-pamela,
Since you seem to be quite knowledgable about hospitals, why are ED's so much more expensive than an urgent care facility or such? Both seem to have similar labor requirements and I can't see how an ER would have that much more overhead.

As far as your comments about the cost of health care for people toward the end of their lives, I know that my mother-in-law has reached the point where she is unable to pay for all of her prescriptions at times and has started resorting to skipping pills now and then (which obviously is not a good solution). A few of her children have started contributing funds for her meds, once we found out about it. I'm sure this is just the beginning and there will be more substatial costs in the not too distant future. I have no qualms about taking care of her as it fits in with the self reliance part of my beliefs but I also realize that many don't have the family or the family does not have the resources to do this.

Containing costs is the hard part, IMO. Years ago, when I was on an HMO, I saw the doctor for just about every ache and pain and cough. My company paid the premium and the copays were negligable. There was no incentive for me to think about whether I actually needed to see a doctor since it was virtually free for me to do so. Looking back, I feel quilty for many of the times I went. The point is that I believe there nneds to be a cost to health care because if a person like me gets caught up in the "its free so why not" mentality, most people will act like I did. And someone is paying for that.

Anyways, nice posts JimD, Mark and pamela.

I lost a long post to the ether.

pamela- odd that hospitals operate on razor thin margins while pharm & insurance companies are perennially producing phat profits.

JimD's 4:06 is pretty similar to how I see the situation.

The question, if we boil it down to the essense, is: to whom do you want to write a check? Write a check to a private insurer, and a portion will go to profit, executive compensation and marketing expenses, in addition to patient care. Write a check to the gov't and a portion gets lost in the (inherent?) inefficiencies of gov't bureaucracy. Which is the preferred solution? Personally I think it should be both. I agree with the argument that competition should drive down costs. I think the gov't should compete & offer medicare to people who will pay in for their own benefits (i.e. who earn too much income to otherwise qualify). The market will determine whether gov't inefficiencies are inferior to the profit motive, or not. Bring on the competition!

There are rational methods for dealing with malpractice, and I will try to find a cite for one or more of them rather than write a tract on a thread.

pamela, bsimon has taken your view of the "killer effect" of employer based care in many previous posts and I hope he chimes in, here.

Thank you for your very thoughtful posts.

Mark and Jim,

I agree that cost containment has to be included as part of the equation, but that is so much easier said than done. Most hospitals today have very small operating margins. Some things to consider:

1. Hospitals are very labor intensive, salaries are a huge portion of the budget. There's not a lot of room to maneuver here - doctors and administrators aside, no one is getting rich in health care, and there's a demand for skilled personnel. Most hospitals have restructured staffing to use lower skilled and paid employees wherever possible. I don't see many opportunities for savings here.

Interestingly, a lot of the bureaucracy has come about because of federal and state legislation. HIPAA is a case in point. Don't get me wrong - patient privacy is critical. But there are so many regulations, hospitals now have "privacy officers" to make sure they're in compliance. Varied and complicated insurance plans increase the workload in billing and registration departments.

2. Most hospitals have formularies which drive doctors to use the cheapest drugs that will work. Certainly, newer and expensive drugs are always coming on the market, and if they're really innovative, they're going to be used regardless of cost. It's hard to say how you can put the brakes on this - who tells a patient that there's this new drug that might be life-saving but he/she isn't worthy? My Dad is 82 and has lymphoma. He's had some pretty costly drugs that have worked, and others that haven't done much - but you don't know until you try. If he'd been paying out of pocket, he couldn't have afforded this. Medicare paid. There are always arguments about the cost of health care for people toward the end of their lives, but my Dad is a very vigorous 82 - if we were rationing, how would you assess this?

3. I think there are some savings to be had if we could eliminate "defensive medicine." (I also think Bush goes overboard when talking about this.) Mark, you're a lawyer - how does one strike a balance?

4. Insurance companies - coupled w/ employers - are starting to attempt to control costs, and since they pay the bills, this might help. But it bothers me when they have the last word on treatment. If doctors didn't order unnecessary tests just to be safe (from lawsuits), then would insurance companies let the physician's judgment be the final word?

5. Mark, I think your idea of indigent care has some merit. (Many ED patients are already seen by nurse practitioners or physician's assistants, but presumably, a free standing clinic or clinic in a store would have less overhead.)

I think we need to be careful about a two-tier system of health care - one for the rich, one for the poor. If there were other facilities available, and by law, hospitals could divert patients to them, this could work. But I'd argue that all non-emergencies should be treated the same. I do like the idea of dealing w/ this at the local level. I'm a bit more skeptical of anything that has a profit motive - insurance companies are profit-driven and I think they're a huge part of the problem.

