OT: Behind the Arab revolt is a word we dare not speak
White Spirit
By John Pilger
February 25, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- Shortly after the
invasion of Iraq in 2003, I interviewed Ray McGovern, one of an elite
group of CIA officers who prepared the President’s daily intelligence
brief. McGovern was at the apex of the "national security" monolith that
is American power and had retired with presidential plaudits. On the eve
of the invasion, he and 45 other senior officers of the CIA and other
intelligence agencies wrote to President George W. Bush that the
"drumbeat for war" was based not on intelligence, but lies.
"It was 95 per cent charade," McGovern told me.
"How did they get away with it?"
"The press allowed the crazies to get away with it."
"Who are the crazies?"
"The people running the [Bush] administration have a set of beliefs a
lot like those expressed in Mein Kampf … these are the same people who
were referred to in the circles in which I moved, at the top, as ‘the
crazies.’"
I said, "Norman Mailer has written that that he believes America has
entered a pre-fascist state. What’s your view of that?"
"Well … I hope he’s right, because there are others saying we are
already in a fascist mode."
On 22 January, Ray McGovern emailed me to express his disgust at the
Obama administration’s barbaric treatment of the alleged whistleblower
Bradley Manning and its pursuit of WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange.
"Way back when George and Tony decided it might be fun to attack Iraq,"
he wrote, "I said something to the effect that fascism had already begun
here. I have to admit I did not think it would get this bad this quickly."
On 16 February, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech at
George Washington University in which she condemned governments that
arrested protestors and crushed free expression. She lauded the
liberating power of the internet while failing to mention that her
government was planning to close down those parts of the internet that
encouraged dissent and truth-telling. It was a speech of spectacular
hypocrisy, and Ray McGovern was in the audience. Outraged, he rose from
his chair and silently turned his back on Clinton. He was immediately
seized by police and a security goon and beaten to the floor, dragged
out and thrown into jail, bleeding. He has sent me photographs of his
injuries. He is 71. During the assault, which was clearly visible to
Clinton, she did not pause in her remarks.
Fascism is a difficult word, because it comes with an iconography that
touches the Nazi nerve and is abused as propaganda against America’s
official enemies and to promote the West’s foreign adventures with a
moral vocabulary written in the struggle against Hitler. And yet fascism
and imperialism are twins. In the aftermath of World War Two, those in
the imperial states who had made respectable the racial and cultural
superiority of "Western civilisation," found that Hitler and fascism had
claimed the same, employing strikingly similar methods. Thereafter, the
very notion of American imperialism was swept from the textbooks and
popular culture of an imperial nation forged on the genocidal conquest
of its native people. And a war on social justice and democracy became
"US foreign policy."
As the Washington historian William Blum has documented, since 1945, the
US has destroyed or subverted more than 50 governments, many of them
democracies, and used mass murderers like Suharto, Mobutu, and Pinochet
to dominate by proxy. In the Middle East, every dictatorship and
pseudo-monarchy has been sustained by America. In "Operation Cyclone,"
the CIA and MI6 secretly fostered and bank-rolled Islamic extremism. The
object was to smash or deter nationalism and democracy. The victims of
this Western state terrorism have been mostly Muslims. The courageous
people gunned down last week in Bahrain and Libya, the latter a
"priority UK market," according to Britain’s official arms "procurers,"
join those children blown to bits in Gaza by the latest American F-16
aircraft.
The revolt in the Arab world is not merely against a resident dictator
but a worldwide economic tyranny designed by the US Treasury and imposed
by the US Agency for International Development, the IMF and World Bank,
which have ensured that rich countries like Egypt are reduced to vast
sweatshops, with half the population earning less than $2 a day. The
people’s triumph in Cairo was the first blow against what Benito
Mussolini called corporatism, a word that appears in his definition of
fascism.
How did such extremism take hold in the liberal West? "It is necessary
to destroy hope, idealism, solidarity, and concern for the poor and
oppressed," observed Noam Chomsky a generation ago, "[and] to replace
these dangerous feelings with self-centred egoism, a pervasive cynicism
that holds that [an order of] inequities and oppression is the best that
can be achieved. In fact, a great international propaganda campaign is
under way to convince people – particularly young people – that this not
only is what they should feel but that it’s what they do feel."
Like the European revolutions of 1848 and the uprising against Stalinism
in 1989, the Arab revolt has rejected fear. An insurrection of
suppressed ideas, hope and solidarity has begun. In the United States,
where 45 per cent of young African-Americans have no jobs and the top
hedge fund managers are paid, on average, a billion dollars a year, mass
protests against cuts in services and jobs have spread to heartland
states like Wisconsin. In Britain, the fastest-growing modern protest
movement, UK Uncut, is about to take direct action against tax avoiders
and rapacious banks. Something has changed that cannot be unchanged. The
enemy has a name now.
DGDevin
"White Spirit" wrote in message
news:ikj6lr$ddk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27568.htm
If the Soviet Union were still around I'd be looking for their fingerprints
on this website, it's a roll call of hard-left ranting. Which is not to say
none of it is interesting, but it's about as useful in raw form as the
nonsense on WND or Prison Planet.
White Spirit
>> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27568.htm
True, but for those on a.g.a who can discern the useful information from
the political spin it is a more fruitful read than for those who prefer
WND or Prison Planet :)
DGDevin
"White Spirit" wrote in message
news:ikjd74$ua4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> True, but for those on a.g.a who can discern the useful information from
> the political spin it is a more fruitful read than for those who prefer
> WND or Prison Planet :)
The problem with this sort of appeal is it's made in a way that
understandably turns off many people. I've seen video of this McGovern guy
being removed from the Hillary Clinton speech. A couple of cops take the
guy by the arms and walk him away, the only struggling is coming from him.
So when I read that he was beaten to the ground by goons and dragged out
bleeding and I know that's not what happened, the rest of what he has to say
loses considerable impact. And that's too bad, because some of the
questions he asks are worthwhile, e.g. his grilling of Rumsfeld over the
statements he made about Iraqi WMDs which Rumsfeld later tried to pretend he
never uttered. But then McGovern turns around and says (late in Bush's
second term) that Bush is determined to attack Iran before he leaves
office--and he might even have believed it, but when it didn't happen he
sounds like another rabble rouser making it up as he goes.
The same thing happened with Cindy Sheehan, she ended up sounding like a
member of the People's Revolutionary Liberation Front Cell No. 5, and that
meant her message was heard mostly by people who already agreed with her,
more moderate folks tuned her out. It isn't necessary to go off the deep
end to make a point, and it even seems to be a good way to be ignored by the
sensible segment of the population.
Tony Elka
"DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> The same thing happened with Cindy Sheehan, she ended up sounding like a
> member of the People's Revolutionary Liberation Front Cell No. 5, and that
> meant her message was heard mostly by people who already agreed with her,
> more moderate folks tuned her out. It isn't necessary to go off the deep
> end to make a point, and it even seems to be a good way to be ignored by the
> sensible segment of the population.
Cindy Sheehan wasn't a great spokesperson. But I'm inclined to cut her
some slack because she was motivated by grief. She lost her son for no
good reason in Iraq and decided to do something about it.
