doctors favor universal healthcare and the Usa today did a major story just a few weeks ago on our healthcare system ranking 5th when it comes to expense versus care. Also I am not bashing you but there is no perfect man or woman and all of the candidates on both sides will do the best they can within their points of view. It’s a copout I think when someone says they don’t like anybody because you’re not voting for a person’s personality, you’re voting for their ideas. I don’t care if I can drink a beer with Bush and I don’t care if Hillary doesn’t look like Halle Berry but I care about their ideas. People need to stop copping out especially liberals because that’s how we got into this current mess. Everybody over 18 knows what’s important to them and you need to vote for that. Mara said she has 4 issues, well that is the way we all need to think about this topic. Forget the party line and think about your 4 issues or 5 issues,etc that are important to you.

By funnyPasd

June 11, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

1 Funny Pictures here

By Nikita

June 11, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

How about universal health care? Every doctor I know has said that they will quit their medical practice if Hillary is elected.

Yeah, they also said tort reform was necessary to lower their malpractice premiums. And we all know how accurate THAT was, don’t we?

By chuck

June 11, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this

they said “nucular” when they mean “oil”.

My gosh that is such a stupid statement. Why is it that you libs always boil it down to that. You obviously know nothing about the situation in the middle east. You should say nothing.

By kimberly

June 11, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

Was at my doctor’s office the other day, discussing yet another heavily-marketed, high-priced, take-one-of-these-a-day-forever drugs that was recently pulled for being unsafe and not actually providing any benefit. He told me, “The drug companies aren’t really spending all that money on research like they say they are. They’re spending it taking doctors out to lunch and golf.” I said, “Don’t forget the lobbyists buying Congressmen via campaign contributions to ensure we can’t get more affordable medications elsewhere.” He said, “Well, just don’t vote Republican then,” and I said, “THERE’S NO CHANCE OF THAT!!” Cute too, but married. Sigh.

By chuck

June 11, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

Yeah, they also said tort reform was necessary to lower their malpractice premiums. And we all know how accurate THAT was, don’t we?

Yes in fact Nikita, we did know that. My orthopedist ended up leaving the state to go to Louisianna before we passed tort reform. His malpractice insurance premiums had risen from $15,000 to $165,000 in just 11 years in practice. He had only been sued once and he WON. His premiums in Louisianna (WITH THE SAME COMPANY) where they DO HAVE tort reform is $20,000.

MARA, not A TIARA…a CROWN.

By .

June 11, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

“My gosh that is such a stupid statement. Why is it that you libs always boil it down to that. You obviously know nothing about the situation in the middle east. You should say nothing.”

Boy, you showed me with all that knowledge and wisdom you got on me….

By Mara

June 11, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

tiara, circlet, diadem, crown…whatever. It’ll still keep your friends talking :^)

By kimberly

June 11, 2007 4:09 PM | Link to this

Nobody’s arguing that malpractice insurance premiums for doctors are out of control and driving up the cost of healthcare, Dooofus! It’s the “causes,” “solutions,” and the relative effectiveness thereof, that are debated. Way to state the obvious while making no point at all, Chuckie. D’OH!

By chuck

June 11, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

EXCERPT:

As time goes on, Iraq’s oil riches may be seen as the limus test of Washington’s intentions in Iraq. “I don’t think we went there for the oil, and I don’t think we went there for the things the White House said we went there for either,” said Vahan Zanoyan, chairman of PFC Energy, a business consultancy. “The main reason was to consolidate our position as a superpower.”

Link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0608-04.htm

By chuck

June 11, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

Well KIMMIE, if you read the post, the SOLUTION was obvious. La. has TORT REFORM. Their malpractice premiums are LOW. We DON’T, our premiums are HIGH. Next time I’ll try to type s l o w e r.

By kimberly

June 11, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Chuckie.. I’ll slow it down. Insurance companies may choose to lower premiums in states that pass tort reform legislation; this pressures the corrupt and/or spineless legislators in other states to do the same. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of a malpractice claim or the damages you might wish to seek if you’ve been damaged by a negligent or incompetent doctor. You already stated truthfully that even doctors who have never been sued nor lost a suit are being raped by these insurance companies.

Tort reform has nothing to do with a more obvious solution of doctors doing a better job of licensing and policing their own profession. Ditto for the legal profession that does not censure lawyers who take cases they know are without merit. The only thing that REALLY happens under tort reform as we know it is that YOUR consitutional right to a civil trial by jury for personal damages is curtailed. The facts do not support the claims that “frivilous lawsuits” are the cause of the prohibitively high cost of health care, but these claims certainly do obscure the other problems that might be more PRACTICALLY addressed.

Are you happy to have your rights curtailed by big business? Sure you are!!!

By Bill

June 11, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

My solution for lower health care costs: Healthier Americans.

Our biggest health care challenge: How to reduce the overwhelming stress that is a part of so many of our lives.

By Nikita

June 11, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this

Correct, kimberly. and wrong, chuck. In fact there’s a great study indicating that insurance premiums do not in fact decrease with tort reform — they remain the same despite what the insurance company lobbyists claim. But individuals are robbed of their ability to exact justice.

By Kostas

June 12, 2007 6:25 AM | Link to this

Thanks for taking a few of us. fergie fergielicious lyrics [url=http://fergie-fergielicious-lyrics.bestyes.org] fergie fergielicious lyrics [/url] fergie fergielicious lyric fergie fergielicious lyric song fergie fergielicious lyrics by fergie fergielicious lyric song by fergie fergielicious lyric by dutchess fergie fergielicious lyric bep by fergie fergielicious lyric fergie fergielicious lyric [url=http://fergie-fergielicious-lyrics.bestyes.org/by-fergie-fergielicious-lyric-song.html] by fergie fergielicious lyric song [/url][url=http://fergie-fergielicious-lyrics.bestyes.org/fergie-fergielicious-lyric—.html] fergie fergielicious lyric [/url][url=http://fergie-fergielicious-lyrics.bestyes.org/dutchess-fergie-fergielicious-lyric.html] dutchess fergie fergielicious lyric [/url][url=http://fergie-fergielicious-lyrics.bestyes.org/bep-by-fergie-fergielicious-lyric—.html] bep by fergie fergielicious lyric [/url][url=http://fergie-fergielicious-lyrics.bestyes.org/bep-fergie-fergielicious-lyric—.html] bep fergie fergielicious lyric [/url][url=http://fergie-fergielicious-lyrics.bestyes.org/fergie-fergielicious-lyric—-.html] fergie fergielicious lyric [/url][url=http://fergie-fergielicious-lyrics.bestyes.org/by-fergie-fergielicious-lyric.html] by fergie fergielicious lyric [/url][url=http://fergie-fergielicious-lyrics.bestyes.org/index.html] fergie fergielicious lyrics [/url][url=http://fergie-fergielicious-lyrics.bestyes.org/fergie-fergielicious-lyric.html] fergie fergielicious lyric [/url][url=http://fergie-fergielicious-lyrics.bestyes.org/by-dutchess-fergie-fergielicious-lyric—.html] by dutchess fergie fergielicious lyric [/url]

By Bruce

June 12, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

“If those stories about Saddam are true then of course they give me the willies. I mean, we’re talking about human beings. And that’s why I am all for doing something about Darfur.”

IF those stories are true? You will believe that we went to Iraq for oil but not the documented reports of the evil Saddam caused his own people. It’s OK to go to Darfur but not Iraq? Wouldn’t it be the same thing?

“But what’s going on in Iraq right now never had anything to do with Saddam….they said “nucular” when they mean “oil”. It was never up front that our goal was to change the leadership over there.”

I wish they would get that oil over here, I am tired of paying $3.00+ a gallon for gas….Show me the oil BY, where is it, why haven’t they shipped it over here yet?

By Mara

June 12, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

Bruce - nobody ever said they wanted to control the oil so they could lower fuel prices…

By Bill

June 12, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

One way I think we all can be patriotic is to buy more fuel-efficient cars. A 10-20% reduction in demand will do more to bring the prices down than any war ever will.

By Chilao

June 12, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Iraq has I believe it is the second-largest oil reserves in the world, however is it in the ground.

and see, between it being in the ground and it getting to the world’s petroleum users are several groups: Civil Warriors, insurgent groups, a group called Al Qoyoda(you might have heard of their leader, a Bin Laden guy, currently in Pakistan), and the good old-fashioned Arab-ofisi(thugs), all intent on interrupting that oil supply, blowing up pipelines and attacking oil field workers.

Bruce, see that there dilemna perhaps? All this kind of stuff has been on the news and all, but perhaps you have been too busy to notice.

By Bill

June 12, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

and see, between it being in the ground and it getting to the world’s petroleum users are several groups: Civil Warriors, insurgent groups, a group called Al Qoyoda(you might have heard of their leader, a Bin Laden guy, currently in Pakistan), and the good old-fashioned Arab-ofisi(thugs), all intent on interrupting that oil supply, blowing up pipelines and attacking oil field workers.

The hope being that these “minor nuisances” will be overcome so that Iraqu’s oil will be available to the free markets of the world again soon. Under the previous UN disbursement plan, we weren’t going to see a drop of that oil, at any price.

By Bill

June 12, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Out of curiosity, how many of you here believe the UN is a better leader of the world than the US is?

By NetBanker

June 12, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

Our biggest health care challenge: How to reduce the overwhelming stress that is a part of so many of our lives. That will be quite the challenge, Bill, as my observation and experience is that the predominant stessor in most people’s lives is their work environment. The reason that work is stressful is the corporate world managing to stock prices as well as the focus on doing more work with the same or fewer number of employees. It would take a major cultural shift away from managing to the stock price to change this scenario. As a real life example from my own situation in software development, professional organizations state that the staffing for my analyst team should be in the range of 1 team member per 3-5 developers. We’re currently in a ratio of about 1:13 plus we’re supporting other departments as well. Even though we can easily prove that we need more staff to support the volume of work Sr. Management’s response is that we’re in a hiring freeze and trying to control expenses even as they complain that the quality of the product needs to increase and the employee satisfaction survey states that the #1 issue for employees is being burnout due to being overworked.

By Mara

June 12, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Bill - I don’t view the U.N. as a “world leader” as the term is commonly used. It is a forum where ostensibly there are no “leaders” and all countries are (theoretically) equal. A place where every country can state their views before a assembly of their peers. The President of the UN is more of a “chairman” who determines precedence and agenda than he is a true “world leader”.

But at this juncture I do not see the U.S. as a “leader” either. Leaders lead. They don’t bully, they don’t threaten, they don’t sneer at and ostrasize their “followers” for not agreeing with them.

It causes me great pain to see how low we have fallen. We used to be the fiery beacon of freedom, the “shining city on the hill” with a moral authority derived from our support for human rights, the rule-of-law, and the honest adherence to international treaties. We were thought of as a kindly (if rather loud and boisterous) people, generous with our resources and compassion, optimistic and innovative. Maybe a little too fond of food, drink, and sex for some, but overall fairly decent folks.

Now when people think of the US they think of Iraq, Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, “freedom fries and cheese-eating surrender monkeys”, the coalition of the “willing” (bribed), and Don Rumsfeld with his contempt for “Old Europe”.

There are no more “world leaders”. If we are still considered a “leader”, it is only because we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined and our economy pretty much powers the rest of the worlds economies. Basically, because we are bigger and stronger, we can intimidate others into doing what we want them to do.

But that is just MY opinion.

By NetBanker

June 12, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

You will believe that we went to Iraq for oil but not the documented reports of the evil Saddam caused his own people. It’s OK to go to Darfur but not Iraq? Wouldn’t it be the same thing? Bill…the reports of the evil Saddam caused his own people were NEVER a stated reason for attacking Iraq so the comparison to Darfur is moot. And it wouldn’t be limited to just Darfur, but many other regimes in the world too.

As for the UN vs US question, while I believe the UN to be very ineffective in far too many cases, we CAN NOT be the police man of the entire world all on our own. Just look at the financial havoc Iraq war is wreaking on America let alone the emotional cost to our military and their families. Even the Axis of Evil countries know that we are in absolutely no position to be able to provide military support to any other part of the world while we’re stuck in this quagmire. Hey, we can’t even secure our own border and use of the National Guard in order to do so is completely out of the question because they’re in freakin’ Iraq! Nor is the National Guard in a position to respond to a large natural disaster (think another Katrina or maybe flooding in the Midwest) from either a personnel or equipment perspective. Why should America continue to bear the burden of policing the world by ourselves when other countries are affected too? Are you aware that Bush is pitching a Missle Defense System this week at the G8 that would protect Europe, but the cost would be born by Americans? WTF?

By kimberly

June 12, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Hey NetB! I so agree! My peers and I used to have offices for the much needed peace & quiet to do our jobs. Now we’re crammed into tiny rows of little gray cubes.. no privacy… no quiet. Our dept. lost people, didn’t replace them, keeps increasing our expectations and number of projects we support, but hey, no money for the newer tools or training of any kind. Then at review time, they ask how we’ve tried to improve our skills. Heh….

By Chilao

June 12, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Anybody see Colin Powell on Meet the Press this weekend? For some reason I do not think he looks up to Bush the way the Albanians do. In fact, while watching, I was thinking This itself is going to be making a news item. Headline reads “Powell Slams Bush”. LOL

By NetBanker

June 12, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Mara…excellent description of the UN and the world views of America. It is frightening to think that we constantly hear that we don’t have enough money to fund domestic programs as we spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined. How about we spend a little less on the military by pulling out of bases in Europe, and use the money to pay down the national debt (since are economically vulnerable to China and the Mid-East as the largest holders of TBills and Bonds) as well as maintain our own transportation infrastructure which is starting to show signs of wear. Without that infrastructure our economy will flop as companies becomes unable to transport goods.

By SusieHomeMaker

June 12, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

So right NetB!! They keep “downsizing” the workforce but “supersizing” their incentive “bonuses”, (See Delta and Home Depot). The American worker is getting screwed. Without any lubricant. They take away our jobs and ship them to another foreign country; so that the ones that are left behind on these jobs have to pretend to be “thankful” for the crumbs that are falling from the tables of the rich.

We’re, the American workers, gonna break pretty soon; and it won’t be a pretty sight.

By SusieHomeMaker

June 12, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Anybody see Colin Powell on Meet the Press this weekend? For some reason I do not think he looks up to Bush the way the Albanians do. In fact, while watching, I was thinking This itself is going to be making a news item. Headline reads “Powell Slams Bush”. LOL

He should’ve done it years ago; before the Iraq War — maybe we wouldn’t have been in this big mess we’re in now.

By lozen

June 12, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

As always I’m with Mara, Kimberly, Chilao, and Netbanker.

By Bill

June 12, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Mara—I would agree with your description of the UN as being a nice “forum” for ideas and gripes to be aired, but once you include UN military authority and the right to “administer” countries such as Iraq, I believe you have gone far beyond a mere forum.

It remains an ugly reality that “might makes right”. And as much as many people around the world and even within the US loath our military might, I think it’s the best situation for the world overall. Just my opinion, of course.

By Bill

June 12, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

That will be quite the challenge, Bill, as my observation and experience is that the predominant stessor in most people’s lives is their work environment.

I agree with you that work is extremely stressful for anyone stuck staring at a computer screen all day. As for the “stock-holder” pressures, I think the management feels that pinch a little more than the average grunt worker.