6. Jim, efficiencies, where to start? Technology is the obvious place, and I think this is where I think the federal government could play a huge role. Electronic medical record systems can be costly to purchase and implement. A federal program to purchase them, develop the IT infrastructure, and train staff (not an insignificant problem) would, I think, go a long way - especially if time limited so hospitals would be forced to move quickly. Sort of a "hospital electrification program." An added bonus is that a fully implemented program would likely decrease human error thus enhance patient safety and thus drive down costs. Most hospitals are moving in this direction, but not nearly fast enough.

I would never argue that this is a federal responsibility, or that people have a constitutional "right" to health care. But I think we're better off as a society when citizens have heatlth care, much as society benefits b/c we have public schools. Employer based programs are killing some industries - for example, it makes it harder for GM to compete w/ Toyota. Interesting - didn't hear Romney mention that in Michigan.

Pamela, Mark

When Medicare was instituted, health care practices were quite different in several significant ways. There was much more reliance on hospitalization than we require today. The pharmacuetical industry had not developed the panolpy of medications that treat diseases and conditions that formerly required in-patient hospital procedures. We have also made great strides in preventive care as you and mark discussed above.

Cost containment has to be a big part of the equation. Health care pricing is more complicated than airline pricing where you might be sitting next to someone who paid 15% of the fare you did. I was hospitalized for three days in 2003 for cardiac tests after going to the emergency room one night when I woke with severe chest pains. It turned out to be non-cardiac related but I was over 50 and have a family history of heart disease. The bill came to over $17,000. I have very good insurance and the insurance has negotiated prices with providers. The hospital had to write off something like $13,000. My adult son did not have such good insurance in 2005 when he had to go to the same emergency room after being referred there by his primary care doctor. His bill came to $5,000 for a few tests during a 3 hour stay. His insurance covered $1,000 and he was stuck with the rest. Can anyone tell me what is the objective cost of a hospital stays? Hospitals have hideously high fixed costs which have to be allocated over specific treatments in order to recover their overhead. That is why some hospitals have $25 aspirins.

I know that Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton (no, I couldn't believe it at first, either) were working together on some sort of task force exploring ways to reduce the cost of health care. One angle they were looking into was information systems. If providers could access health record information on patients in a timely way, it would greatly reduce the time needed to treat patients. We don't often think of productivity in a field like health care but it can be improved. I think part of it also comes from changing the culture of these organizations. Hospitals have rigid caste systems and can be very rule bound and bureaucratic in their functioning. It is a delicate balancing act involved in trying to improve productivity while simultaneously improving care. HMOs were an effort to do that and there have been too many horror stories about patients denied necessary treatment. I have heard the story of the woman who was found unconscious and taken to a hospital in an ambulance. Her HMO refused to pay for the ambulance because it wasn't their contracted ambulance service provider.

Mark, your indigent care clinic proposal is excellent. I am convinced that it would pay for itself at a macro level - not only by alleviating the pressure on hideously expensive emergency room visits but by improving preventive care.

I think part of the solution has to be making health insurance more affordable and portable. The employer based system is killing the competitiveness of many our our industries and making portability very difficult. While workers have the right to continue in their old employer's health care plan after leaving, they must pay the full cost and that is very heavy. I would prefer having several large insurance plans and give people tax credits, as opposed to deductions, to purchase it. I would subsidize those who can't afford it at all. How that is worked out remains to be seen. It is one of the most challenging issues we have. It will only get worse as my generation becomes Medicare eligible.

Pamela, your identification of the waste of resources which results from treating the indigent in hospital emergency rooms is a starting point for solving the health care crisis.

Instead of federalizing that ridiculous system, that ridiculous system should be replaced.

Jack Kemp might look at that and propose that local hospital districts raise small bond issues to place indigent care stations
in public-private partnership with pharmacies. The cost of refunding the bond issues would be less than the local property tax burden on the emergency room.
The indigent care stations could be staffed with nurse practitioners - the way CVS is doing this for profit in several states. The pharmacies could contribute to the program, which would have a for profit component. These CVS clinics are far less expensive than MD visits. Some malpractice protection wold have to be provided, of course, for both the provider and the patient.

While only 3/4 of the indigents who flood emergency rooms could be treated by nurse practitioners, the burden would become manageable.

A federal role could be that in a national service plan, nurse practitioners would get substantial educational payments from the feds - a very cheap investment for a big return.

Not every locality would participate. The ones that do, will thrive, just as the localities with better schools thrive.

New Orleans after Katrina properly called for federal intervention. At the heart of the disaster was the failure of levees that are the statutory responsibility of the USA.
These levees are paid for by the USA through the Army Corps of Engineers. But the Corps contracts out the construction and maintenance locally and it even contracts supervision out to local boards.

I saw no added safeguards to managerial responsibility over the levees in the spending bills. I suspect that the funds, which I do not begrudge, will be wasted, in the sense that the levees will continue to be poorly maintained.
--------------------------------

Pamela - For all of us who see many of the problems that socially concerned folks see it is useful to try to think about how to solve them without resorting to the Federal Government for money.