I can't fault her motivation. And I'll never forgive those whose
actions and incompetence led to the death of her child and thousands of
others.
Tony
"In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president
to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East
or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General MacArthur so
delicately put it." -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates
DGDevin
"Tony Elka" wrote in message
news:shadowlane-B29CB...@news.giganews.com...
>> The same thing happened with Cindy Sheehan, she ended up sounding like a
>> member of the People's Revolutionary Liberation Front Cell No. 5, and
>> that
>> meant her message was heard mostly by people who already agreed with her,
>> more moderate folks tuned her out. It isn't necessary to go off the deep
>> end to make a point, and it even seems to be a good way to be ignored by
>> the
>> sensible segment of the population.
> Cindy Sheehan wasn't a great spokesperson. But I'm inclined to cut her
> some slack because she was motivated by grief. She lost her son for no
> good reason in Iraq and decided to do something about it.
And ended up hanging with people and groups repulsive to the majority of the
American people--including (by any reasonable definition) communists.
Sheehan isolated herself and ensured that her message was lost in the
radical noise surrounding her, a noise she now contributes to. I can
understand her becoming an anti-war activist; but singing the praises of
Marx and Castro and Chavez, calling for the nationalization of the energy
industry, claiming Canada is descending into fascism because she disapproves
of election results there and so on and so forth--that suggests Sheehan has
been absorbed by the extreme-left, her original cause is now just part of a
uniform hard-left agenda. I sympathize with her husband who filed for
divorce, first he lost a son and then he lost a wife when she became a
professional protestor.
White Spirit
> The problem with this sort of appeal is it's made in a way that
> understandably turns off many people. I've seen video of this McGovern
> guy being removed from the Hillary Clinton speech. A couple of cops take
> the guy by the arms and walk him away, the only struggling is coming
> from him. So when I read that he was beaten to the ground by goons and
> dragged out bleeding and I know that's not what happened, the rest of
> what he has to say loses considerable impact. And that's too bad,
> because some of the questions he asks are worthwhile, e.g. his grilling
> of Rumsfeld over the statements he made about Iraqi WMDs which Rumsfeld
> later tried to pretend he never uttered. But then McGovern turns around
> and says (late in Bush's second term) that Bush is determined to attack
> Iran before he leaves office--and he might even have believed it, but
> when it didn't happen he sounds like another rabble rouser making it up
> as he goes.
That reminds me of a BBC documentary I saw on Cuba. The BBC have had a
left-wing bias for a long time but they went from being sensibly
left-wing with valid criticisms of their political opponents to being
motivated much more by far-left ideology. One of the segments of the
programme compared the level of healthcare received by poor people in
Cuba to that of the poor in the United States. They showed everyone in
Cuba having good access to health facilities provided by the state and
then showed a public hospital in the United States for comparison.
In the public hospital, they showed people sitting in the waiting room
for hours with gunshot wounds due to a lack of resources, people walking
around high on drugs, people being aggressive and abusive, the lack of
facilities, poor patient care etc. Of course, the documentary neglected
to mention all of the well-equipped hospitals in the United States with
the latest equipment, pioneering treatments for cancer and some of the
best surgical expertise while also neglecting to mention that people in
Cuba only have access to the most basic treatments and facilities. For
some reason, they were more interested in showing the free public
transport that Cubans are blessed with that runs once every hour...
DGDevin
"White Spirit" wrote in message
news:iklouf$8gg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In the public hospital, they showed people sitting in the waiting room for
> hours with gunshot wounds due to a lack of resources, people walking
> around high on drugs, people being aggressive and abusive, the lack of
> facilities, poor patient care etc.
That's about right, at least at hospitals that serve less affluent urban
areas.
> Of course, the documentary neglected to mention all of the well-equipped
> hospitals in the United States with the latest equipment, pioneering
> treatments for cancer and some of the best surgical expertise
Certainly, for people with insurance.
> while also neglecting to mention that people in Cuba only have access to
> the most basic treatments and facilities.
While one in six Americans doesn't even have that unless they're willing to
sit in an emergency room for a few hours and even then they get only the
treatment needed to keep them alive. The ER will stop the bleeding and
stabilize the patient, then they either send them on their way or maybe
transfer them to a facility where they might or might not get care for an
underlying condition via govt. medical aid for the poor. It isn't a system
you would want to rely on.
I agree that Cuba's much-lauded system isn't what many people think it is,
but it's striking that this crappy little country can at least provide basic
care for its citizens. It's kind of embarrassing that Cuba has lower infant
mortality and is tied with the U.S. in life expectancy.
Tony Elka
"DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I agree that Cuba's much-lauded system isn't what many people think it is,
> but it's striking that this crappy little country can at least provide basic
> care for its citizens. It's kind of embarrassing that Cuba has lower infant
> mortality and is tied with the U.S. in life expectancy.
And there's that public transportation system too.
Tony
White Spirit
> "White Spirit" wrote in message
> news:iklouf$8gg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In the public hospital, they showed people sitting in the waiting room
>> for hours with gunshot wounds due to a lack of resources, people
>> walking around high on drugs, people being aggressive and abusive, the
>> lack of facilities, poor patient care etc.
> That's about right, at least at hospitals that serve less affluent urban
> areas.
That's not just down to the healthcare system, though. Civic planning
in America seems to favour a system where there is a lot of segregation
based on wealth. Would it be fair to assume that if there was less
segregation of this nature, that the public hospitals would be less
congested and wouldn't be attended only by those from the lower social
strata?
>> Of course, the documentary neglected to mention all of the
>> well-equipped hospitals in the United States with the latest
>> equipment, pioneering treatments for cancer and some of the best
>> surgical expertise
> Certainly, for people with insurance.
True, but it's better to have the service even for only part of the
population than have it for none.
>> while also neglecting to mention that people in Cuba only have access
>> to the most basic treatments and facilities.
> While one in six Americans doesn't even have that unless they're willing
> to sit in an emergency room for a few hours and even then they get only
> the treatment needed to keep them alive. The ER will stop the bleeding
> and stabilize the patient, then they either send them on their way or
> maybe transfer them to a facility where they might or might not get care
> for an underlying condition via govt. medical aid for the poor. It isn't
> a system you would want to rely on.
Fair enough, and the scenes that the programme showed are certainly an
indictment of the system, but it really seems that the producers were
being selective in what they showed.
> I agree that Cuba's much-lauded system isn't what many people think it
> is, but it's striking that this crappy little country can at least
> provide basic care for its citizens.
Understood.
>It's kind of embarrassing that Cuba
> has lower infant mortality and is tied with the U.S. in life expectancy.
In terms of life expectancy, their diet is probably better than many in
America, and Britain too for that matter.
DGDevin
"White Spirit" wrote in message
news:ikm22r$pi4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> That's about right, at least at hospitals that serve less affluent urban
>> areas.
> That's not just down to the healthcare system, though. Civic planning in
> America seems to favour a system where there is a lot of segregation based
> on wealth. Would it be fair to assume that if there was less segregation
> of this nature, that the public hospitals would be less congested and
> wouldn't be attended only by those from the lower social strata?