My concern here today, NetB, is that I keep hearing cries of despair that we have no control over our lives, that we all are victims of corporate America, insurance companies, etc. That hasn’t been my experience in life.

By Mara

June 12, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Net! Your point about “more work, less workers” is well taken also. Given that real wages have been pretty stagnant for the last few years while expenses like transportation, housing and food have gone up, and up, and up…well, living paycheck-to-paycheck is pretty darn stressful even without the work-a-day aggravation. And if you have to commute anywhere in Atlanta, there’s still another pain in the keister.

Good point on our deteriorating infrastructure, too. Most of which are products of our grandparents generation. And don’t get me started on China holding most of our national debt…

Hi Chilao, kimberly!

By Bill

June 12, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this

One technological breakthrough I keep hoping for is excellent voice recognition by computers. Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to sit and chat with your computer all day rather than having to type and mouse? The physical posture required to work using a mouse and keyboard results in a lot more problems than just backaches. It also greatly affects our breathing and digestion. Plus, staring at an illuminated sreen all day can’t be healthy either.

By NetBanker

June 12, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

Hey Kimberly! I’m pretty sure we don’t work for the same company, but it sounds like the management teams have all had the same training. I’ve gone through the same lost people with no replacements in the past year too. What really blows my mind is that we had an open job requistion that was put ‘on hold’ until January in order to help boost year end figures then January rolls around and suddenly the job requisition and budget dollars to fill the position just disappeared. When I questioned this I receive either no response or management speak that doesn’t correspond to the question I’m asking. I pointed this out several times and continued to receive the same non-answer which told me that what management really wanted was for me to shut up and go back to my desk. Do you also run into the “You’ve got to think outside the box/get creative in problem solving” to figure out how to get the work done message from management? I’m reaching the point of saying “You make the really huge salaries, how about YOU get creative and then tell me how you’ve figured it out and I’ll execute YOUR solution. I swear it’s like the old adage of ‘9 women can’t make a baby in one month’, but management teams all over America seem to either think that they can or that 1 woman can deliver 2 different babies in less than 18 months. My case at the moment is closer to the second scenario in that management is trying to get us pregnant with the next baby even as we’re being wheeled into the delivery to birth the first one.

By Mara

June 12, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

Chilao - it’s too late for Powell to try pulling a George Tenet-like “after the fact” apology. Too little, and waaaayyyy too late.

Bill - but once you include UN military authority and the right to “administer” countries such as Iraq

Since the UN has no military, how can it have any military authority? The ONLY military it has are those forces that the Security Council nations and other members cede to them for a jointly agreed-upon purpose and finite length of time and whose ultimate purpose, as outlined by the UN Charter, is the the elimination of “any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” and to take military and/or non-military action to “restore international peace and security”.

ANY authority the UN has is “democratically” derived from the member nations. It carries out, in other words, the collective will of the world nations.

By kimberly

June 12, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

Hahaha! Great analogy, NetB! Yep. That’s exactly what’s happening at my office too! Exactly.

By Monica

June 12, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

Hi Chilao! I like Colin Powell. I wish he would run for president.

Kimberly and Netbanker, when the kids at school really start pushing the buttons, or when we are introduced to the latest cure du jour for education, and I want to get out, I always think of your office descriptions and decide that I’ll stay where I am!

By Mara

June 12, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

Bill - we all are victims of corporate America, insurance companies, etc. That hasn’t been my experience in life

I don’t know as “victim” is the right word choice, but many of us aren’t in a position to up and quit if we feel abused or overworked. Maybe it’s all our own faults for not managing money better, for not making more, for not scrimping to afford that great investment that turned out to actually be a great investment…but that changes nothing. We are dependant on that paycheck, the company insurance, our 401K. Are we “victims”? I don’t know, but we sure aren’t the winners.

By Bill

June 12, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

ANY authority the UN has is “democratically” derived from the member nations. It carries out, in other words, the collective will of the world nations

Well, perhaps you’re comfortable with countries like Libya deciding the fate of the US, but I’m not. Also, however the military might of the UN is structured, it remains military power nonetheless.

By Chilao

June 12, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

Hi Monica, Mara, Lozen, and NetB.

I personally like Bill Richardson, although he has no chance. I made the remark to someone recently that I did not think Obama was qualified(lacked experience) to be President and the retort back to me was “and look at things now, when has that ever mattered?”. and I could not disagree….LOL

By NetBanker

June 12, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

As for the “stock-holder” pressures, I think the management feels that pinch a little more than the average grunt worker. I don’t agree with this position. While it may be the management dealing directly with the investors and having their performance measured against the stock prices those prices are driving management decisions. The average grunt workers are the ones most affected by those decisions since they are predominantly targeted to staffing levels (keep them down to reduce salary expense), aimed at controlling other expenses (reducing worker training, not investing in upgrading the tools the workers use, more health care costs being passed on to workers, reduced company contributions to 401K/retirement plans, etc), delivering product to the market (get things out faster, improve quality), and supporting current customers (resolve their problems, over promising on what can be delivered).
My concern here today, NetB, is that I keep hearing cries of despair that we have no control over our lives, that we all are victims of corporate America, insurance companies, etc. That hasn’t been my experience in life. I think you have been extremely fortunate in your life. People do have control over portions of their lives such as being able to leave an employer, but what I hear happening in the employment market place is that the problems I described above are systemic to the American economy. Therefore, all one is doing is trading one set of problems for another or merely encountering the same problems at a new employer. I think that the situation of being a victim is growing in validity for the average American due to the Golden Rule (not the religious one, but the one about those with the gold make the rules.) Just to let you know I’m not the average worker, I make about double the median income, and work in a specialized field with very few people who have the knowledge and skills that I do and I’m encountering many of these issues as are my peers who work in the industry for other companies.

By kimberly

June 12, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

Bill, I don’t think you have to be a victim to observe and speak out about abuse of power, or the manipulation of laws and regulations by big business to their favor through lobbying and campaign contributions. Rather, I think one who doesn’t see it might be sticking his head in the sand.

Also, just curious: What exactly give the US government the right to “administer” other countries such as Iraq? Or the right to put our nation in debt to other unfriendly nations to do it?

By Bill

June 12, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

I think you have been extremely fortunate in your life.

Not in every way. My greatest strength has been lack of interest in material goods and the ability to work years without vacations. I’m comfortable driving an old car and living in a small house.

Personally, I believe most folks live just a tad over their heads financially. Just an opinion, not a slam.

By Chilao

June 12, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

Fox.com has pics of Bush in Albania, apparently he got his watch stolen while being thronged.

I guess he/they never heard the LBJ-ism. anytime you hear “I’m just a dumb ole country boy”, get your hand on your billfold.

By Bill

June 12, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

Bill, I don’t think you have to be a victim to observe and speak out about abuse of power, or the manipulation of laws and regulations by big business to their favor through lobbying and campaign contributions. Rather, I think one who doesn’t see it might be sticking his head in the sand.

Also, just curious: What exactly give the US government the right to “administer” other countries such as Iraq? Or the right to put our nation in debt to other unfriendly nations to do it?

I fully respect those who speak out about abuses of power—as long as those same individuals are able to give credit where credit is due. Is that a fair outlook?

As for the “right” of the US to administer power, I can’t really answer that except to say that someone somewhere is going to exercise power internationally, and I would rather it be us than the Libyans. What would be your vision of how to share power internationally? A “democratic” organization like the UN looks great on paper, but doesn’t work well due to the “tyranny of the majority”—i.e. the loser countries who hate us will gang up against us.

By Chilao

June 12, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

oops, my bad, it was not stolen, we have it on good authority, from Tony Snow no less, that the watch returned to the White House with the President.

it would have been the Albanians doing the weze just poor country folk with that LBJ-ism, btw.

By Bill

June 12, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

One of my greatest pleasures: Have a drink or two, get over the fear of someone watching and laughing at me, and dancing up a storm to a great live band. Doesn’t cost hardly anything.

By kimberly

June 12, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

Bill, fair enough on giving credit where credit is due. I agree with your 2:22; know so many people who confuse shopping and acquisition with accomplishment. Part of that, I think, is the whole marketing mindset of our entertainment-focused (dumbed-down) culture. “If you don’t own this, you’re a loser!” But, getting back to the greed-meisters, you can’t watch a newscast without seeing 12 big pharm ads trying to convince you that you NEED their product… they pay billions for that advertising and to bribe doctors, and then, ooops! that one’s unsafe, gotta pull it… Forget the ads and put the money in research and in making life-saving drugs available already! But that’s not what the CEOs get the multi-million quarterly bonuses to do.

As for solving the world’s problems, I don’t claim to have all the answers. I’d like for there to be peace on earth, (hence my opposition to pre-emptive war) and let it begin with me. I think there’s a song in there somewhere. {:->

By Bill

June 12, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this

As for solving the world’s problems, I don’t claim to have all the answers. I’d like for there to be peace on earth, (hence my opposition to pre-emptive war) and let it begin with me. I think there’s a song in there somewhere. {:->

Beautifully said. ; > }

By Lily Toad

June 12, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

If the presidential candidates had to submit a resume and the most qualified person were hired, Richardson would have the job. He’s a governor, has been in the House of Representatives, was US Ambassador to the UN, was in Clinton’s cabinet, so has experience in all levels of government, both domestic and foreign. After saying all this, Kuchinich is closest to my own political leanings.

By Mara

June 12, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

Bill - perhaps you’re comfortable with countries like Libya deciding the fate of the US, but I’m not. Also, however the military might of the UN is structured, it remains military power nonetheless

where’d you get the idea that I’m “comfortable with…Libya…deciding the fate of the US”? You never asked if I would be comfortable giving up our sovereignty to them. Nor did you ask anything except whether the UN or the US was a better “leader”. Just because I don’t see the UN as an inimical force doesn’t mean that I think they should rule the world. And exactly how does (or how could) the UN “decide the fate of the US”? It’s a co-operative, Bill. They can’t force us to do anything! And the point about their “military” is that those who would be in charge of that military are either our guys or their counterparts from our allies (except for maybe China).

(picture me shaking my head in puzzlement) Why are you so scared of the U.N.? They’re virtually powerless and heaven knows, they are about as efficient and effective as any other bureaucracy…so what about it frightens you so much?

by the way, I don’t know as people “loathe” the US military as fear what BushCo. will do with it next. Many people in many countries no longer trust the US Government, instead they fear us, they fear what we can do to their people, what we are no longer ashamed to do to their people…and that fear can be more dangerous than clean hatred. We preach freedom to others while we create secret prisons in Europe. We tell them that they are free to choose their own government then stand behind them with a big gun telling them what kind of government to have. The majority of the people, the ordinary people, of the world fear and/or hate us and you see this as “the best situation for the world overall”…sheesh.

By Bill

June 12, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

Mara, the “military message” is always one of fear, no? And as horrifying as it may seem, fear can be an effective tool when used judiciously in that it can avoid a much bloodier solution often times.

As to the extent that we have failed our own principles—no torture ever, no secret prisons—we should be ashamed. But, the truth remains that the vast majority of the folks in the world wished they lived here despite any squawking they may do.

By blablabla

June 12, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

Why does everyone say Hillary = universal heathcare?

But….where is this Hillary Healthcare Plan? Another schill.

obviously . has not spent much time on hillary’s website.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/

the first two sentences on the page: America is ready for universal health care. Hillary has the vision and the experience to make it a reality.

i’m with kimberly, although i would flip her comment around to include her supporters as well as her detractors. based on personal experience, her detractors seem to know more about her than those who extol her “virtues”.

By iflmxrbmdl

June 12, 2007 6:06 PM | Link to this

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! gqfqupbgvatrol

By jyywogqfsk

June 12, 2007 6:09 PM | Link to this

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! lqpzbrnhbmhe

By online trading

June 12, 2007 10:48 PM | Link to this

Not much on my mind today. What can I say? I’ve just been sitting around waiting for something to happen.online tradingonline stock trading

By .

June 13, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

Thank you blablabla! It only took about 100 posts before someone called my bluff.

My problem with the Hillary Healthcare disdain is that most people don’t even know what they’re talking about.

I mean, these are often the same people who don’t realize that Hillary’s plan for healthcare is almost identical to Mitt Romney’s, or that Newt Gingrich is almost her best friend on this issue.

So it leaves the question….exactly why do they hate her so much?

By Lyrazel

June 13, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this

How can H promise health care for all Americans when the national debt is so high? Just where is that money going to come from? Campaign promises are hot air rarely carried out with the same alacrity and assurance as pledged. What is involved is a 100% re-make of the current medical field, in other words do not expect doctors, hospitals or even the drug manufacturers to be in support. So as we all know since lobbyists rule the politicians this will just be: proposals. What can she do? Declare all doctors to work for less wage? Declare all hospitals to be open to all patients regardless of ability to pay and regardless of hospital funds? Nope and every politician knows it. To implement this all hospitals would have to undergo a complete revamp of records and input procedures as well as forgive all debts. You see most hospitals are privately owned so the government cannot tell them to take someone—unless they get funding from the government (which is the case with Medicaid). Also, look at the conditions of Walter Reed and the current status of VA hospital care. Grim, isnt it? Would you want THAT kind of health care? What aggravates me about H is that she has been a regular visitor at Walter Reed in the years as senator. She gets swept up to the 7th floor with all the VIPs (politicians). The VIPs can send soldiers to war but did not have the balls to even visit the other wards to see how those GIs were handling life…yeah right…

Possibly what COULD be done is legislation creating nation wide health care INSURANCE plan. There must first be affordable coverage in the event of illness coverage that does not raise its rates if used by the policy holder. Second all diseases and illnesses would have to be covered. A government-based health insurance policy would lump poor/working poor/middle class and wealthy into one group that could negotiate price (price of drugs, surgery, care). This insurance coverage could be paid with yearly taxes and could be opted out of by those wishing to stay with private carriers.

Things that must change are lax attitudes of Americans about personal health care. Most Americans have zero savings and health problems make them more vulnerable to further financial woes…but wait, they have big screen TV sets cable, fancy clothes, 2 cars, 3 telephones, designer handbags and think nothing of charging 3000 for a fancy vacation on a new credit card. I think Americans are delusional if they think they can ignore this debt crisis pretending a nation wide health care program will allow them to keep their status quo. Too much future spending (your grandchildren yet to be born are now straddled with government debt) has gone unchecked. Besides you all know how many YEARS it takes for the government to get something done…so maybe H’s program WILL be begun in 2040… that is just 34 years away.

By Chilao

June 13, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

Camille Paglia’s comments about Hillary and the recent debates of both parties: (this link is actually on Drudge).

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2007/06/13/gore/?source=whitelist

By Monica

June 13, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Good points, Lyrazel. I also agree with the insurance ideas.

Hey Chuck, do you think Fred Thompson will eventually throw his hat into the ring?

To all, Jim Wooten’s blog today (Thinking Right)is about the 12 promises that Rudy has made if he is elected.

By blablabla

June 13, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

. - reading hillary’s site and reading romney’s site leads me to believe their positions are pretty dissimilar.

http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Health_Care

romney hardly says anything at all on the topic on his site, but he does state that he is not in favor of a governmental healh care program and prefers market driven changes. from hillary’s site it’s hard not to think she’s in favor of a universal government program.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

There must first be affordable coverage in the event of illness coverage that does not raise its rates if used by the policy holder. Second all diseases and illnesses would have to be covered

Lyrazel, While I admire your generosity and concern for the health of all Americans, if you think about your proprosal from a business standpoint, it doesn’t make any sense. Insurance schemes only work well when the policyholders have incentive to keep the claims down, typically in the form of deductibles and co-payments, along with the threat of higher premiums in the case of numerous claims.