The Federal Government does have a constitutionally mandated role that almost all analysts would say includes defense, public health, the regulation and stimulation of interstate commerce, the maintenance of all commercial waterways and impounded water, and the maintenance and preservation of national parks and forests.

REA was a boon to interstate commerce and the Interstate Highway System, built for the national defense, was too.

There is usually room to argue that a program is justified by the Constitution, of course. Even single payer socialized medicine, which I would oppose at the Federal level, could be justified as a public health expedient.

I am only suggesting that it is useful to look for local, or private, or state, or public-private solutions first. They avoid the uselessness of "one size fits all". They avoid the ridiculous problem of separating the pain of raising the money [at the Fed level] from the joy of spending it [ultimately, by local "officials"].
They avoid, at whatever the edge of the argument may be, constitutional fights that last for 20 ears in the courts. My next post will give an example of how even where analysts agree, the Federalism issues are mishandled.

jimd

Interesting post. To your list of programs that were "very useful in their time" I would add Medicare and Medicaid. In a country with great wealth, it's unseemly to have the elderly and poor dying for lack of health care.

Unlike rural electrification, perhaps, these programs remain useful today - but programs designed for the 60's don't necessarily fit in the early 21st century where technology reinvents health care almost weekly and costs continue to skyrocket.

Is there waste and abuse? - certainly. But compared to many private insurance companies, these are pretty efficient programs - meaning the $$$ spent go to providing actual services. And I think it would be just as unseemly for the poor and elderly to die for lack of health care today, as it was in the 60's.

I think it was earlier this year that President Bush said something to the effect that everyone in this country had access to health care - just go to the Emergency Dept. To a certain extent that's true - by law (in, I think, all states) EDs can't turn people away. Aside from being ludicrous b/c of the cost of such care, emergency care doesn't guarantee that people will fill the prescriptions they need, or follow-up with a physician to manage a chronic health problem. So it might treat an immediate problem, but not address a long-term problem that can become worse, and consequently, more costly.

Congress and the president actually moved in the direction of preventive care when they passed the prescription drug program. The final program was ill-conceived (no negotiating prices w/ drug companies, the donut hole, breaks for HMOS, etc.) but - in spite of those who consider this another costly government entitlement - the idea was sound: "take your B/P medication, don't have a (more expensive, not to mention devastating) stroke."

Like immigration, this is a complex problem w/ lots of noise on both sides. It seems to me the Dems have the better ideas on this issue, but if Kemp has some innovative ideas, I'd be interested to hear about them - any suggestions? But it has to move beyond "market forces solve all." Seeking care for crushing chest pain is not like buying a car - you're not really are in a position to evaluate the relative merits and costs of treatment options.

dave,

Interesting post, our views are somewhat similar. I wouldn't call myself a conservative or a liberal, though. I probably have some views that tend right and some that tend left. I think ideology gets in the way of problem solving.

I would grant the federal government a little more of a role than you. I also think that different times call for different approaches. FDR probably saved democracy in this country by providing some leadership and concrete efforts to deal with the nation's problems. There was a real danger from extremist movements of the left and right. People were losing faith in democracy. Even though we were not really out of the Depression until the war, FDR gave the country enough of a boost and ameliorated a great deal of the problems. Most importantly he restored faith in democracy.

Probably the best examples of federal programs that were very useful in their time were the rural electrification program and the farm programs. Much of the rural areas in the country, especially in the South and Southwest, were without electricity in 1933. This program brought great improvements in standard of living and economic development to the areas it served. The states could not have mounted such a coordinated effort on the scale of the federal program.

The farm programs which are scandalous today were essential in the 1930's when the Dust Bowl and lack of financing threatened what was largely a family farm based agricultural industry. The programs helped insure a decent food supply and to improve the farming techinques and productivity of thousands of farms. I can think of no better example of a government program that accomplished great things and has far oulived its usefulness.

I also believe that the federal government must play a strong role in certain regulatory areas. Environmental, food and drug safety and consumer protection must be under federal regulation. So many economic activities cross state lines that federal regulation is the only practical way to address many of these issues. Now I am not arguing that the way these activities are currently performed is optimal by any means.

I have been intrigued by ideas floated by Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich over the years to deal with societal problems that are usually considered liberal concerns using innovative, conservative programs. Many conservatives simply ignore or minimize these problems.