Actually govt. policy often tries to break up low and high income areas,
which results in people with money moving to the suburbs and then moving
back again when a formerly poor area has been "gentrified". Economics makes
poor neighborhoods--poor people live where the rents are low, and people
with more money don't like to live beside rail yards, meat packing plants,
airports etc., although sometimes the govt. plays in role in that.
>> Certainly, for people with insurance.
> True, but it's better to have the service even for only part of the
> population than have it for none.
But Cuba has advanced facilities too, largely available to medical tourists
who fly in for treatment because of the low cost. Medical tourism is a
source of revenue for Cuba, they treat it like an industry. So in a way
both nations have high quality care for those who can afford it, it's those
on the bottom of the economic scale who are out of luck.
Claude V. Lucas
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:10:00 -0800, "DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>I agree that Cuba's much-lauded system isn't what many people think it is,
>>but it's striking that this crappy little country can at least provide basic
>>care for its citizens. It's kind of embarrassing that Cuba has lower infant
>>mortality and is tied with the U.S. in life expectancy.
>
>various reasons. One of the main reasons is that the two countries define
>"infant" in different ways. In the U.S. a baby born at 27 weeks and
>subjected to heroic measures to save it may be defined as an infant
>despite being smaller than the WHO guidelines. If it dies (and babies born
>that early usually do) that raises the U.S. infant mortality rate. In Cuba
>there is no problem. It's medical waste from the start - a still birth -
>and therefore not an infant death.
>
>Another reason for the difference is that Cuba is a much more homogenous
>society. The infant morality rate amongst latinos is lower to begin with,
>no matter what country they live in.
>
>Life expectancy is largely effected by choices. Cubans have few of those.
>Poor countries especially don't have the health problems promoted by
>affluence - overeating, overweight, full stomachs but starved of actual
>nutrition, etc.
>
>The fact that poor people in America die early as a result of eating too
>much pretty much illustrates the point.
I wonder how many Americans are lost at sea while trying to escape to Cuba.
DGDevin
"Claude V. Lucas" wrote in message
news:4d6eb1fe$0$10527$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> I wonder how many Americans are lost at sea while trying to escape to
> Cuba.
I'd guess the number is zero, but it's an odd question considering nobody
was trying to hold up Cuba as a superior place to live. We were merely
noting that they manage to provide basic medical care to all their citizens,
so in that one respect they're doing something well even if they're
massively fucked up in other ways which is what we would expect of a
communist dictatorship.
Tony Elka
"DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Nicely said.
Tony
RichL
RichL
news:Df6dncJrP9hRbPPQ...@earthlink.com...
Well, ya see now, those words just up and smacked Clod in that spot just
below the kneecap, he had no choice but to extend his foot...give the guy a
break ;-)
Claude V. Lucas
It kinda helps that the population of Cuba is ~11-12 million or so...
DGDevin
"Claude V. Lucas" wrote in message
news:4d6f100d$0$10592$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>> I wonder how many Americans are lost at sea while trying to escape to
>>> Cuba.
>
>>I'd guess the number is zero, but it's an odd question considering nobody
>>was trying to hold up Cuba as a superior place to live. We were merely
>>noting that they manage to provide basic medical care to all their
>>citizens,
>>so in that one respect they're doing something well even if they're
>>massively fucked up in other ways which is what we would expect of a
>>communist dictatorship.
> It kinda helps that the population of Cuba is ~11-12 million or so...
How so? Doesn't economy of scale apply to health care? Nations with much
larger populations are able to provide basic health care to all their
citizens, not to mention advanced health care. A few years ago the
Congressional Budget Office said the final bill for the invasion/occupation
of Iraq would be over two trillion dollars. Think of all that could have
been done with that money on U.S. soil--crumbling bridges and roads rebuilt,
clinics kept open, the borders secured, high-tech research funded, disabled
veterans cared for, cops and firefighters kept working and on and on.
Instead that money was poured into a bottomless hole in Iraq and our
children and grandchildren will be paying interest (including to China) on
that borrowed money for decades. So a tinpot dictatorship like Cuba can
provide its citizens with basic health care, but America prefers to pour
money (and blood) on Iraq--how the hell did that happen?
DGDevin
"Spender" wrote in message
news:n3nvm65mv301lgb3t...@news.easynews.com...
>>But Cuba has advanced facilities too, largely available to medical
>>tourists
>>who fly in for treatment because of the low cost. Medical tourism is a
>>source of revenue for Cuba, they treat it like an industry. So in a way
>>both nations have high quality care for those who can afford it, it's
>>those
>>on the bottom of the economic scale who are out of luck.
> Virtually everyone in Cuba is at the bottom of the economic scale.
Which makes it all the more notable that they can provide basic health care
for everyone. How come a dump like Cuba can do that, but the richest nation
on earth can't?
Bruce Morgen
>On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 11:08:51 -0800, "DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>But Cuba has advanced facilities too, largely available to medical tourists
>>who fly in for treatment because of the low cost. Medical tourism is a
>>source of revenue for Cuba, they treat it like an industry. So in a way
>>both nations have high quality care for those who can afford it, it's those
>>on the bottom of the economic scale who are out of luck.
>
>Virtually everyone in Cuba is at the bottom of the economic scale.
Not really -- it's just that
"the economic scale" there
is very narrow, ranging from
just-barely-subsisting
agrocultural workers to
almost-middle-class doctors,
architects, and engineers.
What's missing is
entrepreneurship (which is
discouraged, to say the
least) and the political
freedom necessary for
constructive change, e.g.
restoration of relations
with their geographically
natural principal trading
partners, los gringos de
los Estados Unidos de
America. With no Soviet
Union to step into the
breech, Cuba will remain
impoverished unless/until
there's a return of the
mighty yankee dollar.
Claude V. Lucas
DGDevin <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>"Claude V. Lucas" wrote in message
>news:4d6f100d$0$10592$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
>
>>>> I wonder how many Americans are lost at sea while trying to escape to
>>>> Cuba.
>>
>>>I'd guess the number is zero, but it's an odd question considering nobody
>>>was trying to hold up Cuba as a superior place to live. We were merely
>>>noting that they manage to provide basic medical care to all their
>>>citizens,
>>>so in that one respect they're doing something well even if they're
>>>massively fucked up in other ways which is what we would expect of a
>>>communist dictatorship.
>
>
>> It kinda helps that the population of Cuba is ~11-12 million or so...
>
>How so? Doesn't economy of scale apply to health care?
Evidently not.
>Nations with much
>larger populations are able to provide basic health care to all their
>citizens, not to mention advanced health care. A few years ago the
>Congressional Budget Office said the final bill for the invasion/occupation
>of Iraq would be over two trillion dollars. Think of all that could have
>been done with that money on U.S. soil--crumbling bridges and roads rebuilt,
>clinics kept open, the borders secured, high-tech research funded, disabled
>veterans cared for, cops and firefighters kept working and on and on.
>Instead that money was poured into a bottomless hole in Iraq and our
>children and grandchildren will be paying interest (including to China) on
>that borrowed money for decades. So a tinpot dictatorship like Cuba can
>provide its citizens with basic health care, but America prefers to pour
>money (and blood) on Iraq--how the hell did that happen?
>
At least the problem is solved now that we have Obamacare.