The sad fact remains that the vast majority of health problems which motivate people to see their doctor are completely preventable. Add to that the documented fact that a substantial percentage of treatments rendered by doctors are either unnecessary or ineffective and you might understand why I want no part of your plan.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

My problem with the Hillary Healthcare disdain is that most people don’t even know what they’re talking about.

Hey By. , if you will google in “The Health Security Act of 1993”, you can find out all you want to about Hillary’s vision for government-run health care. It’s not conjecture, it’s history. She already tried to ruin our economy once, which is one too many times for my tastes.

By chuck

June 13, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

Good morning all.

Monica, I think the Thompson run is a done deal. He established a “Testing the Waters” committee last week and without even being a candidate he is running 3rd to Giuliani and McClain. He is against the immigration bill and he is pro-life. More importamtly, unlike the other 2 he is from a southern state. I’m about 99% sure that he will run and about 51% sure he will win. It’s a long time until November ‘08, though and anything could happen.

As for Giuliani, according to his 12 points, number 7 is:

To increase adoptions and decrease abortions.

That’s liberalspeak for pro-abortion. He automatically loses 25% of the voting populace with his pro-abortion stance. I know thousands of conservatives who will not mark his name on a ballot for that reason alone. Throw in his multiple divorces and he does not have a prayer of winning the presidency unless millions of dems defect and vote for him.

By Archie

June 13, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

Hillary is for universal healthcare and she has said so out loud. Blabla quoted her correctly. Longtime bloggers know I agree with Hillary on this issue and people that read a lot of news know that Usa today featured an article on healthcare weeks ago and America was not ranked #1 among countries similar to us. The countries that had universal healthcare were ranked higher than the USA when it came to what the people got for their money. People have political differences and may the best man/woman win but please vote for what you believe in. Kucinich is also for universal healthcare using a single-payer system. Blabla is right that there are differences between democrats and republican candidates on this healthcare thing and Blabla needs to be given credit for at least understanding that much. Sometimes liberals are just ditto-heads that do nothing. At least conservative ditto-heads will do something and they can regurgitate conservative talking points. I challenge liberal democratic bloggers to go to Hillary’s website and the other candidate’s websites and if you’re tired 47 million people living without health insurance say so and vote.

By Mr. Rogers Fan

June 13, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

A dog by any other name.

By .

June 13, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

OK, twice I have tried to post links to news articles about the similarities of Mitt and Hil and both time they’ve not show up….I think I am being censored…

By Bill

June 13, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

That’s liberalspeak for pro-abortion. He automatically loses 25% of the voting populace with his pro-abortion stance. I know thousands of conservatives who will not mark his name on a ballot for that reason alone. Throw in his multiple divorces and he does not have a prayer of winning the presidency unless millions of dems defect and vote for him.

So, if it comes down to Hillary vs. Guliani, you’re going to vote for Hillary? Or just not vote at all, which would be a defacto vote for Hillary?

By .

June 13, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

Here’s one:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/MittRomneyHealth_Care.htm

By .

June 13, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

OK, so it didn’t post the link right, either. There needs to be underscores () between Mitt Romney HealthCare….. Let’s see if it takes it this time:

“http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/MittRomneyHealth_Care.htm”

By Bruce

June 13, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, I do not have the answers so don’t ask and I am not trying to argumentative, but……

In the first paragraph of your 9:04 post you wrote: “Also, look at the conditions of Walter Reed and the current status of VA hospital care. Grim, isnt it? Would you want THAT kind of health care? What aggravates me about H is that she has been a regular visitor at Walter Reed in the years as senator. She gets swept up to the 7th floor with all the VIPs (politicians).”

Then in the last paragraph you wrote: “Besides you all know how many YEARS it takes for the government to get something done…so maybe H’s program WILL be begun in 2040… that is just 34 years away.”

Then in the middle paragraph you wrote: ” government-based health insurance policy would lump poor/working poor/middle class and wealthy into one group that could negotiate price (price of drugs, surgery, care).”

Now for the question. If it takes the government so long to establish programs, (and I agree it does) and once they are up and running cannot seem to manage them very well, Why would you want to let them handle your insurance policy?

I mean if they, the government, don’t mind having a “speical” floor for the policitains while in the same building have poor conditions for the men and women that risk life and limb, what makes anyone think they would not have “speical” floors for the wealthy and the rest of the hospital, where the poor are, can go to hell just like the VA hospitals do?

Also, wouldn’t that just add another level of government intrusion into our personal lives? If the government is running our health care how easy would it be for them to deny certain procedures THEY deem unnecessary.

By .

June 13, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Darn…okay so this blog doesn’t post links very well. If you want to see that website just put underscores between the words “Mitt Romney Health”….

Here’s another link (will probably need underscores…):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clintonhealthcare_plan

This will probably need underscores between the words “Clinton health care plan”

By Bill

June 13, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Folks, please think deeply about the purpose of insurance: Insurance is meant to be a voluntary financial scheme in which groups of people agree to pool their resources such that if any of the members are struck with a catastrophic loss, there is a pool of money available to help offset that loss. Not just any catastrophic loss, only one which is included in the original insurance contract.

As applied to healthcare, catastrophic loss insurance makes sense for illnesses such as cancer or kidney disease. When you include routine doctor’s visits as insurable events, it is no longer insurance.

By GOB

June 13, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

I find it interesting that so many people are so dead-set against universal healthcare, but I havent heard any complaints about the “universal” protections we already have in place.

Unless of course, there is an swell of people that think the police and fire departments should all be privitized as well. Healthcare is simply another form of protection, just like the police and fire departments provide.

Also, we should really put a stop to those damn socialist libraries…I mean, who are we to think our taxes should ssupport books for the general public. I say, let the market decide if your child is literate or not…

By Mr. Rogers Fan

June 13, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

Don’t feed the stray.

By Lily Toad

June 13, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

Bill, I don’t know where you got the idea that insurance is only for “catastrophic loss.” That has never been the case. Insurance provides coverage for defined losses in an insurance policy.

By .

June 13, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

Another article showing their similarities:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18076906/

By chuck

June 13, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Yes Bill, I would not vote at all. Of course I would not vote for Hilary. You see, Bill, what most people don’t understand is that true believers don’t compromise on the essential beliefs of our faith just to get along. Some in the Republican Party don’t understand that. We don’t vote for the “lesser of 2 evils”, because we don’t vote for EVIL in any form.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

Bill, I don’t know where you got the idea that insurance is only for “catastrophic loss.” That has never been the case. Insurance provides coverage for defined losses in an insurance policy.

Lily, I’m going to have to politely disagree with you. Study the history of insurance, please. Better yet, take the actuarial exams. Part III covers insurance contracts.

Routine expenses such as normal doctor’s visits are essentially fixed costs, and therefore not “insurable”. If you think it’s a good idea for us all to share fixed costs such as routine medical care, why stop there? Why don’t we share the cost of food and housing as well? It’s called socialism.

By .

June 13, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

I maintain that education and healthcare are matters of national security.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

Yes Bill, I would not vote at all. Of course I would not vote for Hilary. You see, Bill, what most people don’t understand is that true believers don’t compromise on the essential beliefs of our faith just to get along. Some in the Republican Party don’t understand that. We don’t vote for the “lesser of 2 evils”, because we don’t vote for EVIL in any form.

chuck, I can understand your discomfort in being forced to choose the lesser of two evils. However, if you don’t choose, someone else will do the choosing for you. Do you find that preferable?

By Lily Toad

June 13, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

Ooh, I’m gonna vote for Rudy in the Republican primary. According to Chuck, many Republicans won’t vote if the Ghoul gets the nomination, thereby ensuring a Dem win.

By chuck

June 13, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

The biggest difference I see in the Romney plan and the Hilary plan is that Romney proposes a private insurance plan while Hilary favors a government run single payer plan. This difference in and of itself is HUGE.

BTW, nice try By. OR SHOULD WE CALL YOU DOG!!!

By Mary

June 13, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Frankly, I don’t trust any politician who firmly holds to the party line. I prefer to vote for someone who can think for him/herself. I understand though that someone like that would have a very hard time being elected in this country.

By MrRogers

June 13, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

There goes the neighborhood.

By Mr. Rogers Fan

June 13, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

Wrong one chuck. Can’t tell sh!t from apple butter, can you? Please stay home on voting day.

By Lyrazel

June 13, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

Chuckle. my comments prove I should not run for public office. I would be the village idiot on all those pundit shows! Sure my ideas are impractical and illogical and yet so is believing one person if elected is going to change the problems as we now have it! It takes a UNITED group. I wish I had real answers…and I agree completely with contrary opinions to my statements because it shows others are thinking for solutions that I have not thought through. Does anyone actually believe ANYONE in government office would ACTUALLY DO anything with all the strength lobbyists and special interest groups have controlling the purse strings of politicians? As Diane Feinstein said once: 75% of all politicians time in office is spent fundraising for the next elections! We have gone from a nation of self-reliant people to a nation dependent on government to make all decisions for us because we are too apathetic to vote in elections or care what they do after elected. Indeed we have stopped watching government offices and allowed privacy and rights to be violated, we live under a government imposed suspicion of guilt for anyone traveling. Who cares enough to do more than gripe?

By Lily Toad

June 13, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

Bill, many people can’t afford a routine doctor’s exam, so they don’t get medical care until something serious needs to be taken care of. For example, if a woman doesn’t have coverage for a mammogram she may not be able to afford to have one, or keep putting it off until she can afford it. Then she finds a lump in her breast that involves expensive surgery and chemotherapy. If she had detected it earlier the treatment may not have been so extensive and expensive. Would you rather pay for the mammogram and a lumpectomy or for a total masectomy and chemotherapy. Oh, and it might spread to other organs if not removed early.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

GOB—You don’t see any difference between shared public assets such as libraries and roads and the establishment of socialized medicine?

By .

June 13, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

I don’t get the dog reference….sorry.

But, I think you’ve got a problem with your argument….here is an article (not a link) from the National Review Online:

What Mitt and Hillary Have in Common You’ll never guess who’s contributing to the Clinton campaign.

By Michael F. Cannon

As he campaigns for the White House, Mitt Romney has had to tap dance around the health-care reforms he enacted while governor of Massachusetts. The first bit of bad news was that the plan’s cost was higher than predicted. Then it reneged on its commitment to cover the uninsured. But the latest bit of news about “RomneyCare” may require even fancier footwork.

The Left is now thanking Romney for making HillaryCare respectable again.

Jonathan Cohn has an article in the latest New Republic titled “Hillary Was Right” [$] that helpfully explains similarities between HillaryCare and RomneyCare:

Cohn does not think the similarities to HillaryCare are a liability. As the title of the article suggests, he is trying to pat Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) on the back for the reform plan she put forward in 1993 and defended until its death in 1994. The fact that a prominent Republican such as Mitt Romney has now embraced Hillary-style government planning strikes Cohn as confirmation that Sen. Clinton was on the right track.

By bundling the tax dollars of six million Massachusetts residents, Mitt Romney may have made the largest contribution yet to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Cohn is not even referring to some obscure aspect of RomneyCare that was forced down Romney’s throat by a left-wing legislature — which is how Romney’s defenders have tried to explain away parts of the plan, such as the individual mandate, that are unpopular with conservatives. According to Cohn, the aspect of RomneyCare that most resembles HillaryCare is its very centerpiece, which Romney borrowed from the conservative Heritage Foundation: the health insurance “Connector.”

Cohn is essentially correct. The objective of the “Connector” bureaucracy, as described by Heritage Foundation scholars, reads like an exercise in government planning. The “Connector” is supposed to “reorganize[e]…a large part of the state’s private insurance system into a ‘single market’ structure with uniform rules and a central ‘clearinghouse’ for administering coverage.”

Why, exactly, do we need a new layer of government bureaucracy to do these things? So we will have someplace to buy health insurance? We’re getting along just fine without layering more bureaucracy on our auto insurance. In fact, we already have a connector for both health and auto insurance. It’s called the Internet. Has anyone ever heard of eHealthInsurance.com?

Why do we need a “Connector” to tell health insurers what to sell and at what price? Those sorts of price controls and mandated benefits are exactly the kind of government planning that is making health insurance so unaffordable. Shouldn’t conservatives be trying to repeal those laws, instead of creating new bureaucracies that will propose, enforce, and defend them?

Aren’t such efforts a distraction from reforms that would reduce government planning? For example, conservatives should be pushing Congress to let individuals and employers purchase coverage from insurers in other states. That would make health insurance more affordable by allowing those purchasers — are you listening, Massachusetts? — to avoid the costly regulations imposed by their own state government. A nationwide market for health insurance would make the Heritage/Romney approach look less like a “Connector” than a “Constrictor.”

If health-insurance markets don’t work as well as they should, it’s because state and federal governments are doing too much planning already. Most importantly, the federal tax code denies workers ownership of their health care dollars and slaps a huge tax penalty on those without job-based coverage. Shouldn’t conservatives be rolling back those government interventions instead of cooking up even more?

If I were advising Sen. Clinton, I would be urging her to boast that her approach to health-care reform enjoys support from conservatives like the Heritage Foundation and Gov. Romney. If I were advising Gov. Romney, I would prescribe a severe case of amnesia and a health-care agenda that actually reduces the role of government.

— Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.

By chuck

June 13, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

Sorry Bill, but I’ve got to disagree. I spent many years in the insurance business and held an insurance license for nearly 15 years. I sold property and casualty insurance as well as health, life, and disability insurance. The definition of insurance is:

in·sur·ance /ɪnˈʃʊərəns, -ˈʃɜr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-shoor-uhns, -shur-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. the act, system, or business of insuring property, life, one’s person, etc., against loss or harm arising in specified contingencies, as fire, accident, death, disablement, or the like, in consideration of a payment proportionate to the risk involved.

Most health insurance policies have 2 parts. Insurance companies have recognized that catastrophic losses often occur because people put off ROUTINE health care, ESPECIALLY annual physicals. Routine care coverage has accompanied catastrophic care at least since the late 70’s when I first entered the business.

That said, Insurance can be purchased for just about ANYTHING now days. If a company can make a profit insuring it, THEY WILL. This is not socialism because it is voluntary. Truth be told, it’s more like gambling than it is socialism.

By .

June 13, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

Bill - what about the police and firemen? Should we privatize law and order?

By Bill

June 13, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Bill, many people can’t afford a routine doctor’s exam, so they don’t get medical care until something serious needs to be taken care of. For example, if a woman doesn’t have coverage for a mammogram she may not be able to afford to have one, or keep putting it off until she can afford it. Then she finds a lump in her breast that involves expensive surgery and chemotherapy. If she had detected it earlier the treatment may not have been so extensive and expensive. Would you rather pay for the mammogram and a lumpectomy or for a total masectomy and chemotherapy. Oh, and it might spread to other organs if not removed early.

Lily:

(1) We have always had public clinics available for folks who truly can’t afford medical care.

(2) In my personal experience, most “poor” people simply don’t manage their money well. The same folks who claim they can’t afford a doctor’s visit seem to be able to afford many other luxuries.