I distrust ideologues of the right and left. In a very diverse society of 300 million people, our common problems will not be solved by the hard-core liberals or conservatives. Practical solutions that honestly address problems are needed. So many liberal and conservative orthodoxies are simply immune to concrete evidence to the contrary.

bsimon,
My intent was not to get you on a rant. Although I consider myself a conservative, I don't think that Democrats are devoid of ideas and Republicans have all the answers. I don't think that one should never look to Federal government to solve a problem - just that, in most cases, it be the last place we look to solve it. That is not the philosphy this country has been following since FDR, not the philosophy most in the country follow and, in my opinion the biggest problem in this country. I have a brother that is about as left as you can get without being nuts and in talking with him, it seems we share the many of the same goals, just have a very different philosophy on what to do about it. National defense and security are areas that I think the fed govt has a, if not the, role in providing. Is there waste here - of course. But it's no different than any other govt program or agency and that is why I think we need to limit what the fed gov does as much as possible.

I did peg you as someone leaning left of center but also someone looking for answers that work and perhaps the best person on this blog at questioning and critiquing my posts and making me think about my positions and beliefs.

"McCain claims to be a "reformer," who rails against "special interests" and their "undue influence." McCain positioned himself as the Republicans' leading advocate of campaign-finance reform."

But if we look beneath the surface, what he claims and what he does are in direct opposition. McCain associates with powerful corporate lobbyists and their wealthy clients. Meetings are held at exclusive retreats. He flew "to a posh Utah ski resort, where he mingled with hundreds of top corporate executives assembled by J.P. Morgan Chase for its annual leadership conference."

"... [T]he Deer Valley event, arranged by J.P. Morgan Vice Chairman James B. Lee Jr., a top McCain fundraiser, put him in a room with the chief executives of companies such as General Electric, Xerox and Sony."

McCain is immersed in lobbyist fundraisers' and lobbyist staffers' funding. His chief fundraisers, consisting of more than 30 lobbyists, are more than other candidate's.

So you think McCain is a straight talker?

So you think McCain is a straight talker?

McCain, I believe, will be like Bush only on steroids wrt war and will further empower corporations. Bush exponentially sped-up increasing corporate power, McCain is likely to follow in his footsteps.

Iam puzzled why independents and moderate republicans overwhelmingly like McCain -- he has voted on just about every piece of legislation that Bush wanted. But McCain is the media's darling after all. So it is rare to see much published about him that is unfavourable. They call him a "Maverick" which is hardly the case.

Furthermore rumours say he is considering Lieberman as his veep. Great! Just what we (do not) need: two war-mongers in office.

I read today that Lieberman has a dual citizenship: America and Israel. Iam not sure if that is true, however, possible. Lieberman is one of the strongest supporters of Israel which indicates America could very well be entangled in wars in the Middle-East for the next century!

Claims to the contrary regarding special interests and lobbyists McCain has been less than forthcoming about other events as well.

Another example: McCain seen strolling down a street, professing it was safe in Baghdad left out a small detail: He was surrounded by 100 soldiers with 2 or 3 Blackhawk helicopters flying overhead to protect him.

This occurred during the time Bush and his party faithfuls were trying to convince the public things were fine and dandy in Iraq. They weren't. It was just a photo-op in Iraq.

"Straight-talking" and McCain do not belong in the same sentence IMHO.

McCain's lobbyist army

"McCain claims to be a "reformer," who rails against "special interests" and their "undue influence." McCain positioned himself as the Republicans' leading advocate of campaign-finance reform."

But if we look beneath the surface, what he claims and what he does are in direct opposition. McCain associates with powerful corporate lobbyists and their wealthy clients. Meetings are held at exclusive retreats. He flew "to a posh Utah ski resort, where he mingled with hundreds of top corporate executives assembled by J.P. Morgan Chase for its annual leadership conference."

"... [T]he Deer Valley event, arranged by J.P. Morgan Vice Chairman James B. Lee Jr., a top McCain fundraiser, put him in a room with the chief executives of companies such as General Electric, Xerox and Sony."

McCain is immersed in lobbyist fundraisers' and lobbyist staffers' funding. His chief fundraisers, consisting of more than 30 lobbyists, are more than other candidate's.

So you think McCain is a straight talker?

McCain, I believe, will be like Bush only on steroids wrt war and will further empower corporations. Bush exponentially sped-up increasing corporate power, McCain is likely to follow in his footsteps.

Iam puzzled why independents and moderate republicans overwhelmingly like McCain -- he has voted on just about every piece of legislation that Bush wanted. But McCain is the media's darling after all. So it is rare to see much published about him that is unfavourable. They call him a "Maverick" which is hardly the case.

Furthermore rumours say he is considering Lieberman as his veep. Great! Just what we (do not) need: two war-mongers in office.

I read today that Lieberman has a dual citizenship: America and Israel. Iam not sure if that is true, however, possible. Lieberman is one of the strongest supporters of Israel which indicates America could very well be entangled in wars in the Middle-East for the next century!

Claims to the contrary regarding special interests and lobbyists McCain has been less than forthcoming about other events as well.

Another example: McCain seen strolling down a street, professing it was safe in Baghdad left out a small detail: He was surrounded by 100 soldiers with 2 or 3 Blackhawk helicopters flying overhead to protect him.