DGDevin
"Claude V. Lucas" wrote in message
news:4d6ff337$0$10594$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>How so? Doesn't economy of scale apply to health care?
> Evidently not.
Based on what evidence? It's easy to see why health care is so expensive in
the U.S., a huge chunk of what we pay being absorbed by the insurance
companies as administrative overhead for example (much more than in other
developed nations). The high cost of malpractice insurance, drug companies
constantly tweaking their formulas to extend patents, doctors ordering
unnecessary tests to pay for expensive hardware, millions of people getting
their health care in expensive emergency rooms and so on--that's what
happens when health care is driven primarily by profit. But if other large,
wealthy nations can provide universal health care for less money per capita
than the U.S., it would seem that economy of scale applies in health care
just as it does with most everything else provided the deck isn't stacked in
favor of squeezing every dime of profit possible out of the process.
> At least the problem is solved now that we have Obamacare.
Who said that? Clearly the recent health care law is badly flawed, I don't
recall anyone here saying any different including the supposed left-wingers.
Claude V. Lucas
It's not solved?
You mean that our health *won't* be wonderful for all now that
the Messiah has graced us plebians with the requirement to
pay mandatory insurance premiums to the fine institutions
that have been providing excellent care for us all along?
I'm shocked to hear the negativity.
DGDevin
"Claude V. Lucas" wrote in message
news:4d701233$0$10579$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>Who said that? Clearly the recent health care law is badly flawed, I
>>don't
>>recall anyone here saying any different including the supposed
>>left-wingers.
> It's not solved?
> You mean that our health *won't* be wonderful for all now that
> the Messiah has graced us plebians with the requirement to
> pay mandatory insurance premiums to the fine institutions
> that have been providing excellent care for us all along?
> I'm shocked to hear the negativity.
Silly me, as if you could rise above bumper-sticker slogans for more than
one post. I have to do something about this excessive optimism.
DGDevin
"Spender" wrote in message
news:v5a0n6th77ingb6rf...@news.easynews.com...
>>Who said that? Clearly the recent health care law is badly flawed, I
>>don't
>>recall anyone here saying any different including the supposed
>>left-wingers.
> Is this a new revelation, or did you know the law was badly flawed when
> you supported its passage?
It's clearly been flawed all along, especially since they abandoned key
points like requiring the drug companies to negotiate lower prices with
Medicare the same way the VA does, not to mention dropping the "public
option" which had the support of a majority at one point. However the
alternative--doing nothing--was not tenable. Oh, and based on how the
Republicans approached health care reform when they were in power--an
unfunded prescription drug bill that not only added billions to the national
debt but enriched the drug companies as well--I don't think we need to take
seriously the idea that if only the Dems had been willing to listen to the
Repubs a little more then something could have been worked out. The
Republican Party has a fine track record of putting corporate profits ahead
of the public good, it wouldn't have been any different this time around.
Their shameless use of nonsense like "death panels" and screaming about
rampaging socialism is pretty good proof they wouldn't have seriously
inconvenienced their corporate sponsors.
Sure it's flawed, but this law is also a game-changer. Once the idea that
the insurance industry cannot be challenged has been broken, who knows where
that might lead. Given that another big insurance company is now trying to
get away with a 40% rate hike, that public option is probably going to get
another look, maybe not by this administration, but sooner or later it's
going to happen.
RichL
news:v5a0n6th77ingb6rf...@news.easynews.com...
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 13:32:39 -0800, "DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Who said that? Clearly the recent health care law is badly flawed, I
>>don't
>>recall anyone here saying any different including the supposed
>>left-wingers.
>
> you supported its passage?
It's better than the status quo, by a lot. A single-payer system would be a
big improvement, however.
Bruce Morgen
>On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 20:00:21 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
>>news:v5a0n6th77ingb6rf...@news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>> Is this a new revelation, or did you know the law was badly flawed when
>>> you supported its passage?
>>
>>It's better than the status quo, by a lot. A single-payer system would be a
>>big improvement, however.
>
>Vote for a badly flawed law because you think it is better than the status
>quo? That doesn't make much sense given that government has a history of
>making the most of the worst and the least of the best.
>
>This isn't a simple matter of trying to pass at least some measure in the
>right direction, like voting for civil unions for gays and hoping that
>marriage rights come later. It is a framework for a major change involving
>unfathomable regulatory powers that are prone to taking on a bureaucratic
>life of its own thereby perpetuating the worst aspects.
That's pure ideological BS
-- in fact, the heart of
the law is the "exchange"
concept, a Republican idea
first proposed in the early
1990s as an alternative to
the DOA "Hillarycare"
debacle. Government
involvement is very limited
and essentially regulatory
rather than administrative
(aka "bureaucratic) a la
Medicare or hands-on
managerial like the VA
system.
Tony Elka
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
> Vote for a badly flawed law because you think it is better than the status
> quo? That doesn't make much sense given that government has a history of
> making the most of the worst and the least of the best.
There was a time when the U.S. Interstate Highway system was the envy of
the world. Our government also had a project called "Rural
Electrification", it seems there's lots of countries where there are
still areas without electricity, but not the USA. Private sector
couldn't have done it. Federal goverment did.
There's also the U.S. Military. Do you really think what you just said
applies to that?
People like to bitch about the U.S. Postal Service, but they can get a
letter to any address in the country for forty four cents. United
Parcel and FedEx want a minimum of four to five bucks to deliver a
letter.
It's time to stop buying into that Ronald Reagan "government is the
problem" horseshit. The private sector fucked this country over during
Bush/Cheney like nothing I've ever seen before.
Tony
Claude V. Lucas
The "insurance industry" is being *challenged* by *requiring*
that citizen-units send them money on a regular basis?
That must be the part that the Republicans snuck in
to "put corporate profits ahead of the public good, no?
Tony Elka
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
> The private sector can do anything the government can do - except force
> people to do as they wish.
Nope. The private sector has to make a profit or it won't do it. The
government can do those things we need that are not profitable.
Like defend our coasts.
Tony
DGDevin
"Claude V. Lucas" wrote in message
news:4d70d38d$0$10583$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> The "insurance industry" is being *challenged* by *requiring*
> that citizen-units send them money on a regular basis?
No, the insurance industry is being challenged by being prevented from
refusing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions and not being
allowed to drop coverage of customers when they get sick. In fairness this
could only be done the way it is, otherwise people wouldn't bother to get
insurance until they got sick, which would bankrupt the insurance companies.
It would be exactly like allowing people to buy auto insurance only after
they had an accident and needed somebody to pay for the repairs--thus the
requirement to have insurance when you're healthy.
If people could buy their insurance from a non-profit agency that didn't
spend billions on executive salaries, marketing, stock dividends and so on
that would be even better. But too many chickenshit Dems bailed on that
idea when Repubs and their Tea Bagger droids shrieked about a socialist plot
to destroy the health insurance industry.
> That must be the part that the Republicans snuck in
> to "put corporate profits ahead of the public good, no?