(3) Ultimately, the responsibilty to go to a doctor once a health problem is detected lies with the individual. No universal health care scheme can change that.

By GOB

June 13, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Bill - The biggest difference I see between “shared public assets” like roads and libraries, and healthcare is that the lack of one doesnt lead to deaths that could be prevented.

I’ll let you try and figure out which is really more important.

By lozen

June 13, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. (And those who have no insurance, those who get no education, those who drive on roads full of holes.) Dwight D. Eisenhower

By lozen

June 13, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

This is an Eisenhower quote I’ve never seen before. Wow!

Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. Dwight D. Eisenhower

By chuck

June 13, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Not at all Bill. I have no problem with that at all. When you have a Biblical World View, you don’t worry about the short term. In fact, one 4 year term of Hilary would probably assure decades of conservatives in power. Look what Billary did for GORE.

By Lyrazel

June 13, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad do you believe people if they had affordable health care would actually follow the advice of the doctors? I dont believe it would change much because pleasure is far more important than health care. How many people have a car but not health insurance…tv, cable, wireless, internet, etc, Its not until people are sick that they actually worry about health and insurance. Consider how few people give blood—and yet if in a car wreck everyone wants blood to be available, right?

By Bill

June 13, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

chuck—I can’t disagree with the fact that you sold insurance, but I can tell you straight up that you don’t understand the concepts at all by your statement:

Truth be told, it’s more like gambling than it is socialism.

Gambling, by definition, creates risk where none existed previously. Insurance does the opposite—it reduces risk that laready exists. Huge difference.

As for the inclusion of routine medical visits in most healthcare policies, it has been a complete loss for the insurance companies for several reasons. The biggest reason it has failed is that it has taken all consumer incentive out of the system, thereby allowing the doctors to charge fees which have no relationship to the actual effort involved. Pile on top of that all of the unnecessary administrative costs, and you might understand why I choose not to be part of the system.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

GOB—I worked in healthcare for many years. In my experience, a person’s state of health is primarily determined by how well the person takes care of themselves through a healthy lifestyle. It has absolutely nothing to do with how many times that person visits their doctor. In fact, the healthiest folks I know have all consciously avoided “medical care” and the poisons that are marketed so heavily by the pharmaceutical companies.

Just an opinion, of course.

By lozen

June 13, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

Bill. Hey By. , if you will google in “The Health Security Act of 1993”, you can find out all you want to about Hillary’s vision for government-run health care. It’s not conjecture, it’s history. She already tried to ruin our economy once, which is one too many times for my tastes. She may have tried in your opinion … But it took Junior to actually do it with his war! So we spend billions on our military, more than all other countries put together and that isn’t ruining our economy? Well maybe not ours - just our grandchildren’s economy!

By .

June 13, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

The Health Security Act of 1993, though failed, served to anchor Ms Clinton as a future veteran and true expert in regards to American healthcare. We can be assured that she is highly qualified on this issue. In the almost 15 years since she first proposed this Act she has proceeded to become more firmly grounded in what is not only needed but what changes can be made at what time. She won’t overhaul the system overnight because it would collapse…

It’s funny how people always say the Clintons were out to ruin the economy when by the time they left the White House the economy was literally humming…

By Bill

June 13, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

So we spend billions on our military, more than all other countries put together and that isn’t ruining our economy? Well maybe not ours - just our grandchildren’s economy!

lozen, I’m not an expert in economics, but every time I look at the actual economic indicators such as the unemployment rate, stock market index, etc., our economy appears to be strong. If, on the other hand, I listen to the naysayers of our press (more than 90% registered Democrats), I get the feeling we’re on the verge of bankruptcy. Hard to know which to believe.

By Just_An_Opinion

June 13, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

GOB - “Bill” is the resident chiropractor/mathematician/psychotic

By NetBanker

June 13, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

Personally, I believe most folks live just a tad over their heads financially. Just an opinion, not a slam Bill…I 100% agree with your statement and I’m definitely not in that category either. While I readily admit that I like nice things my focus when spending money is on quality and value rather than quantity. My speaking to inequities in the work force pretty follows what Kimberly was saying. I see the large bonuses, perks, and decisions being made by the decision makers that benefit themselves at the expense of those lower down the food chain even as the ‘worker bees’ are the part of the workforce that executes on the plan. I don’t deny that having a good, workable plan is critical to the success of any business, but a plan is just a bunch of words with solid execution. I get p** off when the execution is not rewarded, but the planners are. It’s like that TV commerical from a while ago with the consultants pitching some plan to a business man who accepts it and gives his blessing to make it happen. The consultants reply “Oh…we don’t actually DO the work” and then laugh.

That’s liberalspeak for pro-abortion I take exception to that comment because I’ve yet to meet a single person who is actually Pro-Abortion while meeting numerous people who are Pro-Choice. The terminology that the conservative groups have adopted completely mis-represent both sides of this issue. The reality of the positions is not pro-life and pro-abortion, but anti-choice and pro-choice. If the Pro-Life crowd was really pro-life instead of anti-choice they would also be against the death penalty and against pre-emptive wars since they take life. What it honestly comes down to is one group believing that they should have the right to make decisions for other people based on their religious value system.

In my personal experience, most “poor” people simply don’t manage their money well. I used to think this was true until reading “Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America” by Barbara Ehrenreich. In order to research her book this author lived the experience of being a low wage worker and does an excellent job of describing how people truly become trapped in the status of ‘working poor’ and how they can’t get out of it without outside intervention or help.

By blablabla

June 13, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

. - it’s quite different to say there are certain similarities between romney and hillary on health care and to say they are “almost identical” as you did at 9am.

It’s funny how people always say the Clintons were out to ruin the economy when by the time they left the White House the economy was literally humming…

it’s funny how you refer to both of the clintons when only one of “them” was president. i’d be curious as to what you think about bill’s economic policies.

So we spend billions on our military, more than all other countries put together and that isn’t ruining our economy? Well maybe not ours - just our grandchildren’s economy!

we should not confuse the health of the economy with the size of the national debt, although the two are not completely detached. further, if anybody wants to really dive into what we as a nation spend our money on go check out the national budget on the white house website. transfer payments dwarf defense spending and are forecasted to continue to do so for the next several years. if defense spending was crippling our economy, the effect would have been measured long before, given our history of military expenditures over the last sixty plus years.

and bill, i would be somewhat concerned for the economy. it is clear to me that rising energy costs are acting as a hedge on inflation and an increase in interest rates. rates should be moving up but they’re not. rewards in the debt market are too low to accurately reflect risk, which leads to poor economic choices (borrow today to consume beyond what you can afford). eventually, whether it occurs over one month or ten years, the situation will need to unwind.

Bill - The biggest difference I see between “shared public assets” like roads and libraries, and healthcare is that the lack of one doesnt lead to deaths that could be prevented.

umm, how about local versus federal?

By Bill

June 13, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

NetB—I understand that not everyone can be a “winner” here in the US simply due to the nature of our hierarchical economic system. But, please think hard about the alternative—a non-hierarchical system in which everyone receives the same paycheck regardless of the value of their work. Certainly, all the “class envy” would be reduced under such a system, but, at the same time, our overall standard of living would go right down the toilet.

Don’t take my word for it, of course. Take a quick look at the communist/socialist countries around the world and how their standard of living compares to ours. The fact remains that the poorest people in the US are considered extremely wealthy by the standards of almost any other country.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

blablabla—As stated earlier today, I’m not an expert in Economics. And certainly, I worry along with every other American about our indebtedness to China. But—and you may call this sticking my head in the sand—I realized many years ago that I can really only control my own economic situation, and have thus directed my efforts toward that end rather than getting upset about things which I have no control over. I vote for the candidates who make the most sense, but try not to get too passionate about politics. In my own personal experience in supporting a few local candidates, you have to have some major bucks to make any real impact. Sad, but true.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

Thanks to all for including me in your discussion today. I don’t know if anyone ever changes their opinions based on the arguments presented here on W2W, but I do think it’s healthy to keep a dialogue open between the various factions in our country.

For the folks who are stuck working on computers all day, here is a simple exercise which might make a difference: In order to operate a mouse and keybaord, you have to lean forward all day. This cause your shoulders to become “rounded” and your head to protrude forward. In technical terms, your cervicalis and rhomboid muscles are being stretched all day while your pectoralis muscles are being contracted. A simple way to help restore some balance is to lean your head way back while stretching your arms outward and squeezing the shoulder blades together. DO this as often as possible, if even for 2-3 seconds. It makes a big difference. If you work out at home, please focus your efforts in strengthening the rhomboids and the posterior cervical muscles while stretching out the pectoralis muscles.

By NetBanker

June 13, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

a plan is just a bunch of words with solid execution Oops…that should be ‘a plan is just a bunch of words without solid execution.

I’m not an expert in economics, but every time I look at the actual economic indicators such as the unemployment rate, stock market index, etc., our economy appears to be strong. If, on the other hand, I listen to the naysayers of our press (more than 90% registered Democrats), I get the feeling we’re on the verge of bankruptcy. Hard to know which to believe.

I’m not an expert either, but am an analyst in the financial world and believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The economic indicators do tend to look favorable, however what employment numbers don’t illuminate is that not all jobs are created equal. Losing a manufacturing job and replacing it with a fast food worker job is a ‘no-net-effect’ for the employment numbers, but the jobs are most certainly not equal in earning power, income tax revenue generation, or potential for the worker. Currently the jobs that are being added to the economy are tending to be added to service industries while the losses are high-earning blue collar jobs and white collar jobs. The naysayers to good economic numbers seems to be more focused on the quality of the jobs as well as other reported statistics that indicate that real wages for non-executives is growing either at or below the rate of inflation for the past decade or so. Couple that low wage growth with the propensity for overspending/credit spending (that you mentioned) and the sharp increases in fuel prices and the average America does actually feel on the verge of bankruptcy. This feeling gets even worse for the worker when you consider the work environment that we discussed yesterday which is placing ever higher demands on employees for time/productivity. All of these factors combined are resulting in people working harder and harder just to maintain their economic status quo or minimize their economic losses. Juxtapose that experience as the average American against the executive class who has seen real wages increase by double to triple digits during the same period and it becomes quite clear why the party of the working class (Democrats) feels like we’re on the verge of bankruptcy.

From a macro-perspective the credit/deficit spending by our Government during the Bush II years is a great threat to our economy. The amount of the national budget and GDP that goes toward servicing that debt is increasing just like the rising interest rates on Adjustable Rate Mortgages and credit cards are eating up more citizens’ budgets. That leaves less money to spend on the goods and services the government needs to run the country. Further, by selling that debt in the form of Tbills and Tbonds to foreign investors we are increasing the power of those investors to negatively impact our economy. For example, if China were to initiate a massive sell off of the U.S. Gov’t debt they hold the value of the dollar on the open markets would plummet resulting in a corresponding increase in the cost of goods to Americans which will further exacerbate their budget woes. Since goods will cost more the amount they can purchase will drop and the economy will slow to a grind.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

I’ll tell you what NetB—If we’re collectively going to heck in a handbag in our country, let’s party like hell on the way down. What do you say?

By Lily Toad

June 13, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

How many people have a car but not health insurance OK, Lyrazel, if you had to make a choice whether to buy a car or health insurance, what would you choose? I’d choose the car because I need it to get to work. (MARTA’s not available where I work because my employer moved outside the perimeter and no way I’m living in Cobb County.) Individual health insurance is very expensive. One of the leading causes of bankruptcy is unpaid medical expenses. Why should health insurance only be available to people who are lucky enough to be employed by a company big enough to provide it?

By .

June 13, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

Nobody who says heck instead of hell can possibly know how to party on the way down….

:)

By blablabla

June 13, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

If the Pro-Life crowd was really pro-life instead of anti-choice they would also be against the death penalty and against pre-emptive wars since they take life.

net - just because liberals say this doesn’t make it true. i’m not pro-life but it’s plain as day (to me) that there is a difference between innocent life and guilty life. while i don’t subscribe to the same beliefs it doesn’t strike me as terribly odd to see people who are pro-life and favor the death penalty.

you also assumes that one’s position on one issue is absolute accross issues, and that is not true either. under your definition of pro-life (don’t take life), pre-emptive war is no different than provoked war, since the both take life. why make the distinction?

as for china - i highly doubt china would flood the market with dollar denominated debt. since we are their biggest trading partner, it is not in their best interest to drive down the value of the dollar relative to foreign currencies, for exactly the reason you articulated: Since goods will cost more the amount they can purchase will drop and the economy will slow to a grind. it also would require them to take a MASSIVE hit on all the dollar denominated debt that they’ve bought at par over the years.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

Nobody who says heck instead of hell can possibly know how to party on the way down…

Obviously you’ve never attended one of my parties, By . ; > }

By blablabla

June 13, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

Why should health insurance only be available to people who are lucky enough to be employed by a company big enough to provide it?

wow. you could have a field day with that statement. where’s mr. rogers to say “there goes the neighborhood”?

By Bill

June 13, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this

So, for our “End of the World” party, what music should we play? Other than the obvious REM “It’s the End of the World As We Know It (and I Feel Fine)”?

I’ve been tuning in Project 9-6-1 lately trying to learn what the cool kids are listening to these days. Starting to actually like the group “Tool” a little bit, if you can believe it.

By Lily Toad

June 13, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

Blablabla,

I’d like an answer without smearing people who have cable tv but not health insurance, or saying, “they made bad choices.”

By .

June 13, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

Yeah….what retard came up with the stoopit term “Pro-Abortion”?

Like, I am Pro-Abortion! I insist that ALL pregnancies be aborted! Every one. The more people who get pregnant the more abortions we can have because, man, they are great!

It’s a retard-maroon-ism.

By .

June 13, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this

Tool has been around since about 1990 or so.

They’re lyrics are always layered with Catholic dogma. Complex band. The band A Perfect Circle is a side-project by the lead singer….you can tell it’s almost the same….

If you really want to listen a truly genius band then listen to System of a Down, but be warned….they are so anti-war. But then, they’re all California boys who are Armenian-Americans, grandsons of Armenian Genocide survivors….

By NetBanker

June 13, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

But, please think hard about the alternative—a non-hierarchical system in which everyone receives the same paycheck regardless of the value of their work. What you’ve stated is AN alternative that is the exact opposite of the current situation. There are other alternatives such as tiered rewards based on effort or profit sharing with all employees instead of just at the executive level. This allows for a more equitable distribution of the rewards of the hard work without being an either/or situation.

Bla…my intent is to point out the importance of the use of words/labels and how they can be misleading on purpose. I’m extremely sensitive to language due to the nature of my work where working must be very exact to obtain the desired result as well as to communicate correctly. Of course I recognize that one’s position is not necessarily absolute across issues, but if one is going to present themselves with a broad label then shouldn’t the expectation be that the label of choice applies to more than an single issue? If discussing a single issue, then pick a label or use wordsthat describes one’s position for THAT particular issue. In my abortion example the pro-life people are NOT pro-life, they are anti-choice by virtue of their desire to make abortion illegal and removing a choice that women currently have available. This issue is actually about the legality of a medical procedure instead of being pro-life as a general position. One can be pro-life without being anti-choice or anti-abortion.