This occurred during the time Bush and his party faithfuls were trying to convince the public things were fine and dandy in Iraq. They weren't. It was just a photo-op in Iraq.

"Straight-talking" and McCain do not belong in the same sentence IMHO.

do the research...

but anecedotally, you do know how G.E. got rich don't you?

I prefer knowledgeable people to those that memorize things, understanding is based upon seeing connections...

I am having a cup of earl grey.

tesla2 --

1. Did you like the Mythbusters episode on Tesla's "building shaker?"

2. What drugs are you on?

no one knows the connection between resonance and gravity.

however, the use of using lasers to cool clouds of single element gas, points to it...

and there is no direct connection between the navel and the anal spinchter... although the alimentary canal and the intestinal tract used to be the same fetal dimple, which is why the epithelial cells are so important in cloning...

believeing is for children, knowing is the direct apprehension that one arrives at by clearing the field of "personal history."

the siddhas attributed to sainthood are nothing more than that.

mysticism is the direct apprehension of the divine or the underpinnnigs of reality...yoga, lily tank, whirling dervish, isolation... sensory deprivation...and control, monastic silence, chanting, prayer vows of silence...repitition creates a sameness, an apprehension of the relatedness

fractal basis of reality

one taste....number generating algorithim of creation,

left handed molecules of organic matter...

dark mass/parallel realities/probable realities unformed...

Virtually everyone knows the connection between resonance and gravity. The real question is what is the connection between the sphincter and the navel?

A Bose-Einstein condensate is a cool egg cream that obeys bose-Einstein statistics.

I would say the goal is to "BELIEVE" in nothing, but to "KNOW" all!
And by "knowing" I'm not talking about "I KNOW THAT IS A TABLE" stuff. That kind of knowing is just agreement between a group of people that when they see that particular thing they'll call it a table. But they don't "KNOW" what that particular thing is , or any particular thing. To believe in something is in fact the act of holding something to be true when you don't "know" it. That's what people call faith I think!

Lot of Scams built on FAITH!

"When Lockheed or MD or Boeing do the research, the results are usually considered proprietary, are they not?"

That depends, usually when the government funds the research they retain some rights over it.

I would say the goal is to "BELIEVE" in nothing, but to "KNOW" all!
And by "knowing" I'm not talking about "I KNOW THAT IS A TABLE" stuff. That kind of knowing is just agreement between a group of people that when they see that particular thing they'll call it a table. But they don't "KNOW" what that particular thing is , or any particular thing. To believe in something is in fact the act of holding something to be true when you don't "know" it. That's what people call faith I think!

Lot of Scams built on FAITH!

would say the goal is to "BELIEVE" in nothing, but to "KNOW" all!
And by "knowing" I'm not talking about "I KNOW THAT IS A TABLE" stuff. That kind of knowing is just agreement between a group of people that when they see that particular thing they'll call it a table. But they don't "KNOW" what that particular thing is , or any particular thing. To believe in something is in fact the act of holding something to be true when you don't "know" it. That's what people call faith I think!

Lot of Scams built on FAITH!

I would say the goal is to "BELIEVE" in nothing, but to "KNOW" all!
And by "knowing" I'm not talking about "I KNOW THAT IS A TABLE" stuff. That kind of knowing is just agreement between a group of people that when they see that particular thing they'll call it a table. But they don't "KNOW" what that particular thing is , or any particular thing. To believe in something is in fact the act of holding something to be true when you don't "know" it. That's what people call faith I think!

Wikipedia says that the Sauds have been Wahabists since the 18th C.

Adrick said:

"Attempting to pacify it's own fundamentalist pressures by co-opting Iran's return to the 7th century, the Saudi's, in the late '70's and throughout the '80's, unleashed (and funded) the Radical Islam with which we are contending with today."

I thought Ibn Saud made his bed with the Wahabbists in the beginning, around 1930.
Somebody clarify, please.

"when some talk about seperating from the ego/self they confuse it with nilhism..."

I disagree. The buddist and easterners try and remove the ego from self to get closer to what you would call God. Does that mean they beleive in nothing?

You not ready sir.

you show your face. Come back next week tough guy. I'll rip you to shreds verbally for all to see. Only for their growth of course.

You show your face as you attack without compassion. Cahnge cannot come without conflict. Mental change cannot come without mental conflict. But growth should always be the goal.

Who are you helping? Come back next week so I can help others grow through you. I need an ignorant vessal to have a building point with this people. In verbally deconstruction you, WE can help others. Copme back tough guy. I'll show you what time it reall is. In the meantime read the archeives so you can get cought up.

Rufus1133

rufus

and jkrishnamurti

In the same sense as the mental barriers and the "physical" ones. Like borders.