No, this was the part that prevented the Republicans from claiming the Dems
were trying to destroy the insurance industry so they could carry out a
govt. takeover of health care. There are all kinds of odd things in the
legislation, like changing language the Repubs used to claim there would be
"death panels" that would rule on who got treatment and who didn't. This
was a fabrication of course, but that didn’t stop Repubs from making the
claim anyway. And of course there are in effect death panels already, but
they're run by insurance companies which are in the position of refusing to
pay for treatment with fatal results for some folks. But Republicans have
no problem with that since the insurance industry is matched only by the
pharmaceutical industry when it comes to campaign donations and lobbying of
Congress--a hundred million dollars a year buys a lot of influence in
Washington.
DGDevin
"Spender" wrote in message
news:ep11n6homtjnofmfb...@news.easynews.com...
>>There was a time when the U.S. Interstate Highway system was the envy of
>>the world. Our government also had a project called "Rural
>>Electrification", it seems there's lots of countries where there are
>>still areas without electricity, but not the USA. Private sector
>>couldn't have done it. Federal goverment did.
> The private sector can do anything the government can do - except force
> people to do as they wish.
Actually the private sector has a pretty good track record of forcing people
to do what the private sector wishes. That's why we have laws against
monopolies, to try to keep corporations from becoming so powerful that they
can dictate terms to everyone.
White Spirit
> Back on the caffeine?
Did you read the original article and grasp its intent?
RichL
news:ikra8n$udl$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 03/03/2011 03:24, RichL wrote:
>
>> Back on the caffeine?
>
> Did you read the original article and grasp its intent?
Yes. There's too much hyperbole for me to take it seriously. Granted, it's
not quite as insane as its right-wing equivalents.
Tony Elka
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
> Defending our coasts isn't profitable? Congratulations, you just made
> every executive in the defense industry laugh their asses off.
It's profitable foe the people that sell the goods. They couldn't
patrol it themselves profitably, if you doubt it, look at how much more
expensive mercenaries were in Iraq, compared to our own forces.
Tony
DGDevin
"Spender" wrote in message
news:4e33n6d668e3fnt4g...@news.easynews.com...
>>Nope. The private sector has to make a profit or it won't do it. The
>>government can do those things we need that are not profitable.
> Anything is profitable if you price it correctly. The cost of doing
> business and all. What you actually meant to say was that the private
> sector cannot force one customer to pay another customer's bill.
Oh, really? Ever hear of the insurance business? Getting customers to pay
for other customers mishaps is pretty much how that business operates. I
haven't had a car accident for twenty-five years, so what do you suppose
happens to those premiums I pay every month?
>>Like defend our coasts.
> Defending our coasts isn't profitable? Congratulations, you just made
> every executive in the defense industry laugh their asses off.
That isn't defending our coasts, that is supplying hardware to the
organizations that defend the coasts. It's the difference between selling
goods and services to the Navy and actually doing the Navy's job. Are you
advocating we shift to mercenaries for national defense?
Tony Elka
"DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I don't think he understands the difference for some reason.
Tony
Les Cargill
Because if you are a doctor and you live in Cuba, you get paid what
the government says you get paid.
This guy upgraded to "used car salesman".
--
Les Cargill
White Spirit
> "White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ikra8n$udl$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Did you read the original article and grasp its intent?
> Yes. There's too much hyperbole for me to take it seriously. Granted,
> it's not quite as insane as its right-wing equivalents.
Fair enough. Had you said that originally, there wouldn't have been any
misunderstanding.
RichL
> think anything would change if the military were privatized?
It's not a pittance if you consider the benefits to vets, which I'm sure the
private sector would NOT provide.
Bruno Puntz Jones
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 10:57:01 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>It's not a pittance if you consider the benefits to vets, which I'm sure the
>private sector would NOT provide.
The PS would start shaving off the benefits, till it reached
the level they wanted. To even GET the chance to do it is
worth the price to them the 1st few years. While I do not
know the % who sign up for the perks, against those who
do for the P/reasons. I like to think it's both. 1 needs 2 to = 3.
While going thru papers the last few years, I learned my Dad
joined the Navy/SeeBees, etc BECAUSE of the promises he
would get. His Country promised it. Also, M'Dad loved the Sea,
traveled big time, and was one of the last folks out of Nam.
25+ flocking years...19 active...
..the service told me my back was too bad..
Anyway, you also have the problem. IF I serve my gov,
and my gov farms it out, whom am I serving...? Will I also
be able to say I served my Country..or armed for hire.com?
What level of person do we get for the $. Does that slide?
Watch if any idiot Gov starts fucking with Vet benefits.
It will make Gaddafi look like Ms. Piggy in a L/Skin/Pillbox hat.
JJTj
DGDevin
"Spender" wrote in message
news:3fp3n61rp54fqhj63...@news.easynews.com...
>>Which makes it all the more notable that they can provide basic health
>>care
>>for everyone. How come a dump like Cuba can do that, but the richest
>>nation
>>on earth can't?
> Maybe because:
> 1: Cuban Doctors make about $20 a month, just like everyone else, and
> can't be sued for anything.
Oh, so the Cuban government's announcement several years ago that they were
abandoning wage caps was all fake huh? Doctors in Cuba aren't now making
double the average wage?
Of course the single most important thing in health care is the salaries of
doctors, everything else has to take second place to that.
> 2: All Cuban doctors must, by law, be primary care physicians first and
> foremost. Becoming a specialist is not a choice, it is a privilege granted
> by the government.
Holy cow, a consideration other than profit influencing public policy, how
radical. So in addition to all their burdens the Cuban people suffer a
shortage of access to plastic surgeons too, how cruel.
> 3: The average Cuban doctor is amongst the worst doctors in the world.
> Yes, I know you buy the idea that the medical tourist hospitals are
> typical of Cuban hospitals
Quote me, please, expressing any such view. I know, if in doubt you're
happy to just make up something and go with that.
> 4: There are a lot of doctors per capita in Cuba. Since the government
> pays all the costs of education, poor as it is, and doesn't give any
> thought at all to the quality of the outcome, becoming a doctor in Cuba is
> relatively easy.
As opposed to the U.S. system, where the medical establishment is allowed to
restrict the number of doctors to keep prices up. Yeah, that's working out
great for everybody.
> But hell, if you like the idea of a government trained doctor prescribing
> quail eggs for giardia, and consider that to be good basic care, then by
> all means encourage the poor to emigrate to Cuba.
Once again, feel free to make up something I didn't post and pretend I did.
DGDevin
"Tony Elka" wrote in message
news:shadowlane-6AF78...@news.giganews.com...
>> That isn't defending our coasts, that is supplying hardware to the
>> organizations that defend the coasts. It's the difference between
>> selling
>> goods and services to the Navy and actually doing the Navy's job. Are
>> you
>> advocating we shift to mercenaries for national defense?
> I don't think he understands the difference for some reason.
People addicted to loony political philosophies like socialism and
libertarianism see what they want to see.
Bruce Morgen
>On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 10:08:00 -0800, "DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>People addicted to loony political philosophies like socialism and
>>libertarianism see what they want to see.
>
>Libertarians see freedom of choice, association and cooperation. You see
>only force.
Libertarians are inveterate
dreamers who ignore the
realities of human nature to
an extent that would have
made Mao blush. As with
collectivists, their
superficially idealistic
tenets simply do not scale
up, which is the reason no
country on earth has ever or
will ever attempt their
implementation as principles
of governance in a world
where competing economic
interests enjoy the many
significant benefits of
overtly supportive and very
effective national policies.
