Sir Bandelot

Confucious say, shoot first, ask question later.

I'm thinking, this is a fake protest movement funded by GOP millionaires.

Karzai to lawmakers: ‘I might join the Taliban’ Afghan leader made threat twice at closed-door meeting MSNBC - Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatened over the weekend to quit the political process and join the Taliban if he continued to come under outside pressure to reform, several members of parliament said Monday. Lawmakers dismissed the latest comment as hyperbole, but it will add to the impression the president — who relies on tens of thousands of U.S. and NATO forces to fight the insurgency and prop up his government — is growing increasingly erratic and unable to exert authority without attacking his foreign backers. The lawmakers said they felt Karzai was pandering to hard-line or pro-Taliban members of parliament and had no real intention of joining the insurgency. What??? Pro-Taliban members of parliament? They were democratically elected! See what happens when you give fools the power to vote... This Karzai needs to be ousted by the US. Either that or Obama needs to go over there and give him a stern talking to. And a hug

The story of the killings and UN denial has been posted on several legitimate news websites: NYT: U.S. admits role in killing of Afghan women "NATO initially denied involvement in the deaths and in any cover-up." Despite McCrystals attempts to minimize civilian casualties, these horrific events continue to occur. What else would you expect in a war? Not surprised that Karzai would make such statements. If true, they do explain his recent outbursts. Clearly he has a bug up his ass about something.

But they don't have to be, when there are no regulations. And the rules for group vs. individual insurance differs. I suspect even within groups there is a health assessment necessary for each employee when they join the system. Not all companies offer such group insurance, and when that happens the person must either try to get their own individual insurance, apply for medicaid (only eligible if their income is LOW enough), or do nothing. "(Individual) Insurers are getting double the profit that they make in the group market. Why is it so lucrative? Because they exclude anybody and everybody who has even a remote sense of risk associated with their health care," says Dr. Bryan Liang, who has studied the insurance industry for more than a decade. "They want to know everything about you. Your credit history," for example, Liang said. "Your credit history is something that is very interesting to them, and they want to know about it." It's not just your credit history, but your driving record and the sports you play. Insurers have even been known to question "friends and neighbors" about "morality and lifestyle" — using all of this information to decide who they will cover and who they won't. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/23/cbsnews_investigates/main2843007.shtml Apparently tens of millions fall into the gray region where they don't have group insurance, can't afford the individual plan and make too much to be eligible for medicaid. I think those are the people they tried to cover in this reform bill. -Not saying I think Obama's reform is a good system. I'm no expert on US health care, but from what I read it is the most expensive system in the world in terms of per-capita cost, and ranked low in effectiveness (47th out of 190 countries) in more than one study in the past ten years. If the system does not meet the needs of the people effectively, it must be changed. That's yer supply and demand concept

In the current system, before Obamanization, people with pre-existing medical conditions could not get coverage. Or, they could but likely would have to pay huge premiums. I assume that this must have been the case, because one of the changes Obama brought in is that coverage MUST be provided, even if the person has pre-existing conditions. And to me, that speaks volumes about what the previous system was worth. Providing health care was secondary, seen as a business loss. The system was in place long enough to be tested and validated. It did not suffice. By the very same nature of supply and demand, it had to be changed. Not sure whether this change is the right one, it seems to be a kind of hybrid bastardization of capitalism and socialism.

The Wrath of Obama In its FY 2011 budget request for security assistance programmes for Africa, the Obama administration is asking for 38 million dollars for the Foreign Military Financing programme to pay for U.S. arms sales to African countries. The administration is also asking for 21 million dollars for the International Military Education and Training Programme to bring African military officers to the United States, and 24.4 million dollars for Anti-Terrorism Assistance programmes in Africa. The Obama administration has also taken a number of other steps to expand U.S. military involvement in Africa. Speaking before a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing in March 2010, the commander of Africom, stated "should it prove successful, there's potential that it could be expanded to other battalions as well." The millions who actually believed Obama's pretty words during the election campaign must now be disillusioned. It's becoming clear that Obama's intention of "reaching out to our enemies" only implies doing so, with the end of a bayonet.

I noticed the spell-check option does not appear in the Firefox browser. Maybe there's some sort of plug in required?

At least with government health care the playing field is level. In other words, the rules of the game are the same for everyone. Private corporations can set their own rules, so that every insurance policy can be different. Coverage for different medical problems depends on the specific corporate policy. If the rules are interpreted the same way they are with cars, you might not "qualify" for coverage of your illness due to some extenuating circumstance. Example, a person gets cancer. The insurance company finds out they're an alcoholic, and this invalidates their coverage. This could happen because the by-laws of a corporation are independent of national laws. Don't like it? No problem. Go get your insurance somewhere else. You might be paying premiums for years but when the time comes that you need it, they might refuse to cover you. This is why corporations are a threat to our liberty, because they undermine common law, but do so in a way that's technically not illegal. You as the consumer still have an "out". Of course thats not true when the only choice you have is to go with another corporation. But that's called freedom, to make a "choice".

