LateDave's Comments (81)

“And their homes. Foreclosure is the next step.

Actually, the order is a little uncertain. Some get sick, then can't keep their jobs because they are too sick. Then they have no money for mortgages or meds or Cobra insurance or out-of-pocket medical care.

Some lose their medical because their "small business is the engine of jobs" employers can't afford it any more.

Some have their jobs sent offshore and become unemployed while still healthy, but once they are foreclosed on, they get sick while living out of the family car.

Me, if my college-age kid gets sick and can't keep his credits up, I'll have to pay out of pocket or go into hock to the credit card ghouls, so I'll be wiped out within a few months and have no home, no retirement savings, zip. Then I'll lose *my* job. Typical story.

The retirees with Medicare and paid-off homes are better off unless they get *really* sick, even temporarily. Then they slowly lose everything to copays, taxes, and utilitiy bills.

Notice, things don't happen this way when *everybody* has pretty good medical bankrolled by taxes. But that wouldn't be the Merkin way.”

“I prefer "umfriend," like when she says, "This is Bob, he's my umfriend." Nice connotations, approximately friend with benefits/p­rivileges, don't want to try to explain to mom.

"Unfriend" goes back to Kipling, circa 1902, but as a noun, not a verb. This is the usage isaidit presents. See _Kim_, past the middle somewhere, in the scene by the railway siding, IIRC, used by Mahbub Ali: "They are unfriends of mine."”

“Ah! But it will! There are bound to be mistakes. The difference is that the "private enterprise" plans leave you with no recourse. With a "government" plan, like those which serve some 1 in 3 of all Americans today, there exists a potential for appeal through the dread bureaucracy, and even penalties for malfeasance. The risk is truly indifferent or vicious staffers, but there is no place for concealed motivation to deny lawful benefits within a single-payer, federalized health care payment bureaucracy. Also, the benefits are spelled out in law and regulation, not buried in a contract unique to each client corporation, or even to each individual customer.”

“Simple! But-but-but-Clinton is no longer operative.”

“I disagree. Think about the recent performance of the Publicans, even in the minority, in word and deed. Now think about what they would have done - in the majority! - with a Democratic president. What manner of progress would have been possible with a crew like that allocating funds and defining crimes?

Still, Al, with his hair rapidly turning white, could not possibly have been as bad for the world, and especially for America, as what we have suffered.”

“Your link goes to a *wonderful* site! Beyond a few typos, it's just about perfect. I remember many of the items from daily news reports, which lends cred to the rest.

I would like to see comparable sites about Bushes pere et fils, but the lubricious encomiums directed to St. Ron's memory justify concentrating on his administration.”

“I saw a wonderful "Book TV" presentation on C-SPAN around 2005 by an author whose premise was that the sins of the Cheney administration, whe he presented at considerable and savory length, were unforgivable. Near the close of his talk, he called the audience's attention to a lapel button he was wearing that read, "Impeach Cheney first."

I kick myself that I never got around to ordering one of the then-readi­ly-availab­le buttons or bumper stickers to that effect. Now, of course, it's too late, and we have sort-of survived, so far. But I'll go along with your proposition, a poor relation of the would-have-been glory of regurgitating that poison, and will settle for a thorough colon cleanse, provided we make sure the product thereof is not permitted to enter the recycling stream. If this metaphor escapes you, blame your teachers (or the teach-to-the-test policy).”

“I normally refer to this as "the John Mitchell defense." It didn't work for AG Mitchell, praises be, when he was on trial for the usual perjury and obstruction of justice charges, plus conspiracy. It did at least get to the point where the courtroom would buzz with anticipatory mirth every time a prosecutor asked him a question (okay, I just made that up, but it would have if I'd been there). I think I would remember if the courtroom was ever cleared for bursting into applause or raucus laughter after one of his endless string of "I can't recall" responses, so decorum must have been maintained somehow. Is there a count available from his trial record?

It's a shame he only spent 19 months in the country club, but it's better than nothing.”

“C'mon, you know we have the best Congress money can buy!

Unfortunately, you have to outbid the folks that already own them. And they won't give back the money they got from the last group. Unlike buying paintings at auction, you are still buying from the artist, not the guy who bought the painting last time. I guess that's what makes them such a great deliberative body - they have to work out compromises between all of the fat cats that keep dumping heaps of money in their laps.

This fits in with my rant about "looking out for the stockholders" referring only to the ones sitting around the boardroom table, and my other rant about how *cheap* it is to buy a politician - if you have a defense contract, the cost to buy enough politicians to guarantee a followon contract is less than a penny on the dollar. Much cheaper than advertising--or good workmanship. I could tell ya stories . . .”

“Everything involved in the health insurance racket is bad business.

Consider WallyWorld "associates"--you might wish not to have that colossus astride the retail industry, but all of those food-stamp recipients with not-quite-full-time jobs and no medical benefits would either be out of work or hired on at non-colossal retailers if WW went down. Would that be good or bad?

Once the country stabilizes in the new, single-payer paradigm, the transitional pain of the low-level staff will have to be carried over into a healthier economic model. The function of a government in this circumstance is to ensure survival and provide encouragement until we reinvent a more civilized society.”

“And Velcro(R). And Teflon(R). And communications satellites. And GPS. And weather satellites. And . . .”

“TR?”

“Also paper with higher tonnage yield per acre-year than farmed trees, requiring less bleaching. Seeds good for bird food. Non-synthetic rope with domestic source. (Note: industrial hemp is worthless for getting high.) and and and and . . .”