RichL
>>news:gqo3n6drdhao3mc1k...@news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>> think anything would change if the military were privatized?
>>
>>It's not a pittance if you consider the benefits to vets, which I'm sure
>>the
>>private sector would NOT provide.
>
Will the private sector create the equivalent of the VA hospital system?
How about the GI bill?
How about all this?
DGDevin
"Spender" wrote in message
news:9rm5n6tddc24qjgn7...@news.easynews.com...
> So Cuban doctors are now making $40 a month? Wow... I stand corrected.
> That's righteous bucks! Home internet service in Cuba costs only $200 a
> month or so, which means that an onramp to the information superhighway
> requires the fulltime efforts of only five doctors to be able to afford,
> rather than 10 average schmucks.
Why, pray tell, should a Cuban doctor have a home internet connection when
his whole nation is impoverished? Is he unable to do his job having access
to net at work? He can't afford an Escalade either, does that mean he's
unable to practice medicine? Damn, no Rolex, can't be a real doctor without
one of those. Given the miserable economy of Cuba, explain why a doctor
should be paid in the same kind of ratio that American doctors are paid
compared to the average American wage. Can Cuba afford that?
>>Of course the single most important thing in health care is the salaries
>>of
>>doctors, everything else has to take second place to that.
> Not everyone likes to work for free like you choose to.
American doctors make twice as much as doctors in Germany and Canada, three
times as much as doctors in Japan, France, Denmark or Australia, and five
times as much as doctors in Sweden. So do we get from two to five times
more health care than people in those countries? Do we live longer, do we
have fewer people failing to get medical care or receiving substandard care,
does everyone in America not only get health care but two to five times
better health care? Explain why American doctors get paid that kind of
money when American health care is actually out performed by health care in
nations where doctors are paid less.
>>Holy cow, a consideration other than profit influencing public policy, how
>>radical. So in addition to all their burdens the Cuban people suffer a
>>shortage of access to plastic surgeons too, how cruel.
> It's sad that you dems really can't tolerate the word "choice" unless it
> is preceded by "reproductive".
"You dems"? Sorry Mr. Screen Name, wrong again.
>>Quote me, please, expressing any such view. I know, if in doubt you're
>>happy to just make up something and go with that.
> You have an astonishing inability to detect sarcasm in the written
> language.
For someone who slings so much bullshit you have an astonishing inability to
backtrack and dodge successfully, you should be better at it by now.
>>As opposed to the U.S. system, where the medical establishment is allowed
>>to
>>restrict the number of doctors to keep prices up. Yeah, that's working
>>out
>>great for everybody.
> And now you again fall into ridiculous conspiratorial thinking.
Now that is funny. The AMA has long claimed that it restricts the number of
medical students to avoid a glut of doctors, warning that graduates wouldn't
be able to get work and be unable to pay off their students loans. In
reality foreign medical students stay in America because they're offered
multiple jobs and physicians from other nations move to America because of
plentiful work for doctors. But we're supposed to buy the AMA's story that
*really* the problem is a danger of training too many doctors.
Restricting the number of med school graduates to keep salaries up is a
widely acknowledged state of affairs, but maybe it wasn't mentioned in the
Official Libertarian Briefing Pamphlet 2011 Edition and thus you're unaware
of it.
http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medical-cartel-why-are-md-salaries-so-high
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/is-ama-support-for-health-reform-a-bad-sign/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm
>>Once again, feel free to make up something I didn't post and pretend I
>>did.
> There's that autism again.
It's not like I should be surprised, you usually end up in the theatre of
the absurd when you run out of rational arguments, and that rarely takes
long.
DGDevin
"RichL" wrote in message
news:zaOdnYqhPMj_v-7Q...@supernews.com...
"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
>> Right, because there is no such thing as benefits in the private
>> sector...
> Will the private sector create the equivalent of the VA hospital system?
> How about the GI bill?
> How about all this?
> http://www.militarybenefits.com/
The private sector now busts out laughing at the sound of the word "pension"
and they're hacking away at health care coverage as fast as they can. The
idea that a crippled mercenary would be taken care of by this mythical
privatized military is laughable.
DGDevin
"Spender" wrote in message
news:8fn5n6heo1dcmqbq3...@news.easynews.com...
>>People addicted to loony political philosophies like socialism and
>>libertarianism see what they want to see.
> Libertarians see freedom of choice, association and cooperation. You see
> only force.
Libertarianism works just swell in a spirited discussion in a campus coffee
shop after a Poli Sci seminar, but in the real world--not so much. It's
very much like socialism in that regard, and just like socialists,
libertarians think they're the ones who *really* have it figured out.
Unfortunately socialists at times get influence over govt. policy and we end
up with a bit too much nanny-state. Lately the supposed libertarian school
is gaining influence, and already we can see where that is going. It will
to be interesting to see Americans realize that if the right-wing gets its
way most folks will increasingly be on their own, that they've been sold a
bill of goods by the corporate world and its servants in the legislature.
The honeymoon probably isn't going to last too long.
Greasehorse
>On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 00:57:44 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
>>news:dlm5n61nhqsgn6cv0...@news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>> Right, because there is no such thing as benefits in the private sector...
>>
>>Will the private sector create the equivalent of the VA hospital system?
>>How about the GI bill?
>
>Again, you are talking about a theoretical matter only since the military
>is a *valid* function of government.
>
>But no, the private sector would not create a VA hospital system. The
>private sector would provide health insurance, short and long term
>disability insurance, workman's comp, etc.
>
>Let's face it. If the private sector created something akin to the VA
>hospital system there would be endless lawsuits. Only government can get
>away with that kind of incompetence.
>
>>How about all this?
>>
>>http://www.militarybenefits.com/
>
>Name any benefit you want. If a sufficient number of people will not do
>any particular job with it, it would be provided.
Most of the VA care I have received is pretty damn good! Of course,
they have trainees doing some things and that can suck but even so,
they are on target. If a vet gets some inferior care or doesn't like
someone, they can request another doctor. In the Dallas VA system,
all of the area hospitals rotate their own doctors through all of the
other hospitals. The VA hospital is a rotation point also. So, to an
extent, the VA doctors are on staff and backed up by the whole area.
You don't always get what you want but that is the priviledge of
having private insurance and big bucks.
DGDevin
"Spender" wrote in message
news:l7t6n65a29ekn7uqo...@news.easynews.com...
> You are arguing out of both sides of your face here. On the one hand you
> claim the libertarian school of thought is gaining influence, and on the
> other you state that right-wing getting it's way would be a bad thing.
> Equating libertarianism with the right-wing just illustrates your
> ignorance.
Did you actually read what I wrote, and perhaps think about it a moment? Or
just shoot from the lip?