By Lyrazel

June 13, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this

I do not drive Lily Toad thus a car is an unnecessary luxury. I know because I must do so that carpooling is available but most do not want inconvenience in their lives of being dependent on the good graces of others…or walking to the store to pick up groceries. Sure the health insurance rates are about 600/mo. (with high deductibles) and yep, that is sure high. Still if you add car insurance, gas, car maintained and all the costs that cars cause you are spending 600/month easily (which does not include car payments) I see very few clunkers on the road these days—mostly new cars zipping by….its a question of priorities.

Sure I would love to see a national health plan but remember how politicians bicker. Some would want some things covered and others would insist that there was a moral dilemma in providing such services so there would be delays while they debate what to cover and how much coverage is enough to begin with, how much is free, how much the cost and then factoring in all this it would end up being 600/mo taken out in taxes. I don’t get how people can think such a program would save money.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

If you really want to listen a truly genius band then listen to System of a Down, but be warned….they are so anti-war. But then, they’re all California boys who are Armenian-Americans, grandsons of Armenian Genocide survivors….

Appreciate the suggestion, By . Of course, we can’t forget the classics like Black Sabbath’s “War Pigs”, or even Pink Floyd’s “One of These Days”.

By Facts

June 13, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

System of a Down had one of their songs, Lonely Day(and it’s mine), featured in the movie DISTURBIA.

By blablabla

June 13, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this

but if one is going to present themselves with a broad label then shouldn’t the expectation be that the label of choice applies to more than an single issue?

net - i wholeheartedly agree. however, i think you’re using a poor example. most people i know who label themselves “pro-life” do so when discussing abortion only, not other issues.

you will find very few people who will agree with you on the importance of word choice as much as i do.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

There are other alternatives such as tiered rewards based on effort or profit sharing with all employees instead of just at the executive level. This allows for a more equitable distribution of the rewards of the hard work without being an either/or situation.

NetB, if I’m correct, this is the model of success used by several companies, such as the Harley Davidson Corporation. Or even the Green Bay Packers—they are “owned” by the citizens of Wisconsin, not by an individual owner.

By GOB

June 13, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

I don’t get how people can think such a program would save money.

It isnt about saving money, but about making sure that people dont die if their death could have been prevented.

By blablabla

June 13, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

I’d like an answer without smearing people who have cable tv but not health insurance, or saying, “they made bad choices.”

lily toad, you may find that when you ask better questions you get better answers. the truth is your question:

Why should health insurance only be available to people who are lucky enough to be employed by a company big enough to provide it?

has two very large assumptions. one of which is obviously false and the other is arguable, at best. (1) health insurance is not only available to people who work for big companies. (2) i don’t know many people who believe they work where they as a matter of luck.

By .

June 13, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

My son loves the song Lonely Day. My son is 5. He really loves “The Party Song”, which is BYOB (meaning Bring Your Own Bombs) - the clean version of course.

I know some will question allowing my 5 year old to listen to SOAD, especially Lonely Day or the song after it, Soldier Side.

I’ll never forget the Saturday morning that Lonely Day was in my head. I was humming it and singing some of the lyrics. I got to this line:

“And if you go…..I wanna go with you” And if you die…..”

And before I could finish my son chimed in, in perfect somber pitch with: “I wanna die with you…….”

My wife turned to me and said, “Ya think we should limit the metal music, or at least talk about it with him.”

Which led to a discussion of the song Soldier Side and war and my son decided he didn’t ever want to meet our president because he was afraid that he would be sent to war and he would die.

Sometimes being a parent SUCK-A*….

By Bill

June 13, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

When I’m really depressed and feeling sorry for myself, I put on Led Zeppelin’s “Ten Years Gone”. That’s got to be one of the saddest songs ever written. After I got divorced, I used to sit and play Al Green’s “I’m Still In Love With You” over and over again and cry my eyes out.

By GOB

June 13, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this

net - i wholeheartedly agree. however, i think you’re using a poor example. most people i know who label themselves “pro-life” do so when discussing abortion only, not other issues.

Bla - I disagree with you. During the whole Schiavo stuff, their was constant talk of the “culture of life” by the republicans trying to keep her on life support. I think most of those who classify themselves as pro-life would claim that it is about more than just abortion.

Obviously, in reality it isnt, because they are generally the most ardent supporters of the death penalty, as well as the ones that tend to think our problems in Iraq come from not allowing our troops to be simply bomb Iraq into the stone ages and let god sort the good from the bad.

They would most likely say, however, that their pro-life stand is across the board.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

Which led to a discussion of the song Soldier Side and war and my son decided he didn’t ever want to meet our president because he was afraid that he would be sent to war and he would die.

By.—I love heavy metal music, but I find that a steady diet of it isn’t good for my outlook on life. I do best with a variety of music, including classical, funk, jazz, country, and even rap along with the heavy metal. To a large degree, I believe that we create our own environments. I don’t think you’re doing your son a favor by scaring him.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

During the whole Schiavo stuff, their was constant talk of the “culture of life” by the republicans trying to keep her on life support.

Not every Republican was in favor of keeping Terry Shiavo’s brain-dead body alive artificially. I lost a lot of respect for the ones that did.

By Facts

June 13, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

The White Stripes newest CD, Icky Thump, due out June 19th,(6 days!) is supposed to be very LedZeppelin-ish.

By MRF

June 13, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

This neighborhood is gone.

By .

June 13, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this

Our parenting style is not one of censorship though we certainly try to keep things in bounds that my son can comprehend. So, songs and discussions about the realities of war are not off-limits. But watching Saving Private Ryan is. Understand?

Just because it was hard for me to discuss the concept of war and address his natural fear doesn’t mean I shouldn’t go there.

He was scared. But I reassured him that he would not be forced to go to war. That American children did not have to fight in a war (I did not tell him that in some countries they do…that’s for when he’s a little older). By the end of the discussion he was no longer scared for himself but he was very concerned for the servicemembers (the word soldier technically means Army) serving in the Iraq war.

That’s reality. I’m not going to shield him from it. I’m going to guide him through it.

That don’t mean it ain’t hard.

I don’t only listen to metal. I am particularly fond of the jazz program on NPR on Saturday nights….

And I love the Bare Naked Ladies….

By Lily Toad

June 13, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

Bla, I pay nothing for my health insurance because I have a large deductible and I work for a large corporation. So maybe my question should be: Why should health insurance be provided at low cost only to people who are employed by a company big enough to provide it?

By .

June 13, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

The neighborhood might be gone but this has to be the most civil discussion I’ve seen on this stinkin blog…..

By Me Too

June 13, 2007 4:09 PM | Link to this

Even Bill is behaving. Good boy.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Bla, I pay nothing for my health insurance because I have a large deductible and I work for a large corporation. So maybe my question should be: Why should health insurance be provided at low cost only to people who are employed by a company big enough to provide it?

Lily, not to pick on you, but how do you come to the conclusion that your health insurance is “free”? There is a cost involved which your emplyer covers. As such, you should view it as part of your paycheck.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

Even Bill is behaving. Good boy.

Well, it is amazing what the love of a good woman can do even for a lowly Mongrel.

By SaveTheWorld

June 13, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

At least 50% of the world is Muslim, which means disaster for all women on this planet. THIS is a perfect example of what we are fighting. Pure insanity & women, as usual, are the ones that truly suffer because of religious men who have nothing better to do than wage war & oppress women. And the only thing I hear about is the abortion issue. The world needs to leave women the F******* ALONE ! ! ! Stop acting like a bunch of Muslims & leave the abortion issue to women ! ! There are bigger things we have to deal with ! !

First came the breast-feeding fatwa. It declared that the Islamic restriction on unmarried men and women being together could be lifted at work if the woman breast-fed her male colleagues five times, to establish family ties. Then came the urine fatwa. It said that drinking the urine of the Prophet Muhammad was deemed a blessing.

At 11:30 one recent morning, a young woman entered and sat in the chair opposite the sheik. She held her son, about 4, on her knee as she explained that her husband had married another woman (four wives are allowed in Islam) and that the new wife was only 18. “He said he would spend five nights with her and one with me,” the woman complained. “Can I ask for a divorce?” Under Islam, the sheik advised, all wives must be treated equally. So if she could not work the matter out “peacefully, then yes, she could ask for a divorce.” Getting proper support or the ability to support herself & child was another thing due to the strict & unfair burdens women face.

Another couple approached. The man’s clothes were tattered, and his wife looked distressed. Their 9-year-old son’s clothing was clean, his hair gelled, his smile bright. The man explained that they had adopted the child when he was 9 months old, and that they had just heard that under Islam their son had to be put out of the house, because the mother had not given birth to him or breast-fed him. He would reach puberty as an outsider, and could not, technically, be around the woman he knew as his mother. The imam at their local mosque said it was haram — forbidden under Islam — to live with the boy. The sheik said yes, that was right, that the boy could not live with them.

Each consultation took a few minutes. Such questions have been asked for generations.

Should women be allowed to drive, to work, to travel without the permission of men? Can boys and girls attend school together? Is it permissible to buy insurance, to wear a sports jersey with a cross design, to shake hands with a non-Muslim, to take pictures, to view family photographs? In Egypt, and other Muslim countries, where laws must abide by the Koran, fatwas by government-appointed officials can have the weight of law.

A woman at work can take off the veil or reveal her hair in front of someone whom she breast-fed.???????? Women aren’t allowed to driver or travel without the permission of men?????? I am shocked so many people are so ignorant & agree to live by such nonsense.

I say evacuate all women & children & the peaceful non-oppressive men out of all muslim countries. Blow the rest to bits.

Next, lets do something about the anti-abortion loons.

Save the world, get rid of extremists. (that means don’t vote for them stupid)

lol

By Bill

June 13, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

At least 50% of the world is Muslim, which means disaster for all women on this planet. THIS is a perfect example of what we are fighting.

I completely agree, Save the World. Why, then, does the liberal faction in our country find it so hard to criticize the Muslims, but so easy to criticize our own soldiers?

By CHUCK

June 13, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

I say evacuate all women & children & the peaceful non-oppressive men out of all muslim countries. Blow the rest to bits.

Save the world, get rid of extremists.

‘NUFF SAID WHILEY.

By .

June 13, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this

Bill….no one criticizes the servicemembers (unless they break the law)….we criticize our “fearless leaders”.

The servicemembers are the American victims.

Islam is a minority religion in America and isn’t extremist here. However, because of extremists elsewhere American Muslims are targeted for American vitriol. We must protect them from that. We criticize THAT.

I have no problems criticizing the corrupt interpretation of Islam by extremists. I have no problems criticizing fool and crazies of any religion.

But then again…I’m an atheist. A member of the most distrusted and reviled groups of people in the world.

By Lily Toad

June 13, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this

Bla,

Never said it was free. I said I pay nothing for it. I realize it is part of my compensation. You are avoiding answering my question by nit-picking. This is my re-worded question: Why should health insurance be provided at low cost only to people who are employed by a company big enough to provide it?

By Lily Toad

June 13, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

When I see a long post that begins “At least 50% of the world is Muslim” I know I’m going to see a bunch of gibberish. Check your facts about world religions before spouting a bunch of anti-Muslim rhetoric. There are more Christians than Muslims in the world, not to say that many Christians don’t oppress women, too.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 4:41 PM | Link to this

Why should health insurance be provided at low cost only to people who are employed by a company big enough to provide it?

Sorry, Lily, your rewording does nothing to change my opinion that if an employer provides subsidized health insurance, that it is simply a part of your total compensation. When I owned a small business, I didn’t provide health insurance for my employees, but instead paid them the maximum I could to keep them around. If they had asked for health insurance, I would have had to deduct it from what I was already paying them. Make any sense to you?

By .

June 13, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this

OK, I’m gone for the day…gotta get the kid from his sports camp.

Have a good one, all.

Signed,

.

By blablabla

June 13, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this

GOB - disagree all you want. it’s OK.

if i asked you if you were pro-life, you’d immediately assume i was talking about abortion. there’s a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with terri schiavo.

also, your argument strikes me as contradictory and actually helps make my point. i’m saying pro-life is focused mostly on one issue. you disagree, but then you point out(your contention) that pro-lifers are ardent supporters of the death penalty and want to pump iraq full of bombs.

if a pro-life stance is about more issues than abortion for these people, why (do you believe) they so quick to bomb iraq back to the stone age and condemn certain convicted criminals to death?

seems to me that makes them either compete and total hypocrites - or their pro-life stance only relates to abortion.

for some i’m sure it’s the former, but based on my interaction with pro-lifers i’d say there’s something else at work.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

But then again…I’m an atheist. A member of the most distrusted and reviled groups of people in the world.

And rightly so, along with the group of people who believe in fairy tales like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Stick around, and maybe you’ll start believing in Emmanuel, my friend.

By Facts

June 13, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this

Religions: Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%), Muslims 20.12%, Hindus 13.34%, Buddhists 5.89%, Sikhs 0.39%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 12.61%, non-religious 12.03%, atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)

from:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/xx.html

By Lily Toad

June 13, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

Bla, I’ve agreed insurance coverage is part of compensation, but I doubt that if my employer paid me the amount of their part of the premium it would equal what I would pay for individual coverage. Group insurance is always cheaper especially for a company that is purchasing coverage for thousands of employees.

By Facts

June 13, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

Now that will look good on a leather-jacket: A 2.36%er.

By blablabla

June 13, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this

lily toad,

i never answered you. bill is the one answering you. check the blog. but from an economic standpoint you do pay for it. i’ll try to provide you a more fulsome answer tomorrow if i have time.

By MRF

June 13, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this

Confucius say: Don’t trust liar who call you friend.

By Bill

June 13, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this

Now that will look good on a leather-jacket: A 2.36%er.

If being in a small group is appealing to you, please consider Emmanuelism. So far, I think I’m the only official member.

By JokesOn

June 13, 2007 5:07 PM | Link to this

Dog,

Although we agree on many spiritual issues, don’t you think shoving the “I know Emmanuel is the answer!” down others throat sounds EXACTLY like what all other beliefs do? Except Buddhist and a few like it.

Also, do you not believe that no matter what the “real” answer to life/universe/everything is, it must found by own process? (what I call the “no cheating rule”)

It detracts from the possibility that you have found some of THE answer, for the answer should contain understanding of where people are on their own spiritual path.

This and a couple of your obsessions and bi-polar self loathing at the end of each week takes away from what you have to offer.

By tkvjwefn lhdyctg

June 13, 2007 6:25 PM | Link to this

bdex ongz ovdeaisyl wyikv nzto rhzifny zlsaxc

By tkvjwefn lhdyctg

June 13, 2007 6:26 PM | Link to this

bdex ongz ovdeaisyl wyikv nzto rhzifny zlsaxc

By tkvjwefn lhdyctg

June 13, 2007 6:27 PM | Link to this

bdex ongz ovdeaisyl wyikv nzto rhzifny zlsaxc

By tkvjwefn lhdyctg

June 13, 2007 6:28 PM | Link to this

bdex ongz ovdeaisyl wyikv nzto rhzifny zlsaxc

By blablabla

June 14, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this

Group insurance is always cheaper especially for a company that is purchasing coverage for thousands of employees.

lily toad - of course it is. and frankly, that shouldn’t surprise you. if you were selling products and you had one person who was buying a thousand products and somebody else who was buying a single product, you’d likely be willing to offer the person buying a thousand a bulk discount. insurance is a risk management product, and the providers of the product give volume discounts.

but that’s talking about the cost to the employer. i think you’re most interested in the cost to the employee.

remember - employers who purchase group insurance for employees often pay different percentages of the premiums. company A might pay 100% of the premium. company B might pay 0% of the premium. and company C might pay 30%. all three company plans could have the exact same amount of premium, but the level of subsidy from the employer will differ from company to company. just because you have $20 of your weekly paycheck deducted for health insurance doesn’t mean that was the total bill for the premium, or anything close to what it actually cost.

the other key thing to think about in this is taxes. if you pay premiums for employer sponsored health coverage, your portion of the premiums are paid in pre-tax dollars. if you buy coverage on your own, you pay those premiums with post-tax dollars.