The map is not the territory. :)

We have been divided for power to the few.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE

I read Krishnamurti and found him somewhat bland, he also made some mistakes when it comes to understanding the reality that we exist within...

when some talk about seperating from the ego/self they confuse it with nilhism...

"the self," is another name for "life history"

but then you knew that, right?

between bon po, Tibetan Buddhism and Buddhism ???

what school of thought does the dali Lama belong to?

who are the black hats, yellow hats, red hats? who is Padma Sambhava???

what is a bose - einstein condensate?

what is it's relevance to the existance of atoms and probability theory?

what is the connection between resonance and gravity?

or how about a simple one:

what is a mystic and how does that relate to William James' work?

.10 seconds.

.

"JKrishnamurti,

He was a gentle soul no doubt, and by whatever causes had the gift of being able to "unattach from self". A truely remarkable being, but I suspect that he was that one in a million miracle from birth. All the head pains prior to his awakening speak for a physio-chemical processing that although possible is highly unlikely for most of us at this stage of human evolution.

Posted by: harried | January 18, 2008 07:28 PM
"

Speak on it harried. I learned about krish thorugh the great bruce lee, one day. I always respected bruces mind. not jus this martial art. What is martial art really? But mental actions executed by your body.

Lee was a follower of Krish. I had never heard about krish in the main stream before or since. I'm trying to get his name out there. In this time of need the great world teacher can teach us many things.

You mention unattachment. What strikes me is barriers. In this time it is very important. We are a divided people. Why? What divides us? Why are wars fought? Economics, religon, and politics.

Krish opened my mind to the fact that the divisions are mental illusions. they are not real. What a man CALLS himself is of no consequnce. what does he do, what does he say how does he act? A chrsitian is not so by the label. But by words or actions.

I'm always eager to exchange ideas about krish, so rare. What do you know about him harried ? And why are his teachings not all over the world and internet. How did they suppress the great word teacher and his message that would save the world from itself?

Zouk is a fascist

JKrishnamurti,

He was a gentle soul no doubt, and by whatever causes had the gift of being able to "unattach from self". A truely remarkable being, but I suspect that he was that one in a million miracle from birth. All the head pains prior to his awakening speak for a physio-chemical processing that although possible is highly unlikely for most of us at this stage of human evolution.

hahahhahaha.

I have taken this site much futher than it being killed by some no knowing clown dittohead.

You add nothing to it. But if it's verbal combat you want. If it's an enemy you seek, I'll be that for you. But only to enlighten you. But you are wasting not only wasting my time, but everyone's.

Now that I know you want to play games, I'm not giving you anything, in regards to krish. Earn the enlightenment with something other than gop dittohead spin cycle comments. Then I will help you. until then your a waste of time.

And your mother was a charlaten :)

so explain the relevance of this phrase if you're so smart,

morning of the magicians

what's a chakra, what is the relevance to Ledbetters and Beasants work.

what's Theosophy?

10 seconds.

.

you lied and tried to bluffasifthatwereananswer...

you know like on the street....ahngoingakillyousodeadyoucanttouchmeanmahboyz

right.
sure.

b.s.

trash talking and walking.

.

alright tough guy. Next week then. Well see what you have. you add nothing. I will give you nothing until you've earned it.

What did you post today to add to anything? But you are a theosophical? Yet you come to lie spin and discredit? Divide and conquer? Nope. the ideals are not compatable. If you are like me, you would help others grow. Not try and rip others down with garbage. You don't have the power to bring me down. You got nothing.

clinton is down tough guy. No amount of anger on the internet will change that.

http://www.theosophical.org/

i was once part of this group. i gave them a verbal lashing because when I mentioned krish, they got angry. they WORShip Ledbetter to the point they are the same as the church. The society and the books she wrote replaced the teachings and the quest for enlightenment.

Now you rmy teacher? Testing me. What do you want to know that you do not know? you cannot trick me.

you're a dumb kid you even talk street, no class.

.

heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy....

the guy is a fake, a charlatan, a spook pretending to be a caring person...

he's a crawford salaaaaaaaaaaaaami sucker...

poseur in herd.

.I'll catch you next week and demonstrate again....poseur

.

So your wasting my time then? ok.

you do not seek enlightenment. Ok

You are a gop cult clown that comes to lie spin and discredit. divide and conquer. Ok.

that may work if I hadn't come across hundreds of thousands of you pigs. What do you add to the conversation? What good are you?

Answer that and I will help you. Otherwise go to wiki and learn about something you don't know, rather than mocking. you got nothing. this is my site buster.

When you make one point, then I'll respect you .so far you got nothing gop. Your party is done. Clinton is done. If you want enlightenment, rad the archieves.

My old post name is rufus and rufus1133.

I'm done with you. You are of no worth.

In terms or leaving then coming back. It's a trick I like to use. Really pisses off the authoritarian goper's like you. I like to do that. Helping to balance out fox.