The right-wing is playing the Tea Potters and those who fancy themselves
"libertarian" to get votes--that's the "influence" libertarianism has. In
reality it's the same old corporate agenda: profits up, rank-and-file wages
down, benefits out the window. The Republican Party will play the game of
"restoring America" and rolling back the socialist tide and all that
crapola, at the same time as they try to stop funding for the SEC and so
on--their real goal continues to be protecting the interests of their
corporate sponsors. Republican control of Congress and the White House
doubled the national debt, remember? A Republican Vice President said
Reagan proved deficits no longer matter, remember? But now they're telling
you they're the party of fiscal responsibility--it's absurdist comedy.
They'll tell you "libertarians" whatever you want to hear, and the moment
you're out of the room they'll laugh themselves silly and get back to taking
care of the corporate bottom line. Is it some weird coincidence that the
Koch family has bankrolled the Tea Party? They're backing the current
Governor of Wisconsin too, and he wants no-bid sales of state-owned power
plants to private energy companies, and guess what business the Koch family
is in?
Of course, if libertarians really did get their way we'd still be screwed
because their philosophy is simplistic nonsense. Voluntary associations of
free individuals my ass. A volunteer fire dept. might be practical in
Moosefart, Nebraska; wouldn't work so well in Miami or Oakland or Baltimore.
All these natural rights libertarians are so big on, they can't seem to
grasp that without the state the exercise of those rights evaporates, the
big dogs would end up with all the bones. But then some supposed
libertarians are okay with that too, they figure they will be okay and they
don't much care what happens to anyone else, the whole E Pluribus Unum thing
never did much for them.
Tony Elka
"DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I agree with all of that, especially about libertarians being
simplistic. I'm not without sympathy for them, but their vision isn't
going to happen.
Tony
DGDevin
"Tony Elka" wrote in message
news:shadowlane-1A29D...@news.giganews.com...
> I agree with all of that, especially about libertarians being
> simplistic. I'm not without sympathy for them, but their vision isn't
> going to happen.
There are some worthwhile ideas in that often self-contradictory mess, some
of it works on a small scale, but as a system of government it is a
non-starter.
DGDevin
"Spender" wrote in message
news:jlr6n6p9bug3hq0sc...@news.easynews.com...
> So all you are really arguing is that the homeless should have laminated
> boxes and be damned happy with that. How sweet.
What?
> Your question is based on the false premise that the high salaries of
> doctors in America is the reason for the high cost of health care. You
> would be hard pressed to be more mistaken. Doctor's salaries account for
> only about 10% of health care expense.
As I recently provided a list of other factors that drive high health care
costs your analysis is badly flawed.
> Add that to the utter falsehood of your numbers and you have again fallen
> flat on your face.
Oh, so in a he said, she said contest, you figure your source is right
because, well just because. So even by your source American doctors get
paid way more than doctors in other countries, by multiples in the case of
some other developed countries, but that doesn't count because, well just
because.
> Adding to your incompetence is the curious omission of several important
> factors when trying to make such comparisons:
> 1: Doctors in other countries pay much less for their educations
Hey, good point, if we socialized medical education then doctors wouldn't
need to make so much to pay off their student loans. Good idea. Couple
that with a requirement that they need to practice as GPs for so many years
before specializing and that might actually help.
> 2: The income of doctors in many other countries starts at a higher level
> than in America. The intern in America with $155,000 in debt may only make
> around $50,000 a year for working 18 hour days.
And he'll end up making way more, can you show he never catches up?
> 3: Doctors in most other countries don't face anything like the
> malpractice nightmare of American tort proportions, so their insurance
> costs are nowhere near as high.
I thought the Bush administration's proposal to cap malpractice awards had
merit although the cap they suggested was too low. President Obama has also
repeatedly said he was open to proposals for tort reform. Aside from
lowering insurance costs, that would reduce the tendency to order needless
tests as a hedge against claims that not enough was done. But as the Bush
administration said, that should be coupled with the states doing more to
discipline incompetent doctors and hospitals--it can't all be for the
benefit of one side.
> Ah, back to the usual Devin shit...
Poor Spender, loves to dish it out, taking it--not so much.
RichL
news:WOmdnbR4a9fJp-nQ...@earthlink.com...
> I thought the Bush administration's proposal to cap malpractice awards had
> merit although the cap they suggested was too low. President Obama has
> also repeatedly said he was open to proposals for tort reform. Aside from
> lowering insurance costs, that would reduce the tendency to order needless
> tests as a hedge against claims that not enough was done. But as the Bush
> administration said, that should be coupled with the states doing more to
> discipline incompetent doctors and hospitals--it can't all be for the
> benefit of one side.
Just curious -- do you have any idea what fraction of doctors' malpractice
insurance premiums wind up being paid out in awards?
DGDevin
"RichL" wrote in message
news:2vSdnVQpffQMounQ...@supernews.com...
> Just curious -- do you have any idea what fraction of doctors' malpractice
> insurance premiums wind up being paid out in awards?
Not off the top of me head. With a bit of a web search it seems companies
that sell malpractice insurance have been doing quite well, the state of
Missouri reporting companies selling such insurance had returns of almost
25% in 2008--for example. If it's similar to the rest of the insurance
industry, they absorb a lot of money for administrative overhead, pay their
execs very well, and then in the end claim they have a slim profit margin
while actually farting through silk to borrow an expression. Prior to the
Bush Recession the insurance industry was raking in the money, including
AIG. The insurance industry is largely about using premiums as a source of
capital; once upon a time there was a legally mandated firewall between the
insurance and investment industries, but the geniuses in Washington got rid
of that after enough campaign contributions accumulated.
Tony Elka
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 11:13:06 -0800, Tony Elka <shado...@shadowlane.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I agree with all of that, especially about libertarians being
> >simplistic. I'm not without sympathy for them, but their vision isn't
> >going to happen.
>
> People having the full rights that all human beings should have, provided
> they do not initiate acts for force or fraud upon others? Yeah, that's a
> pipe dream alright.
You just answered something I didn't say.
Again.
Tony
RichL
>>simplistic. I'm not without sympathy for them, but their vision isn't
>>going to happen.
>
> they do not initiate acts for force or fraud upon others? Yeah, that's a
> pipe dream alright.
Wow, what a bland and contentless summary of libertarianism. One could make
the same sort of bland statement as a summary of socialism, except in that
case there would be some connection between it and the philosophy that
collective action as represented by government is *necessary* to assure that
those rights actually are realized by all.
DGDevin
"Tony Elka" wrote in message
news:shadowlane-AE001...@news.giganews.com...
> Again.
SOP for our friend Spender, there are times when it's like he's having a
conversation with himself as opposed to comprehending and responding to what
someone else is saying.
DGDevin
"Spender" wrote in message
news:pnsdn65p9ipqf832l...@news.easynews.com...
>>SOP for our friend Spender, there are times when it's like he's having a
>>conversation with himself as opposed to comprehending and responding to
>>what
>>someone else is saying.
> And Devin now descends into his usual speaking to others out of the corner
> of his mouth because he hasn't a clue about how to address the person he
> intends to.
A 2x3" label stuck right to your forehead, reading: Intake Dept., State Home
for Libertarians and Other Loonies would probably be an effective way to
address you. Of course if you had your way there would be no funding for
the place, funny how it works out that way so often.
RichL
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 22:51:10 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
>>news:f33bn6l0nj8222smm...@news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>> provided
>>> they do not initiate acts for force or fraud upon others? Yeah, that's a
>>> pipe dream alright.