By SaveTheWorld

June 14, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

Emmanuel ?? Emmanuel Lewis? I was wondering what that guys’ been up to.

Thank you for the facts FACTS. As far as the radicals & the groups that opress women, what are the stats on that? And who did this pole?
“excuse me are you a radical? suicide bomber? beat women who show their hair? do you spend a lot of time rolling around on the floor bowing? Do you kiss & pray to walls? please fill out this pole for us”. lol Most all religious groups are fruitcakes & dangerous to me. Who is this Emmanuel? Think for yourselves people, don’t worship imaginary short dudes. Just because something was written more than 100 years ago doesn’t make it logical or real.

Isn’t this just another religious war? It’s all stupid.

Hey Chuck I’m here!, off & on reading it’s a busy week. : )

By NED

June 14, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

Rudy will be a great president. Republicans should be glad to have him and embrace him. To me, the most important issues are the war on terror and Iraq. Rudy is a genius when it comes to security issues, and he will lead us through to victory. Plus, abortion and gay rights are not black and white issues for most people—even conservatives. Bottom-line: Rudy, Rudy!

By Bill

June 14, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

Also, do you not believe that no matter what the “real” answer to life/universe/everything is, it must found by own process? (what I call the “no cheating rule”)

Your point is an excellent one, JokesOn. Yes, I believe each person can only discover “truth” in their own way, typically based on their own unique life experiences. Great teachers have the ability to stimulate such self-discovery. Obviously, I’m not a great teacher, but do hope to improve.

It detracts from the possibility that you have found some of THE answer, for the answer should contain understanding of where people are on their own spiritual path.

I’ve always struggled with that point, JokesOn, most likely because I was always about three grade levels ahead of my peers all throughout school, and had difficulty following other’s murky thoughts to know where they were coming from.

This and a couple of your obsessions and bi-polar self loathing at the end of each week takes away from what you have to offer.

Well, it is what it is. Hopefully you can separate the wheat from the chaff.

By NED

June 14, 2007 9:01 AM | Link to this

Rudy will be a great president. Republicans should be glad to have him and embrace him. To me, the most important issues are the war on terror and Iraq. Rudy is a genius when it comes to security issues, and he will lead us through to victory. Plus, abortion and gay rights are not black and white issues for most people—even conservatives. Bottom-line: Rudy, Rudy!

By Bill

June 14, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

Who is this Emmanuel?

Emmanuel means “God Within”. It just a way of understanding the nature of existence which avoids the logical shortcomings of both traditional religions (fairy tales) AND atheism (no God).

By Bill

June 14, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

lily toad - of course it is. and frankly, that shouldn’t surprise you. if you were selling products and you had one person who was buying a thousand products and somebody else who was buying a single product, you’d likely be willing to offer the person buying a thousand a bulk discount. insurance is a risk management product, and the providers of the product give volume discounts.

blablabla—I think lily toad’s real goal is to find even one more way she can claim that she is a victim.

By Bill

June 14, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

Confucius say: Don’t trust liar who call you friend.

MRF—Just curious if you are familiar with the concept of self-fulfilling prophecies. That is, when you expect the worst from people, they usually live up to that expectation. Conversely, when you expect the best, most often that’s what you get. Any thoughts?

By Bill

June 14, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

Rudy will be a great president

Ned, I feel the same way, for all the same reasons.

By Mara

June 14, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this

poll. the word is “poll”, not “pole”

By Troglodyke

June 14, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

*As for Giuliani, according to his 12 points, number 7 is:

To increase adoptions and decrease abortions.

That’s liberalspeak for pro-abortion. He automatically loses 25% of the voting populace with his pro-abortion stance. I know thousands of conservatives who will not mark his name on a ballot for that reason alone.*

That’s really sad. It’s sad that fully one quarter (by your estimate) of the voters in this country are so consumed with the one paltry issue of what a woman does with her own womb that you would allow that to override all your common sense. There ARE other issues, Chuck.

But please, stay home on election day. All evangelicals should. Politics and religion should not mix. If you believe that the Xtian bible is the Word of Law for this country, you have no business voting. None. Please let the reasonable, rational people elect the next leader.

By the way, Rudy has no chance of winning the GOP nomination. Romney’s gonna get it, which cracks me up, seeing as so many Xtians think Mormonism is a cult.

By Troglodyke

June 14, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

*As for Giuliani, according to his 12 points, number 7 is:

To increase adoptions and decrease abortions.

That’s liberalspeak for pro-abortion. He automatically loses 25% of the voting populace with his pro-abortion stance. I know thousands of conservatives who will not mark his name on a ballot for that reason alone.*

That’s really sad. It’s sad that fully one quarter (by your estimate) of the voters in this country are so consumed with the one paltry issue of what a woman does with her own womb that you would allow that to override all your common sense. There ARE other issues, Chuck.

But please, stay home on election day. All evangelicals should. Politics and religion should not mix. If you believe that the Xtian bible is the Word of Law for this country, you have no business voting. None. Please let the reasonable, rational people elect the next leader.

By the way, Rudy has no chance of winning the GOP nomination. Romney’s gonna get it, which cracks me up, seeing as so many Xtians think Mormonism is a cult.

By Chilao

June 14, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

Isn’t a “pole” something strippers use? Seems I saw that in some movie scene once, say Selma Hayek in Dogma, perhaps?

Anybody else think it funny that Shaunti would be shocked to see some politician on TV actually socializing with the constituency? Any politico that can dress up in drag on SNL just might get my vote. LOL, (not that I would EVER vote for a Republican, Ima justa sayin’).

By Bill

June 14, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this

By the way, Rudy has no chance of winning the GOP nomination. Romney’s gonna get it, which cracks me up, seeing as so many Xtians think Mormonism is a cult.

Trog—What leads you to believe that Romney will beat out Guliani?

BTW—Mormons believe some really, really strange stuff, such as each man (not woman) will have his own planet to rule over after death. I bet that would appeal to chuck.

By Bill

June 14, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

He said, “Well, just don’t vote Republican then,” and I said, “THERE’S NO CHANCE OF THAT!!”

(not that I would EVER vote for a Republican, Ima justa sayin.)

Hmmmm—isn’t that called “lockstep”? Voting for the party rather than the candidate?

By JokesOn

June 14, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

Well, it is what it is. Hopefully you can separate the wheat from the chaff.

I believe in accepting the whole person, and if there is a negative net gain, spiritually/emotionally/etc, and that is what you deal with. Not just the good or the bad.

If one does not apply what they spiritually know, what is the use of knowing it?

By Bill

June 14, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

If one does not apply what they spiritually know, what is the use of knowing it?

You mean, I actually have to practice what I preach before anyone will believe me?

I guess I better stop preaching, then.

By JokesOn

June 14, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

I guess I better stop preaching, then.

The other (better?) route would be to practice what you know.

By Bill

June 14, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

The other (better?) route would be to practice what you know.

I believe that if I could simply avoid communication with others when I am upset, I’d be way better off.

Do you ever feel overwhelmed by your emotions?

By AET

June 14, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

No candidate vying to lead this country should be representing any particular ideological group, period!! As soon as mainstream Americans even sniff a candidate’s lean toward a right or left wing ideology they should do everything in their power to deny him or her the nomination. Extreme ideologies are the problem in this country today. It should be the goal of the true majority in this country, progressive moderates to totally render the left and right wings totally impotent.

By AET

June 14, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

Any candidate in the coming election that is embraced by the right wing will be dead mangled meat in the general election. Not to say that he can’t be nominated, just that he will get crushed in the general. Guliani is flipping and flopping like a fish out of water. He’s trying to walk a fine line between moderates and the lunatic right. If he gets too close to the wingnuts….well. In reality the Republicans have only one candidate that can make it a race in the general election. That candidate is John McCain. McCain can attract both moderates and independents that went over in the 06 elections. The jury is still out as to whether Guliani can hold those votes for the Republicans. Romney….no chance whatsoever. Right wing bigots will never accept his religion. Too bad. But it opitimizes the the polarization that has literally destroyed the Republican party in an amazingly short period of time.

By JokesOn

June 14, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Do you ever feel overwhelmed by your emotions?

Absolutely. About 90% of the time I can refrain from being in some way destructive. I try to exercise this as to not only be non-destructive, but productive - yet that is a long path for all people IMHO. Some point the anger inwards, and some outwards.

My overall goal each time is to at LEAST be aware of where I am emotionally.

By Monica

June 14, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Emmanuel means “God Within”. It just a way of understanding the nature of existence which avoids the logical shortcomings of both traditional religions (fairy tales) AND atheism (no God).

To all the non-canine posters, I’m sorry for feeding time…

Your definition of Emmanuel isn’t correct. It actually means, “God With us,” as defined in Matthew 1:23 (and on dictionary.com). “God with us” is quite a different meaning from “God within.” Like blablabla, I too, appreciate the importance of how words are used together.

As for the logical shortcomings of religion… well, that’s really the design. It’s easy to believe in something logical. God defies logic. You can’t explain Him with physics or theories. He just is. You either believe in Him or you don’t. If the concept of God fit into the frame of logical, then faith wouldn’t be necessary.

By Mara

June 14, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Chilao - that’d give a whole new meaning to “pole worker” LOL!!

AET - two, maybe three problems with your rant.

1) “leaning” right or left does not equate to holding “extreme ideologies”.

2) the voters (mainstream America) have been pretty good about weeding out extremists. Despite the overheated rhetoric we always hear about the wild-eyed “fringe”, I have yet to see one of them actually get elected.

and finally, 3) The goal of the “true majority” should NOT be the eradication of right and left, it should be supporting people who can incorporate those competeing ideals into something that benefits all America.

By JokesOn

June 14, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

Monica,

You can’t explain Him with physics or theories.

Just because a theory has not been designed to explain something does not mean it does not exist.

I have a theory that fits what is perceived in this world and conforms to just about all of the bibles teachings.

By Bill

June 14, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

Absolutely. About 90% of the time I can refrain from being in some way destructive. I try to exercise this as to not only be non-destructive, but productive - yet that is a long path for all people IMHO. Some point the anger inwards, and some outwards.

The honest truth is that when I am sober, I’m a pretty good person. For some reason, I struggle mightily with sobriety. I’m not trying to use this as an excuse, because I am responsible for what I put into my body—and the ensuing confused/angry state.

Thanks for offering your insight/experience on this matter.

By Monica

June 14, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Jokes On, I meant theories such as scientific theories of relativity, that sort of thing.

By .

June 14, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Hey Bill, I struggle with sobriety, too. For me, I have anxiety. Terrible anxiety that has become pretty hard to deal with since becoming a parent…mostly around fear of losing my son. I go through periods of it where the only way I can sleep is to drink. And then it will abate and I don’t drink so much. I wish I could handle it without the booze and that booze can return to being something I can enjoy and not seem to need.

The main fallout of my drinking is that I sometimes get into fights with my wife. I am not violent or anything, but can sometimes be belligerent. What makes it hard to quit drinking, too, is that it never impacts my outward life such as my job and I never get behind the wheel (after all, it’s always in the evening when I am settling down for the night).

You’re probably a pretty sensitive guy, like me, which is why you’re vulnerable to alcohol. I bet you’re a pretty good person when you’re not sober, too. You just don’t like yourself….

By Bill

June 14, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

As for the logical shortcomings of religion… well, that’s really the design. It’s easy to believe in something logical. God defies logic. You can’t explain Him with physics or theories. He just is. You either believe in Him or you don’t. If the concept of God fit into the frame of logical, then faith wouldn’t be necessary.

Monica, Obviously I’ve done a poor job in conveying my vision of God to you based on your assessment of my belief system.

To begin with, I define GOD as the totality of all real things, not as a being which is separate from the world as we know it. As such, “belief”, or “faith” is not required to “know God”, all you have to do is look around and observe. To my way of understanding, the laws of Physics are simply God’s Laws. As for your charge that God can’t be “captured” in a sterile, logical framework, I completely agree. If you are interested enough to study modern Physics, you will find said Physics to be way stranger than any fiction spun by man.

Our biggest difference in outlook, I believe, is contained in your use of the word “He” to describe God. In my vision, God, being the totality, has to be both masculine and feminine, both constructive and destructive, etc. all at the same time. Is that logic-defying enough for you?

By Bill

June 14, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

I have a theory that fits what is perceived in this world and conforms to just about all of the bibles teachings

I’m all ears, lay it on me.

By Bill

June 14, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Hey Bill, I struggle with sobriety, too. For me, I have anxiety. Terrible anxiety that has become pretty hard to deal with since becoming a parent…mostly around fear of losing my son. I go through periods of it where the only way I can sleep is to drink.

By.—Thank you for your courage in sharing something so personal. Alcohol isn’t my drug of choice, but the scenario is the same for me. My anxiety started as a small child, and returns periodically. I chose not to become a parent because I didn’t think I could do a good job, and didn’t want to perpetuate the cycle.

By MrRogers

June 14, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

There goes the neighborhood.

By Bill

June 14, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

And I’m not asking anyone her to feel sorry for me, exspecially those who I have offended, but please consider that when a person has to take a lot of beatings they didn’t deserve as a child, it tends to leave some marks. OK? I do my best like JokesOn to not harm or offend anyone else, but hav’ent done a good job lately.

By Bill

June 14, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

But thanks again to the one or two people here who have tolerated me. It takes a saint to put up with me.

By oddnews

June 14, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

BERLIN — An unusually aggressive squirrel bit three people in a German town before its last victim finished it off with a crutch, police said.

The rodent jumped through a living-room window in Passau, on the Austrian border, on Tuesday and bit its first victim. With the squirrel hanging on by its teeth, the woman ran out into the street, where she managed to shake the animal off.

The squirrel then bit a construction worker before running into a nearby garden, where it bit a 72-year-old man who eventually killed it with a crutch, police said.

By NetBanker

June 14, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

that’d give a whole new meaning to “pole worker” You know….if more poll workers looked like pole workers (both sexes) then just maybe we’d have greater voter participation in this country.

By oddnews

June 14, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A South Carolina lawmaker pleaded no contest Thursday to threatening to beat and sexually assault a man dating his estranged wife. He was fined $500.

State Rep. Thad Viers (R), 29, left court immediately and declined to comment. The misdemeanor unlawful communication charge carried a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail.

James Zeigler, the man dating Viers’ estranged wife, told police last fall that Viers threatened him and his mother in several phone calls. Prosecutor Todd Wagoner said Zeigler was so afraid that he slept cradling a shotgun.

Viers was trying to reconcile with his wife and was upset she was having a relationship with another man, said his attorney, who is also a state legislator.

“This was an attempt of a paramour of my client’s wife to get back at my client,” said state Rep. Todd Rutherford, a Democrat who represents Columbia.

Rutherford said Viers was “under the influence of love” when he made the calls.