Ignatieff does not have the charisma to be their leader. Ignatieff himself is damaged goods. He needs to go. In fact the whole party needs to be dismantled.

Any replacement for Guergis would be an improvement. "After dealing with gangs, whores and addicts...", she would likely do well as a parliamentarian.

Some of you keep referring to the "three year old reference on the situation in Iraq", all the while ignoring how the fact remains, these people are still displaced and likely not going home. But I know, that was SO yesterday... Allow me to elaborate on the last point I brought up. Forget for a moment about the dates of things, think about the meaning of the definition of "victory". If you look beyond the immediacy of the reference to ccld war, and to the meaning of what Jean Kirkpatrick said about societies, you will understand why I posted it. We can't claim victory, unless the situation is proven as stable. Under Saddam's dictatorship, brutal as it was for the people of Iraq, it was stable and according to Kirkpatricks definition, successful societies are about stability. Although, Saddam was not cooperative with the west. Now we (ie. the US) have created a revolution in Iraq, destabilized it. In this sense alone it is "victorious". Kirkpatricks observation about inhabitants fleeing by tens of thousands, is quite timely in this regard.

No it's not primarily about establishing democracy per se, but more specifically about establishing cooperation with the US regime. I'm sure you know that, but let me clarify- In the Kirkpatrick Doctrine established under President Ronald Reagen, it was argued that stable dictatorships are useful especially when they oppose communism and are inclined towards western cooperation. It did not matter that the people in those countries enjoyed western style liberties. "[Traditional autocrats] do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope . . . ." "[Revolutionary Communist regimes] claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the society and make demands for change that so violate internalized values and habits that inhabitants flee by the tens of thousands . . . ." So having pointed that out, let us now ask, who are the revolutionaries?

My head is not buried Shady, I'm just trying to help you understand what you wrote is a gross oversimplification. The reports show there are lots of people suffering in Iraq, even now. It's debatable whether the situation is truly better than before. Different, yes, and I suspect better in some ways, but worse in others. One can only hope that as time goes on things will continue to improve and Iraq will actually become "better". But there are many complicating factors to consider in making that kind of assessment. The fact that there is a long-standing hatred between different religious groups makes it less than certain for a good outcome the long run. Democracy requires cooperation. When there is no willingness to cooperate and compromise between different people, then the choices become very limited. Then it's either ethnic cleansing, civil war or dictatorship. No I don't mean by looking at the calendar to find out what year it is Shady, I meant learning that the Iraqi refugee crisis is real and substantial. It may have peaked in 2007 during the worst part of the violence, but these people are still out of Iraq now, today and can probably never go home. At least Canada is now trying to do something about that. So it appears you didn't know about this situation at all, but this forum is a great place to learn about many different things, don't you agree?

That's not true Michael. The dedicated front line health care workers, many of whom I know do indeed care. The majority of these people are not motivated by a "me-first" attitude, they get job satisfaction by knowing they have helped others and their families. For them it's not so much about the money. I admire these people greatly, it's a hard job, one that I could not do myself. It aint exactly like the TV show, "ER"

No, I'm not reacting. Just pointing out the problems, which are very real. Meanwhile I agree with you the system cannot function without administration. And liability and legalities all come into play, where hospitals must stay current in regard to new technology and conforming to regulations. So there can be good reasons for it. When your friend says more "support staff" is needed, I'd be surprised if he meant administration. Support staff around here means, technicians, technologists, secretaries. The admins are in another world of their own, and the prevailing attitude is, We Support Them. And if you knew about the nice easy days many of these people have, as well as the top pay, the top benefits and perks, free parking, lunch expenses, slush fund you would agree. It's just not responsible. The sad thing is, we all need health care so ultimately in the end, they're not just ripping off the public they're ripping off their own families and friends, and themselves. So, although there must be some kind of management, I'm asking, who's watching the watchers?

Yes indeed, I read this list when it gets published and the number keeps increasing every year, out of control. For every cheese-eater on this list, typically making 175-250 thousand dollars, you could replace them with 3 qualified medical technologists, the people who have to operate very complex equipment like MRI machines, the people who really make health care happen. It's absurd to threaten to close down front line services, close beds and essentially cease to provide a service to the public while these hogs continue to splurge at the trough. And these salaries are only the tip of the iceberg, most of them make even more than that. The trick is to have multiple sources of income for their roles, each paying just under $100,000 so they don't make the list. Alternatively, doctors can be paid separately under a contract between a third party company which charges the hospital one lump sum for all the doctors salaries, thus they are not even considered to be on the public payroll themselves. There's always a way to get around these pathetic attempts at "accountability". Meanwhile keep closing the services, then complaining that the health care system is untenable.