>>
>>Wow, what a bland and contentless summary of libertarianism. One could
>>make
>>the same sort of bland statement as a summary of socialism, except in that
>>case there would be some connection between it and the philosophy that
>>collective action as represented by government is *necessary* to assure
>>that
>>those rights actually are realized by all.
>
> unless you go to great lengths to tweak the definition of force.
Well I for one have a hard time accepting that your statement applies as
written to libertarianism given the "initiate acts of....fraud upon others",
since one of the functions of regulation of commerce is to protect the
public against acts of fraud perpetrated by corporations, and as I
understand it, libertarians generally oppose such regulations.
Les Cargill
Ah, no. There isn't a libertarian standard per se, but the "no force
and fraud" thing is pretty much the backbone of the whole program. It's
an effort to save rights-based thinking.
Whether or not regulations work is a different matter and the generator
of endless debates :) Being biased by decades of software
work, I look at regulation like "programming"; this quote applies:
http://blog.railsnewbie.com/post/738504814/debugging-is-twice-as-hard-as-writing-the-program
“Debugging is twice as hard as writing the program, so if you write the
program as cleverly as you can, by definition, you won’t be clever
enough to debug it."
— Kernighan’s Law
By example, public housing policy in the US created several
disasters as unintended consequences. IMO, it took a good
fifty years or so before Section 8 answered those "defects"
and brought about a more reasonable standard.
So it's like that.
--
Les Cargill
DGDevin
"Les Cargill" wrote in message
news:il80tk$rrf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Whether or not regulations work is a different matter and the generator
> of endless debates :) Being biased by decades of software
> work, I look at regulation like "programming"; this quote applies:
> http://blog.railsnewbie.com/post/738504814/debugging-is-twice-as-hard-as-writing-the-program
> “Debugging is twice as hard as writing the program, so if you write the
> program as cleverly as you can, by definition, you won’t be clever enough
> to debug it."
> — Kernighan’s Law
> By example, public housing policy in the US created several
> disasters as unintended consequences. IMO, it took a good
> fifty years or so before Section 8 answered those "defects"
> and brought about a more reasonable standard.
> So it's like that.
I agree that regulation isn't immune to the law of unintended consequences.
Aside from unforeseen outcomes, there is often someone who can figure out
how to game the regulation for his profit. But of course that doesn't mean
regulation is worthless, that we should stop even trying because sometimes
it takes awhile to get it right. I'm glad the health dept. regularly
inspects restaurants to make sure the kitchens don't look like sets from a
horror movie. That system might not be perfect, but it's still worthwhile.
The other side of the coin is that the promised benefits of deregulation
often don't materialize either. Hiring a long-distance moving company these
days should be approached with considerable caution as there are way too
many opportunities to hire the wrong company and little in the way of appeal
to a regulatory agency. Increased profits might result from deregulation,
but benefits to the public--not so much.
Les Cargill
>
>
> "Les Cargill" wrote in message
> news:il80tk$rrf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>> Whether or not regulations work is a different matter and the generator
>> of endless debates :) Being biased by decades of software
>> work, I look at regulation like "programming"; this quote applies:
>
>> http://blog.railsnewbie.com/post/738504814/debugging-is-twice-as-hard-as-writing-the-program
>>
>
>> “Debugging is twice as hard as writing the program, so if you write
>> the program as cleverly as you can, by definition, you won’t be clever
>> enough to debug it."
>> — Kernighan’s Law
>
>> By example, public housing policy in the US created several
>> disasters as unintended consequences. IMO, it took a good
>> fifty years or so before Section 8 answered those "defects"
>> and brought about a more reasonable standard.
>
>> So it's like that.
>
> I agree that regulation isn't immune to the law of unintended
> consequences. Aside from unforeseen outcomes, there is often someone who
> can figure out how to game the regulation for his profit.
Sure. And in cases, there is no arfing way Congrefs knows enough
to even *begin* to regulate certain things. Not only "knows enough",
but "can find out in my lifetime". I watched a lot of Barney
Frank's committee this last couple years, and those poor souls
were *way* out of their depth.
> But of course
> that doesn't mean regulation is worthless, that we should stop even
> trying because sometimes it takes awhile to get it right.
It means it's really hard, and that this makes it extremely
difficult in a noisy media climate. We get a lot of "something
must be done; this is something; this must be done."
> I'm glad the
> health dept. regularly inspects restaurants to make sure the kitchens
> don't look like sets from a horror movie. That system might not be
> perfect, but it's still worthwhile.
>
I still hold that as a red herring, but whatevah. A couple good
liability law-sharks could probably clean up Restaurant Row quicker'n
the whole health department, but it's good to have both.
> The other side of the coin is that the promised benefits of deregulation
> often don't materialize either. Hiring a long-distance moving company
> these days should be approached with considerable caution as there are
> way too many opportunities to hire the wrong company and little in the
> way of appeal to a regulatory agency. Increased profits might result
> from deregulation, but benefits to the public--not so much.
I just did this, and there were no difficulties at all. they were, in
fact, totally excellent. My wife did all the due diligence, and it
wasn't that hard.
And FWIW, there's no guarantee of profits from deregulation. Most rabid
anti-regulators ( I'm not rabid, simply snarky and prone to quoting
Mencken frequently ) are doing it on principle and very ignorant of the
practical implications.
I haven't seen it done, but I bet Phil Gramm would be able to make
a fairly consistent case for his hand in his deregulations, because
he's probably never going to change his mind.
--
Les Cargill
DGDevin
"Les Cargill" wrote in message
news:il9e7l$3jr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> The other side of the coin is that the promised benefits of deregulation
>> often don't materialize either. Hiring a long-distance moving company
>> these days should be approached with considerable caution as there are
>> way too many opportunities to hire the wrong company and little in the
>> way of appeal to a regulatory agency. Increased profits might result
>> from deregulation, but benefits to the public--not so much.
> I just did this, and there were no difficulties at all. they were, in
> fact, totally excellent. My wife did all the due diligence, and it
> wasn't that hard.
Good to hear she did her homework. The ratio of good companies to pirates
is apparently not so good, scams are common especially when a big mover
sub-contracts to an out-of-state fly-by-night company.
> And FWIW, there's no guarantee of profits from deregulation.
One thing you can count on, a flood of fast-buck artists moving in to make a
killing, such as with resellers of electricity when utilities are
deregulated. In a couple of years they're gone, absorbed by the big dogs,
but they make money in the meantime.
> I haven't seen it done, but I bet Phil Gramm would be able to make
> a fairly consistent case for his hand in his deregulations, because
> he's probably never going to change his mind.
He got his, as did most of Congress, the banking industry spent $300 million
getting their deregulation passed.
DGDevin
"Spender" wrote in message
news:u0jgn65m3p6j8p3ee...@news.easynews.com...
>>A 2x3" label stuck right to your forehead, reading: Intake Dept., State
>>Home
>>for Libertarians and Other Loonies would probably be an effective way to
>>address you. Of course if you had your way there would be no funding for
>>the place, funny how it works out that way so often.
> ^^^ Devin's SOP.
Good to see you haven't lost your sense of humor. Oh, wait.