What do you got tough guy.

you can't mess with an former Army infantry soldier 11b, in verbal combat. Everyone else here does not approch me anymore. Why? You cannot beat me. you can try. But if you read the archeives you will see I am never wrong and you cannot spin me around. So do you worst. any independant thinker here see's you for what we are. I took this site much beyond a point where you dittohead clones can break it would peanut gallery comments. Try again. Come stronger next time.

Making his closing argument to Nevada voters, Mr. Obama spent an unusual amount of time dwelling on Mrs. Clinton. He repeatedly invoked her by name, reflecting a sense by some Democrats here -- and worry among his own advisers -- that she holds an advantage going into the caucuses on Saturday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/us/politics/18cnd-campaign.html?hp

just as I thought,

the depth of your information is google...

what a poseur.

....who are the SAUDIS to the United States?

what is their relevance to the bush family and the brits?

.

so explain the relevance of this phrase if you're so smart,

morning of the magicians

what's a chakra, what is the relevance to Ledbetters and Beasants work.

what's Theosophy?

10 seconds.

.

What knowledge do you seek? If you are for real.

I will enlighen you. By you elementary school tactics I know you are a moron. But I like helping morons. What knowledge do you really seek about krishnamurti? The true meaning? How deep are you willing to go? Or better yet, what are you willing to sacrafice right now for the knowledge>?

help me?

ha ha ha....

what get paid like you?

you couldn't even hold your own in a discussion about perception much less understand the relevance of it in picking a candidate....

your own spin is rather _borrowed_

far as I can see you're a paid disinformationist... no one asked you for lessons, although YOU sorely need them.

it should take about 3 posts to uncover the ichor of your true nature,

"thepriceisright,"

.

well sh*t. noone's here now but me and you. What do you want to know? I was part of teh leadbeter society you talked about. What do you seek, if I know I'll help you cut your chains

Come back next week tough guy telsa. when I feel like verbal combat. then we will see what you know and how smart you are. Until then research.

I will spill all the krish enlightenment possible next week if that is what time it is. CC may have to ban me again. I can take it. I can take being the only one who lives with being banned here. As long as what I keep saying comes to pass and obama or edwards wins, I'm cool.

so play your games propogandist cowards. My will is happening. anyone mocking or playing peanut gallery games, you have zero power. ENjoy your irrelevance. You've earned it.

Chatter boxes. Now squak about that with has no bearing

oh,

another tactic is to say, "I am leaving."

hey sweet thing. I left and got some lunch and groceries.

now I am here to teach you "the way," since apparently you haven't understood anything Krishnamurti wrote,

although I did find most of it pabluum.

I prefer, mysticism, buddhism, cognitive psychology, pattern recognition, Hazrat Inyaht Khan, Rumi, Aquinas, Merton, Bon Po, and the teachings of the Repa's...

but I am sure that you prefer getting paid.

.

Whatever clown. I'm not your teacher. Send me checks and I'll start teaching you. otherwise do your own reasearch. i am a true follower of the great world teacher. Say what you want. you are a joke. Any independant thinker could see you. I've read the books in question. Did you see my response regarding the order of the star?

Why waste my time on you? If your reason is valid I will help you. You are a coward propogandist. Why should I waste my time. I'll give you all the info on enlightenment and krish you want, if you rprove worthy, or write a check. Otherwise what about you would make me waste my time outlining?

I'll expect crickets. Your not worth my time. Or are you?

Better yet do you rown research. My posts in themselves are testement to krishnamurti. If you knew anything about him or or his movement you would see that. The fact that you can't shows YOUR FACE.

the SAUDIS are historically what we made them...

I asked a Navy friend of mine what our relationship with them was....the Royals visited our offices occaisionally in Springfield VA....Cherokee street

he said "we help them make decisions."

.

"isn't that a giant corporate welfare program that collects money from taxpayers for the benefit of corporations' shareholders? "

Bsimon -- you benefit from the existence of the B-2 Stealth Bomber.'

And so do the shareholders. However, they get a financial return on their investment, and I don't.

Adrick,

There is a strong pro-democracy, pro american movement in Iran. the government doesn't like us much, but most of the people do. Iranian society is fairly modern and educated, and women have rights. There is even a large Jewish community in Tehran which practices its relgion freely. Saudi Arabia, however is backward and monolithically Wahhabist and while the royals may like us--they are getting very wealthy from our oil money -- the people in general hate us.

That is why I say Saudi is far more dangerous and much more of a breeding ground for terrorists.

hey rufus,

you couldn't answer questions about Krishnamurti, because it's a cover...

and you are GOP, or at least paid by them...

you are a cardboard cut out....walking by a fence

pretending....show up again and I'll show you how to dance,

you need. You as dumb as mike.

another clicheinmotion.

.