In April, prosecutors denied Viers’ request to enter a pretrial intervention program that would have cleared his record if he completed community service and other requirements. The no contest plea means he does not admit guilt but accepts a conviction.

By Mara

June 14, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

Net - and if “pole” workers looked like “poll” workers, adult entertainment wouldn’t be a multi-billion dollar business! ;^D

By Troglodyke

June 14, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

Trog—What leads you to believe that Romney will beat out Guliani?

What Chuck said. The Uber-Right will never embrace him, based simply on the abortion issue. Without those nuts, he hasn’t a chance. Those nuts are running the Republican party at the moment.

Personally, I wouldn’t vote for him. He is a waffler. I like his stance on gays and abortion, but not on gun control.

Right now, for me, it’s a horserace. I am going to wait a while to see where everyone’s flopping ends up.

I want to vote Libertarian, but that ain’t gonna happen. Sigh.

By normalnews

June 14, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Abortion should be a protected medical procedure no matter who is in office. THEN this country could actually vote somebody worth a damn into office. THEN one of my first concerns & questions would be what do they plan on doing with our home grown terrorists:

COLUMBIA, S.C. (June 14) — A woman and her father were gunned down outside a suburban mall by a man accused of stalking the woman, police said. Authorities were still searching for the shooter.

The shooting happened around 6:45 p.m. Wednesday in the parking lot in front of the mall ‘s main entrance, Columbia Police Chief Dean Crisp said.

Michael James Young Jr. confronted the woman at the mall, then followed her into the parking lot, where he shot the woman and her father, Crisp said.

Young was free on a $75,000 (?56,000) bond after being arrested June 5 and charged with stalking the woman.

By JokesOn

June 14, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Jokes On, I meant theories such as scientific theories of relativity, that sort of thing.

I would not be so sure of that either.

The fact that time slows down the faster one travels is not so different from a game slowing down because of too much going on. This, plus other existing theories, pushes me to believe this is a fabricated world that we choose to live in.

By Mara

June 14, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

Trog - if you are intent on voting for a conservative, may I suggest that you take a good hard look at Ron Paul. He used to be a Libertarian, but finally accepted the fact that third parties are virtually shut out of the process. He’s now a member of the Republican party, and even though I disagree with him on many, many issues, and I personally will not be voting for him, he’s the type of conservative that I can respect.

short cut-n-paste from his website -

In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice.

Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of Texas. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.

Congressman Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one of his congressional colleagues to say, “Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers’ ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are.” Another colleague observed, “There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few.”

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.

He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

He has never taken a government-paid junket.

He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.

He voted against regulating the Internet.

He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

By .

June 14, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

Bill, all I can offer, man, is to hang in there and keep trying. Even if you never beat your demons you’ll get better at managing them. Just keep trying.

BTW, I guess if I had a concept of God it would be as Bill described. Not as a separate supernatural entity.

Rudy needs to stay where he is…..we need him to come back on SNL….he wont’ do that as Prez.

By Lily Toad

June 14, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

Blabla and Bill,

Y’all aren’t getting what I’m saying. I don’t need a lecture on how insurance works or why group insurance costs less. My point is that people shouldn’t have to work for a large company in order to get affordable health insurance.

By oddnews

June 14, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

Latest poll has Bush trailing the TB guy

In the latest sign of erosion for President George W. Bush’s job approval rating, a new poll released today reveals that Bush is now less popular among the American people than the so-called “TB Guy,” Atlanta attorney Andrew Speaker.

While the president’s approval numbers have been in a virtual free fall in recent months, few political insiders expected him to be trounced by Speaker, who has been accused of exposing airline passengers to tuberculosis.

Additionally, the poll results are historic in another way, since they mark the first time a sitting president has been deemed less popular than a quarantined disease carrier.

By Bill

June 14, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this

My point is that people shouldn’t have to work for a large company in order to get affordable health insurance

I empathize with you Lily—sorry to be abrasive earlier today. The reason that large groups get better rates for insurance is that the “standard deviation” of risk is much smaller for a group of people than for an individual. In simple terms, it’s much riskier to insure an individual than a large group of individuals, so the insurance company has to charge more to cover any potential losses down the road.

By Mara

June 14, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad - people shouldn’t have to work for a large company in order to get affordable health insurance

perhaps you meant that people shouldn’t have to work for a large company in order to get affordable health care…?

Heck, I think most people would be fine paying their own doctor bills if they could afford it. But most of us can’t afford to get sick, even if we have insurance. I’m pretty well set on insurance and yet I still pay $45 for an office visit. Heaven help me if I have to get a perscription filled. My honey-bunny has a chronic resperatory problems and his costs for doctor visits and maintenance medications exceed $200 per month…with insurance.

By Bill

June 14, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this

While this answer may not be palatable to you, in my mind it is fair. Many, many people view insurance companies as bottomless pits of resources, but that’s not accurate. Many insurance companies lost their shirts on health care policies throughout the 1980s and 1990s by underestimating the annual rate of increase of the claims paid. You may not care about that, but if you think about it, it is not in the benefit of the policyholders for an insurance company to go bankrupt.

By Lily Toad

June 14, 2007 3:18 PM | Link to this

I don’t need a lecture on how insurance works or why group insurance costs less. What about this is unclear?

By lozen

June 14, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

LilyToad, health insurance is a product sold by multi-million dollar companies. Those companies have lobbyists in Washington and contribute millions to political campaigns. Many people view health care as just another commodity like a car or a house,(see multiple comments above). Add to that the feeling that the millions of people who can’t get a job with insurance benefits are worthless anyway and it just doesn’t seem to me we will ever have any kind of health insurance for everyone in this country. “Them babies we insist must be born, can just die after they get here and can’t get no health care. It ain’t our fault they was born to worthless good for nothing folks that won’t work!”

By Bill

June 14, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

Heck, I think most people would be fine paying their own doctor bills if they could afford it. But most of us can’t afford to get sick, even if we have insurance. I’m pretty well set on insurance and yet I still pay $45 for an office visit.

Mara, I know it’s hard to believe, but the main reason doctor’s visits are so high IMO is because of insurance. The highest fee I charged as a chirp was $27, and I made plenty of money. Go to a chiropractor who “accepts” insurance, and I guarantee that bill will be somewhere aroud $100-$150 by the time they charge for all the various unnecessary therapies they prescribe like muscle stim.

By lozen

June 14, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this

Carrie Baker is a 42-year-old mother of two who wanted to have emergency contraception on hand, “just in case.” But when she went to her local Kroger pharmacy in Rome, Georgia last December, she was told that the head pharmacist refused to stock it! Since that day Carrie has tirelessly advocated for improved access to birth control.

As a women’s studies professor, Carrie and her students called all the pharmacies in the local area to find out what barriers women face when trying to buy emergency contraception. Carrie joined NARAL Pro-Choice Georgia at a press conference in Atlanta calling on lawmakers to pass legislation to improve rape survivors’ access to emergency contraception. She’s helping to educate 50,000 households in three states by putting her story and photo on a mail piece. And just last week she was in Washington, DC to help introduce the Access to Birth Control (ABC) Act, a bill that would make sure that women can get birth control, including emergency contraception, at their pharmacy without harassment or delay. This much-needed bill is being sponsored by Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Chris Shays (R-CT) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Please support the federal legislation. Contact your members of Congress in support of the Access to Birth Control (ABC) Act. Spread the word. Tell five friends about Carrie’s story and ask them to contact Congress.

By Lily Toad

June 14, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this

Mara, I agree that health costs have gotten ridiculous, partly because of insurance paying amounts that ordinary people can’t pay out of pocket and also high medical malpractice premiums. I used to have a $5 co-pay that rose to $15 after a couple of years, then they did away with co-pays. I have a PPO but specialists charge about $90 just for an office visit with the negotiated rate. Without the PPO the office visit is $120 for my neurologist. My insurance plan also did away with preventative care, so the coverage is less than it was a few years ago.

By Bill

June 14, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this

I don’t need a lecture on how insurance works or why group insurance costs less. What about this is unclear?

What seems to be clear to me is that you want to buy insurance, but not pay what it costs. Kind of a strange business model, Lily. he insurance companies don’t owe you anything. If you don’t like the rates, shop around.

BTW, if anyone is looking for affordable health insurance, Kaiser Permanente is the most reasonably priced in my experience.

By Bill

June 14, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

Them babies we insist must be born, can just die after they get here and can’t get no health care. It ain’t our fault they was born to worthless good for nothing folks that won’t work!”

lozen, why so you keep equating health care with health insurance? Prior to the 1960s, most people paid cash for their doctor’s visits, so the doctors had to make thenm affordable. Now with insurance, and all the unnecessary administrative costs, the costs have doubled.

Poor people can still go to their county health clinics for care, and no ER in the US can turn a patient away. Where are all these people who are being denied health care??

By Lily Toad

June 14, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

I work for an insurance company and have health insurance with a high deductible so no money directly comes out of my paycheck. That’s why I don’t need lectures about insurance or insurance companies. Oh, yeah, my employer boasts about the billions it makes, even passing out “Billionaire” tee-shirts. And they are (unknowingly) paying me to blog during office hours!

By Mara

June 14, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

We just changed to Kaiser because our old insurance decided that they needed to hike their premiums by 40+%. “Affordable” is a relative term, nor does it address the quality of the product.

Seems to me that the biggest problem with the insurance industry is that it is a “for-profit” endeavor. And those profits are pretty darn good…

“The nation’s HMOs nearly doubled their net profits last year, earning $10.2 billion in 2003, up from $5.5 billion in 2002 (an 86 percent increase), according to a new report by financial ratings firm Weiss Ratings.”

http://www.justice.org/pressroom/FACTS/medmal/InsuranceProfits.aspx

By Bill

June 14, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

I work for an insurance company and have health insurance with a high deductible so no money directly comes out of my paycheck. That’s why I don’t need lectures about insurance or insurance companies. Oh, yeah, my employer boasts about the billions it makes, even passing out “Billionaire” tee-shirts. And they are (unknowingly) paying me to blog during office hours!

You’re bragging about being dishonest now?

By Bill

June 14, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

Seems to me that the biggest problem with the insurance industry is that it is a “for-profit” endeavor. And those profits are pretty darn good…

Why is making a profit a “problem”? I think a much greater problem would occur if I were forced to subsidize other’s poor health habits.

By Facts

June 14, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

If insurance was such a big money loser to all the companies currently involved in it, you would not find every tom/dick/harry company wanting to get INTO insurance.

By Lily Toad

June 14, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this

You’re bragging about being dishonest now? Guess so. That’s my rebellious streak. No matter how old I am I test how much I can get away with.

By Bill

June 14, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Interesting tidbit: My malpractice insurance as a chiropractor is just a little over $1000 per year. Yes, that’s One Thousand Dollars, not Fifty Thousand. In addition, I chose a company which is known as a “mutual company”. That means that the policyholders are the owners of the company, so that any profits are split among the policyholders at the end of the year. I typically recieve a check for $100 to $200 at the end of each year.

If any of you aren’t comfortable with “for-profit” insurance companies, you can always choose to insure with a mutual com0pany.

By Bill

June 14, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

Guess so. That’s my rebellious streak. No matter how old I am I test how much I can get away with.

I can relate to that feeling, Lily, so I won’t bust you too badly. My solution to “employee sabotage” was to simply pay my ladies as much as I could, praise them at every opportunity, give generuos Christmas bonuses, etc. A lot of companies are short-sighted IMO when they don’t make their empliyees feel valued.

By .

June 14, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

Probably most of us are stealing company time by blogging. I justify it because I do math for a living and it’s all on computers. So, when I have a math process going it will sort of freeze up the computer for 20-30 minutes at a time while it runs. Usually the only thing I can do on my computer is email and internet because it’s not hosted on my machine but on the server. So that’s when I blog…..otherwise I’d be down the hall chatting up co-workers….

By Bill

June 14, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this

If insurance was such a big money loser to all the companies currently involved in it, you would not find every tom/dick/harry company wanting to get INTO insurance.

Facts, the true facts are that many insurance companies lose money in a given year. If you think about the purpose of insurance (i.e. to provide stability to our society), it makes sense for them to have tremendous assets. Think about Hurricane Katrina, for example. Without the tremendous resources at their disposal, the insurance companies wouldn’t have been able to pay out the multi-billion dollar claims like they did.

BTW—the way insurance actually works is that the “insurance companies” we deal with bundle up huge numbers of policies and resell them in bulk to companies like Swiss Re who are known as reinsurance companies. They are the ones with the real bucks.

By Bill

June 14, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

Probably most of us are stealing company time by blogging. I justify it because I do math for a living and it’s all on computers.

What kind of math, man??? You’re my new best friend!! Are you working with differential equations??

Thanks again for your kind words earlier, By . I’m not going to make any more promises, but I’m going to do my best to stay away from the ganja and stay sober. It’s too late to win the respect of the one I desperately wanted to respect me, but c’est la vie.

By blablabla

June 14, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this

My point is that people shouldn’t have to work for a large company in order to get affordable health insurance.

in general, i’m with you. a couple of points:

affordable is in the eye of the beholder, and it runs directly to priorities.

i’m not accusing you of falling into this trap, but i think many people do: health insurance is not a right. if you want it, you buy it. it’s a protection vehicle just like any other form of insurance. just because we all want something doesn’t mean we’re entitled to it without paying for it.

companies that buy insurance in bulk will always have an advantage against people who buy it individually. i doubt we can really change that. but i see no reason why, in addition to the bulk discuount, there’s also a need for the existing tax subsidy. allowing people to buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars would at least somewhat level the playing field and make insurance more affordable.

By Mara

June 15, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

Why is making a profit a “problem”?

(sigh) I’ll try to sketch it out for you so you won’t have to actually use that brain.

The issue was “why is healthcare so unaffordable”.

The biggest expense seems to be insurance.

Why is insurance so expensive?

Because they want to make a big profit.

Therefore, insurance company profits are part of the “problem”

Okay? Got it? If you’d keep things in context it might not be so confusing for you.

and Bill/Bruce/Dog pounds one more nail into the coffin that is this blog…

By Troglodyke

June 15, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

*Trog - if you are intent on voting for a conservative, may I suggest that you take a good hard look at Ron Paul. *

I have been looking into him, yes. The abortion issue is one I disagree with him on, but that would not necessarily keep me from voting for him. I’m definitely more allied with the Libertarians on more issues than Dems or Republicans.

I have never voted Republican, and can’t see myself doing it unless I can be reasonably sure that the candidate will not be the Religious Reich’s puppet.

It’s going to be interesting.

By lozen

June 15, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this

This is for you Mara: Many women are afraid of their first mammogram, but there is no need to worry. By taking a few minutes each day for a week preceding the exam and doing the following exercises, you will be totally prepared for the test and best of all, you can do these simple exercises right in and around your home. EXERCISE ONE: Open your refrigerator door and insert one breast in door. Shut the door as hard as possible and lean on the door for good measure. Hold that position for five seconds. Repeat again in case the first time wasn’t effective enough. EXERCISE TWO: Visit your garage at 3AM when the temperature of the cement floor is just perfect. Take off all your clothes and lie comfortably on the floor with one breast wedged under the rear tire of the car. Ask a friend to slowly back the car up until your breast is sufficiently flattened and chilled. Turn over and repeat with the other breast. EXERCISE THREE: Freeze two metal bookends overnight. Strip to the waist. Invite a stranger into the room. Press the bookends against one of your breasts. Smash the bookends together as hard as you can. Set up an appointment with the stranger to meet next year and do it again. YOU ARE TOTALLY PREPARED!