Conservative leader tells donors to stop giving to RNC Atlanta, Georgia (CNN)- The head of an influential social conservative organization urged members and supporters Wednesday to stop donating to the Republican National Committee and instead contribute to its own coffers or to candidates with like-minded goals. "I've hinted at this before, but now I am saying it -- don't give money to the RNC," Perkins said in his column. "If you want to put money into the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who you know reflect your values. "If the RNC wants to represent conservatives and the Republican Party, then they have to act like conservatives -- in a moral, fiscal and ethical manner," (Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania) said. "When RNC officials seem to think it wise to spend a grandmother's monthly donation on wooing the younger generation by taking them to bondage-themed sex clubs instead of helping to elect a conservative, a real problem exists." Even in the United States, the political birthplace of this neoconservative movement, real conservatives are trying their best to point out to the public that their name has been hijacked by ruthless self-serving right wingers. These people are not conservatives in the real sense, but are often descendants of religious and financially successful families with good connections to influential groups, and they have a strong sense of entitlement. This is the maturity of the "me" generation.

I know who it is that says "aboot". It's the French Canadians. Tonight I played hockey with a bunch of young fellows, and there was two or three frenchmen there who dropped in to play a game. As we stood together in the players box, they were speaking english with the french accent, and I heard one of them say "aboot"!

Consider this from a larger perspective. Who is it that gets offended? Japanese, probably older Japanese. Why does it matter? Why shouldn't the students have some fun while doing good deeds that benefit society? Good question, seems reasonable. What I see is, the problem comes down to corporate sponsorship, and how any organization that has important ties to financial sponsors has to be concerned about protecting those relationships. And certainly a university like Queens which is world reknown will have Japanese professors and probably some research relationships with other schools and companies in Japan. If those groups might feel "touchy" about the sumo suit that ridicules a sensitive aspect of their culture, it becomes a money issue. And that's all it takes, friends. Economics trumps virture, in the realm of corporate whoredom we will even sell our own fundamental values of freedom etc., for the money... Just my "two cents", not worth much I know

I heard it on the news two days ago, Canada has pledged to accept more refugees. This is coming from the Harper government. During the press conference, the minister invited an Iraqi refugee family as his guest, as an example of the type of people who need help and should be allowed into Canada. More refugees allowed in, from this right wing government? That prompted me to look into it. In light of your post here, these refugees are still displaced, yes, as of 2007. As it says, they cannot return home out of fear they will be killed. Thats your new democratic Iraq. Democracy does not work well in such environments. Witness Yugoslavia... decades under dictatorship. Harsh regime, yes. But often the only way to run a country, when the people are not tolerant enough to live amongst one another peacefully. Why don't you do some research before you post this kind of misinformation? It would help more if you knew what you were talking about.

"According to UNHCR estimates, over 4.7 million Iraqis have been displaced since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Most ventured to Jordan and Syria, creating demographic shifts that have worried both governments. A fear persisted in both countries, and others hosting sizable Iraqi refugee populations, that sectarian tensions would spill over amongst the exiles. These refugees were estimated to have been leaving Iraq at a rate of 3000-per-day by December 2006. Roughly 40% of Iraq's middle class is believed to have fled, the U.N. said. Most are fleeing systematic persecution and have no desire to return. Entire neighborhoods in Baghdad were ethnically cleansed by Shia and Sunni militias and sectarian violence has broken out in every Iraqi city where there is a mixed population. Satellite shows ethnic cleansing in Iraq was key factor in "surge" success. Some areas are being evacuated by every member of a particular secular group due to lack of security, moving into new areas because of fear of reprisal killings. As of 2007, the title "Kidnapping Capital of the World" belongs to Baghdad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_Iraq "Victory at last!" - Shady

In other words, it has inherited the worst of both worlds... Hope you are wrong but the cynic in me would not be surprised, at this point.

Bonam brings up a good point, that is the premise of socialized health care. Everyone who can pay must pay, and it's based on the assumption that the vast majority are healthy and won't need to use the coverage. Not unlike the general principle of how most of the profit is made by insurance companies. The difference is, in a laissez faire unregulated system, the insurance companies get to decide who is eligible for coverage and who's not, and what specifically that coverage entails. That of course leads to complete gouging of the public, in order to make the billions of dollars in profits that these companies make, year after year. Because that is the outcome of an unabated desire for profit. How is that helpful in terms of providing real health care? This form of insurance is otally absurd. But I think the point that it's "robbing the young to pay for everyone else" is a bit of a stretch. Not quite "robbing", as some young people do need health care. But also, these healthy young people will get to grow old, and eventually need the same benefits. But I feel they made the wrong move in trying to pacify the capitalists. Although the tangled mess they are in up to this point in health care leaves them little room for real reform.

Your title says "ignored by msm". But now you're saying it wasn't ignored, because that's what the readers want.