“Yes, perfect example of hypocrisy by so-called conservatives. Keep your hands off my polluting business, my insurance company, my guns, my . . . but I *won't* keep my hands off your wacky terbacky - in fact, I'll slam you into the cooler with mother-rapers and father-stabbers . . .”

“You overreacted.

While cigs are intrinsically harmful to essentially all users, alcohol is harmful in the same way as gambling, and potentially benign for at least some users.

Guns we could do without, but they are fun for collectors and "sportsmen" and psychologically reassuring for certain insecure people.

Prescription drugs are only *on* prescription because they are either patent-protected or dangerous (harmful unless used properly).

Automobiles are the glue of American society, however easily they can cause harm.

Religion? Well, David Koresh and Jim Jones called theirs "religions;" would you call them good? Lots of splinters led by charismatic extremist "pastors" teach and convince significant numbers of sincere seekers to adopt frankly harmful modes of action all around the world (term "charismatic" not intended to lump together all U.S. practitioners self-describing with that label).

I think Ms Johnson deserves the benefit of the doubt as to whether her "legal but harmful" tag applies to *all* autos, *all* prescription drugs, and *all* religions, or whether her point should be dismissed because *no* religion is ever "legal but harmful."”

“Succinct . . . objective. Nice riposte to the troll jibe about do-nothing Demos.

However, I think the ownership of our two-branch, one-party government (Plutocrats command, Repo branch and Demo branch take turns at the podium) extends beyond merely the banks and insurance companies.

Certainly defense contractors get a seat at the table - look at the recent ACORN shriekfest, with the proposed law to ban accused criminal perp businesses from fed contracting being extended to *any* such business, followed by realization that *every* major def contractor stands credibly accused and/or convicted. Whoops!”

“Amen.”

“You're gaming this. Real right radicals don't want any gun laws - even for RPGs and tanks. Age limits are more of the same - infringements on our blessed right to teethe on a Glock!

Whether permitted (and long guns are casually controlled) or hot, and whether the kids are under 15 or over 30, the mindset that everybody oughta carry is very wingy. There are even jurisdictions that have [tried to pass?] laws that *everyone* must pack heat. Nutty? Sure. But that's who we're talking about.

Not since the SLA, Baader-Meinhoff, Red Army Faction, and other 60s politicals were active during Viet Nam has there been a significant left ideological movement advocating revolution. The armed hooligans in western countries are all about social identity and access to illicit recreational chemistry.

Would gangbangers respond to rightists attempting a brownshirt-style putsch to "make the trains run on time?" Response would probably be very ad-hoc - parts of cities (mostly) closed off to outsiders, lots of revenge actions masquerading as political. The good ol' boys in the hills would probably do the same. The 'burbs would be in deep trouble, with raids burning out whole neighborhoods. Since outsiders don't own city stores as much as they did at the time of MLK, city burns would be lessened. Still total disaster. Is that what fundies want?

BTW, the rage is not being "sold TO banks and politicians" but BY them.”

“Au contraire! C'est le chauvinism!”

“Nicely put.”

“Yeah, that could be true. After all, Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard to go make a gazillion dollars, and lots of other fine folks ain't edjimakated neither.

On the other hand, Pres. Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar, Pres. Carter is Naval Academy, ... why, even Sarah Palin got a sheepskin. And Shrub proves that you can skate through schools as respected as the ivies if there is enough money behind you. Hell, even I got a master's degree (in engineering, though).

The main thing a degree proves is that you can follow through on a difficult task over a period of years, rubbing shoulders with really smart people and not getting discouraged. We have all come to realize that a high school graduate is just somebody who sat and waited until s/he hit 18 instead of running away.

College is a test, but not the only one. My daddy advised me to make sure that I completed my time in the service instead of screwing up and getting tossed out. Good advice - carry things through.”

“That's enough - shut off this guy's microphone!”

“I've used the "I own it" expression myself before, and what I meant - and what I think the Prez meant - was that once you are locked into a situation, you can't excuse your way back out. Sec. St. Powell said "You break it, you've bought it," which implies the downside - if it goes bad, your name is associated with it, and you will suffer the consequences.

If it finally gets through Congress in some recognizable form, and he signs it, and it is a disaster for good and honest reasons, it will be "Obama's health reform debacle" and the history since FDR will be forgotten. But if it is blocked from being passed into law, he can stomp on the Reps and Blue Dogs, and they will deserve it.

I expect Obama knows full well that "Success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan," so he won't get to hog the glory if improved health care works as the Left - and now autos and other wounded industries - intend.

So "I own it" is a recognition of risk, not anticipation of gain.”

“I agree in general. I think "filibuster" is neither the proper duty of a college lecturer nor what he did, however. I found the speech/lecture edifying. Not much news, to me, but enjoyable in a way that no word out of his predecessor's mouth was ever enjoyable. It may even have taught a little to a few. One can hope.

Speaking truth is justified - in fact, it is our duty - and repeating it is often justifiable. Screaming it is rarely useful. Lying is rarely justifiable.

It is not necessarily ideal for the President himself to use the bully pulpit in an attempt to prevail on any single issue. Theodore Roosevelt not only coined the term, he used it to some - not total - good effect on a variety of issues, particularly including business collusion, pure food and drugs, race relations (not much), conservation, and more - not bad. We can hope that the enormous number of horrors that Obama needs to teach the naive and mendacious to understand, reject, and correct will not render the bully pulpit ineffective. We need not a tocsin, but a symphony.”

“"Jimmy Carter has used the Presidency as a steppingstone to greatness.­"

Who said that?”