By lozen

June 15, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

Here’s a thought for all women: MENtal illness, MENstrual cramps, MENtal breakdown, MENopause…… Ever notice how all of women’s problems start with men? And when we have real trouble it’s HISterectomy!!!!

By Archie

June 15, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this

Heck, I think most people would be fine paying their own doctor bills if they could afford it. But most of us can’t afford to get sick, even if we have insurance. I’m pretty well set on insurance and yet I still pay $45 for an office visit. Heaven help me if I have to get a perscription filled.

Amen to that paragraph. Also “Okay? Got it? If you’d keep things in context it might not be so confusing for you.” I agree with that too Mara. I have a friend that has hereditary health problems and someone like that can jog,lift weights, avoid alcohol as he did and still be unhealthy. There are millions of people with hereditary health problems but should you pay for it? No, but what if someone you love has those issues? Life may be good for you now but what if it changes without any fault on your part. I am amazed at how selfish this country has become and we call it conservativeness.

By Bill

June 15, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

The biggest expense seems to be insurance.

Why is insurance so expensive?

Because they want to make a big profit.

Therefore, insurance company profits are part of the “problem”

Mara—What planet are you from? No company can operate with a loss, profits are part of the capitalistic system. maybe you’re a socilaist or a communist. That’s fine. Move to a communist/socialist country in which “evil profits” aren’t a part of the system and report back to me how your standard of living compares to here in the US.

By Chilao

June 15, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

Voodoo dolls, complete with pins, are now available for both GW and Hillary:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wnreport/2007/06/15/2007-06-15companypinsitsfortunesonvoodoow.html

LOL @ Mara’s 9:11. interesting how that time worked out.

You gotta rememeber some people are not here 1/2 the time, as they are busy building their Self_Sufficient Daniel Boone wilderness road, if you remember way way back. LOL along the lines of: There’s nothing in the Constitution that requires the government build roads for people. For businesses and states, sure, but for people to actually LIVE, naw. Free Market and TollRoads for all!

okay, it IS joke Friday.

By lozen

June 15, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

Mara, is the planet you’re from one where there’s this idealistic idea that the strong and healthy should give some thought for the weak and the ill? Do you really believe you are your brother’s/sister’s keeper? Hell, woman what’s wrong with you? All that stuff just doesn’t fit in our capitalist way of life. Wake up and smell the coffee. It smells like dog eat dog to me too. I guess that makes us both socialists or communists.

By Bill

June 15, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

IMO, Mara, you and several others here are guilty of the greatest form of narcissism when you think it’s only “right” for someone else to pay your medical expenses for you. If your hubby’s meds are expensive, maybe you’ll have to cut back on attending some of the NOPI events. I understand the tickets are often in the $100 range.

By .

June 15, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

Bill….I work with statistics and probability. I’ve got education with diffy-q’s but don’t operate them on a regular basis.

Are you a professional math geek as well?

I love lozen’s posts….sent them to my wife…

By Chilao

June 15, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Just go to nydailynews(the main part of url) and it is on the bottom under “Nation/World”; right now it shows Bush’s face with a ‘voodoo doll’ comment. But one is available for Hillary as well.

By Bill

June 15, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

lozen—We live in the most generous country in the world. Isn’t that enough for you?

By kimberly

June 15, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

Lozen, someone sent me that mammogram description years ago, and I was always afraid to go get one. Even after being hounded by friends and family, I put it off and put it off for years thinking of the refrigerator/garage floor description…

Only recently did muster up the courage to get my first one. No, it’s not pleasant, and I’m sure if they screened men for testicular cancer the same way, there’d be some new methods pronto! But y’all….. please don’t be afraid. Just do it. This is NOT a Friday joke… (BTW, I’m all clear, and now I know! {:->)

By Bill

June 15, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

Are you a professional math geek as well?

I do math only as a hobby—didn’t want to be stuck using a computer for the rest of my life, so got into healthcare instead. If you’re familiar with the actuarial exams, I scored all “10s”, which should give you some idea of my ability. My favorite area of math is Linear Algebra. My math hero is, of course, Leonhard Euler. My favorite equation is Euler’s Identity e^i*pi + 1 = 0.

“Read Euler, Read Euler. He is the Master of us all”—Laplace.

By lozen

June 15, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

A doctor at the asylum decided to take his inmates to a baseball game. For weeks in advance, he coached his patients to respond to his commands. When the day of the game arrived, everything seemed to be going well. As the national anthem started, the doctor yelled, ”Up nuts!” And the inmates complied by standing up. After the anthem he yelled, ”Down nuts!” And they all sat. After a home run he yelled, ”Cheer nuts!” And they all broke into applause and cheers. Thinking things were going very well, he decided to go get a beer and a hot dog, leaving his assistant in charge. When he returned there was a riot in progress. Finding his assistant, he asked what happened. The assistant replied, ”Well…everything was fine until some guy walked by and yelled, ”PEANUTS!”

By lozen

June 15, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

Hey Kimberly! A man is waiting in a hospital to get a vaccination, and he’s very uncomfortable with the idea of being stabbed with a long needle. After a while, the nurse calls him in to receive the injection. He nervously walks into the office and sits down where the nurse indicated, eyes bulging slightly at what seems to be an array of torture devices on the bench beside him. As the nurse prepares the needle, he tries to think of the most pleasurable things he can, to try and dull the pain he is expecting. The nurse turns to him with the filled needle, and noticing his obvious nervousness, tries to comfort him with the words, “Don’t worry, it’s just a small prick.” The man jumps up, obviously upset. The nurse looks startled, but before she can say anything, the man yells out, “Just how many people has my wife been talking to?”

By lozen

June 15, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

“Doc,” says Steve, “I want to be castrated.” “What on earth for?” asks the doctor in amazement. “It’s something I’ve been thinking about for a long time and I want to have it done” replies Steve. “But have you thought it through properly?” asks the doctor, “It’s a very serious operation and once it’s done, there’s no going back. It will change your life forever!” “I’m aware of that and you’re not going to change my mind; either you book me in to be castrated or I’ll simply go to another doctor.” “Well, OK.”, says the doctor, “But it’s against my better judgment!” So Steve has his operation, and the next day he is up and walking very slowly, legs apart, down the hospital corridor with his drip stand. Heading towards him is another patient, who is walking exactly the same way. “Hi there,” says Steve, “It looks as if you’ve just had the same operation as me.” “Well,” said the patient, “I finally decided after 37 years of life that I would like to be circumcised.” Steve stared at him in horror and screamed, “S**! THAT’S the word!”

By lozen

June 15, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

An elderly woman went into the doctor’s office. When the doctor asked why she was there, she replied, “I’d like to have some birth control pills.” Taken aback, the doctor thought for a minute and then said, “Excuse me, Mrs. Smith, but you’re 75 years old. What possible use could you have for birth control pills?” The woman responded, “They help me sleep better.” The doctor thought some more and continued, “How in the world do birth control pills help you to sleep?” The woman said, “I put them in my granddaughter’s orange juice and I sleep better at night.”

By lozen

June 15, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

A doctor had just finished a marathon sex session with one of his patients. He was resting afterwards and was feeling a bit guilty because he thought it wasn’t really ethical to screw one of his patients. However, a little voice in his head said “Lots of other doctors have sex with their patients so its not like you’re the first…” This made the doctor feel a little bit better until still another voice in his head said, “… but they probably weren’t veterinarians”

By Bill

June 15, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

(BTW, I’m all clear, and now I know! {:->)

Congratulations!

By .

June 15, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Sorry, Bill, not familiar with actuarial studies. I know it’s related to statistics and is likely a specialization of statistics but I don’t work in insurance….I work in public health research (talk about a liberal profession…just my speed).

Linear Algebra is the essential cornerstone of what I do.

Ah’s the EI…the vortex of mathematical phenomena……

By Bill

June 15, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

This made the doctor feel a little bit better until still another voice in his head said, “… but they probably weren’t veterinarians”

Good one, lozen. Have you ever heard of “bunny love”?

By BBT

June 15, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

This “Republican” “Democrat” division is such a sham. Once you start reading outside the mainstream media, you find out who the real enemy is. It’s not the Liberals, it’s not the Neocons, but the New World Order nutjobs that have infiltrated both parties. People are so busy fighting the wrong enemy. Voters have a duty to inform themselves and vote all third party until this funny business with dissolving our country’s Constitution is stopped.

By Bill

June 15, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

You’d be amazed how good it feels when you hold their little furry legs together……. (j/k)

By Mara

June 15, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

you and several others here are guilty of the greatest form of narcissism when you think it’s only “right” for someone else to pay your medical expenses for you

sheesh…some people you just can’t talk to (nor do you really want to).

Archie - I am amazed at how selfish this country has become and we call it conservativeness

the “every man for himself” motto certainly has replaced “united we stand” hasn’t it…

lozen - ROTFLMFAO!!! Unlike kimberly (Hi kimberly!), I hadn’t heard that one before. Too funny. And yes, accurate as well!

Chilao - the voodoo thing is funny, too. Saw them way back at election time, but they never lose their charm :^)

and yeah…damn commie road builders. The socialist love roads, don’t they…

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

By Bill

June 15, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

Linear Algebra is the essential cornerstone of what I do

I knew there was something about you I liked despite the liberal views! ; > }

Always remember, every finite, non-zero inner product space has an orhtonormal basis. To tell you how long ago I attended college, we used to have to find Eigenvalues by hand.

By Bill

June 15, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

It’s not the Liberals, it’s not the Neocons, but the New World Order nutjobs that have infiltrated both parties. People are so busy fighting the wrong enemy. Voters have a duty to inform themselves and vote all third party until this funny business with dissolving our country’s Constitution is stopped.

So, I take it that you oppose socialized medicine as well, BBT? I can’t seem to get the illuminati here on W2W to understand why socialism/communism aren’t the answer.

By MrRogers

June 15, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

There goes the neighborhood.

By .

June 15, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

The most important inner product norm for me is the # Cauchy-Schwarz inequality with it’s big consequences for variance/covariance.

Eigenvalues by hand, huh? I had to learn a little bit of matrix algebra, but only to understand what the computer program was doing with it…..

Man, I tell you, to me mathematics is further proof that liberal is the way to go….all the open-form equations, inequalities, not to mention all the axioms and corollaries…..it’s like government, only bigger and more complicated…

By lozen

June 15, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

Yaaaaawn. TGIF.

By Bill

June 15, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

Man, I tell you, to me mathematics is further proof that liberal is the way to go

My interest in Linear Algebra is primarily due to my interest in modern Physics. Many, many phenomena in Physics can be represented by vectors, even the various quantum states predicted by Schrodinger’s equations. Do you have any familiarity with Hamiltonian operators?

In answer to your assertion that an interest in mathematics might naturally lead a person to a liberal political outlook, let me say this: In theoretical mathematics, many “Geometries” are possible—on paper that is. Once you attempt to apply these various paper Geometries to the “real world”, however, you find that only a few select Geometries are used by GOD. To me, this suggests that Emmanuel likes to do things a certain way. I don’t always understand the reasons why, but have come to appreciate that Emmanuel knows what S/He is doing. To me, that’s the right application of “faith” that Monica mentioned yesterday.

IMO, liberal politics are “paper theories”. No matter how you slice it or dice it, the economic model embraced by socialists/communists fail every time because they ignore human nature. It’s not conjecture, its history.

By .

June 15, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

OK, who is going to see Fantastic 4 tonight?!

Me! Me! Me! I’m taking my wife and son. I’m not sure which of us is happier about it.

By Bill

June 15, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

If you can get a babysitter tomorrow night, By . , you should come on out to Tucker to the Moonshadow Tavern to hear Deep Blue Sun. Great dance band. All the hippie chicks will be there for sure!!

By .

June 15, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this

liberalism ~ socialism but not liberal = socialism

I do agree that socialism looks good on paper but is too easily corruptible to work.

Sorry, while I did okay in Physics I and II that’s as far as I got. But I do recognize that Physics and Statistics have many commonalities, applied in different fashions.

By Bill

June 15, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

If you ever met any of my friends, By ., you would think I must be the biggest liberal in the world. I’m the only guy with short hair. This Wiccan bunch I’ve been running around with lately are really wild. They don’t like to keep thier clothes on for some reason.

By .

June 15, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

Not sure the spousal inner product would be able to norm to that, dude….

Tomorrow is a designated Day of the Garden around my house. It means that I’ll be toast by 7pm, with a six pack of 420 on my belly and my back screaming at me.

By Bill

June 15, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

I’m all for compassion in the form of county health clinics, soup kitchens for the destitute, etc. The Atlanta Food Bank along with Second Harvest are among my favorite charities. I’ve sent tons of money to Operation Smile, Doctors Without Borders, etc. as well. They know I’m a sucker for a hard-luck story and fill my mailbox every day with more solicitations.

My #1 organization that I give to is The Nature Conservancy. My personal opinion is that there are way too many humans on this Earth. The Nature Conservancy buys land around the globe and protects it from further development. A much better approach than the Sierra Club takes by taking everyone to court.

By Bill

June 15, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

Not sure the spousal inner product would be able to norm to that, dude….

Don’t worry about the little lady. My girl Roxy will smooth talk her while I line up some strange for you. What do you say?

By Bill

June 15, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

Well, gotta run and sell off more of my assets. This retirement crap is expensive. Talk to you later, dude.

By .

June 15, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

No…no no no no….not interested in any strange….not messin with that….want to STAY married, dude.

But thanks, anyway. I appreciate the concept, if you will.

By New Name?

June 15, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

How about they call this the Testicle-to-(droopy)Testicle blog? T2dT?

Thanks Wankers, for ruining the place (lame topic choices aside) we came to discuss current events as they relate to women. You had most of the entire world for your important issues, but please, if you must, go ahead and trash our little forum with your swaggering nut-driven boasts. We are oh so mightily impressed. Wankers.

By Mara

June 15, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

too funny not to share on Joke Friday -

in regard to the great city of Atlanta…”What other U.S. city has simultaneously hosted the Southern Baptist National Convention and a Gay Pride of 300,000 attendees on the same weekend with a parade on the same street on the same day (June, 2005)? Granted, they both started at Civic Center and the Southern Baptist Parade went south on Peachtree and the Pride Parade north on Peachtree, but within a 20 block stretch on a major American city you had over 100,000 born-again baptists and 300,000 gay men and women with no major conflicts”

Enjoy the week-end boyz n grrls

By Chilao

June 15, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

on Mara’s funny Atlanta commentary, look what I found yesterday when I searched on “joseph and potifer’s wife”, pay special attention to the ‘come-hither’ look in the photo of those ewes; hilarious read at any rate:

http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/index.php?s=biblehomosexuality2

By TramadolChild

June 15, 2007 7:28 PM | Link to this

[url=http://www.topsearchnet.info/tramadol.htm]read here about it[/url]

By saddam video

June 16, 2007 10:21 PM | Link to this

Not much on my mind today. What can I say? I’ve just been sitting around waiting for something to happen.saddam videosell annuity

By funnyPasds

June 17, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this

[url=http://www.xtopsearch.info/tramadol.htm]1[/url] [url=http://www.xtopsearch.info/tramadol.htm]Funny Pictures here[/url]