Chris I have to call it the way I see it

Chris you are a wuss for not being willing to call the Obama - Hillary race

Sorry, it's true. You have to take a stand, the voters have to choose. You can too. What is so wrong about being wrong? Hey, apparently you have an opportunity to change your mind every week, so why don't you just make a call?

Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

"HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills."

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress twice.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!

Correction: I wrote that Iran is driving the extremism.

I should have written that Iran drove the extremism, but now it has taken on a life of it's own.

Attempting to pacify it's own fundamentalist pressures by co-opting Iran's return to the 7th century, the Saudi's, in the late '70's and throughout the '80's, unleashed (and funded) the Radical Islam with which we are contending with today.

But remember, ultimately, WE finance it by buying their OIL.

sorry about the douche comment. You're just being stubborn.

I'm out. Have a nice weekend.

dave writes
"However, my understanding is that the Democratic party is the party of FDR (an strong and active federal government that provides federally-supported public works and social programs)."

Both parties have their flaws, which is why I don't owe allegiance to either. Most people think I'm a Dem, and I probaly lean that way right now because the GOP has fouled things up so badly over the last several years. Ignoring that opinion, if we may, heres' my philosophy:

The Repubs are important to the political process when they focus on fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility, to me, means a low cost-benefit ratio, where we maximize benefits relative to costs. To the degree that Dems 'throw money at problems' that is a problem. But the intentions are important; particularly in terms of insuring that we properly educate our future workforce. I'm a huge proponent of early childhood development programs & properly funding (and holding accountable) schools, because these kids are going to be running the country when I'm trying to enjoy retirement. Selfish, I know.

Both parties have flaws; while the dems seem willing to 'throw money at the problem' when it comes to social programs, the Repubs have the same trait when it comes to the military & crime. Crime rates up? Don't focus on what drives people to a life of crime - hire more cops & build more prisons! Yes, rather than making sure kids have an education & a chance to lead productive lives, lets just make sure we have enough jail cells built in time to incarcerate them for most of their adult lives.

I'll stop my rant here, though there's certainly more where that came from.

I'm not just referring to Iraq.

We began researching it (in earnest) during the cold war. We out-spent and bankrupted them.

The B-2 was part of that.

You benefit. Don't be a douche

"The processes the DoD uses to monitor and approve the procurements is flawed."

Exactly. Change the processes.

Claudia: yes, Turkey hates the partition solution, because they have their own independently-minded Kurd minority to contend with. Turkey is concerned that it's Kurds might want sovereignty...

The situation with Saudi Arabia is exceedingly complex. Yes, they are funding our enemies: the adherents to Wahhabi Islam which is virulently anti-American. In fact, Saudi Arabia is THE breeding ground for Wahhabi thinking -- going all the way back to 1744.

BUT... Saudi Arabia helped, greatly, fund resistance groups against the Russians during the '70's and '80's. They matched the U.S. dollar-for-dollar in funding the 7 main resistance groups in Afghanistan against the Russians.

I would simply it by saying the Saudi goevernment is "with us" to a certain extent, but many of the Saudi people want to kill us. But the Saudi people are being educated in Wahhabi schools financed by the Saudi geovernment. Still, the government is one of our allies in the region. They helped us immensely against Russia and they helped us evict Hussein from Kuwait. They also are the true leaders of the Arab world.

Iran, I mention, because when Ayatollah Khomeini's returned from exile in February, 1979, a violent anti-Americanism was unleashed.

The Royal Saud family has always had a difficult time -- since it's founding in 1932 -- subordinating religion to politics in the kingdom.

When this ascetic fundamentalism was unleashed in neighboring Iran, the Saudi Monarchy let it's own religious fanatics loose. They also began pouring -- literally -- billions of dollars into their Wahhabi schools throughout Saudi Arabia (and throughout the Middle East).

We indirectly financed these schools by buying their oil.

So...

Saudi Arabia is the leader of the Islamic world, but Iran is driving the extremism.

bsimon

Some military technology does find its way into the civilian market - GPS is the most recent, notable example. Historically, the first computers were developed to crack codes in WWII. Some of it must be kept secret for security reasons.

bsimon - "Proud asked for a couple examples, I listed a couple off the top of my head. The point is that her stereotype (and yours) of Dems is not as accurate as you would like to believe. That is not to say that Dems don't get a bit overzealous in their proscriptions for solivng problems we face as a country. They certainly do. But it is not true 100% of the time."

First off, you are correct that "always" is probably a hard criteria to meet. Secondly, I'd like to believe my, um, sterotype of Dems is not as accurate as I currently do. Where I got my "the same amount of spending by replacing it with another program" from was your comment that said "Killing the program will therefore save the cost of the program and open the door to pursuing alternatives." If by other alternatives you meant something other than another federal solution, my apologies for letting my perceived notions cloud my judgement. However, my understanding is that the Democratic party is the party of FDR (an strong and active federal government that provides federally-supported public works and social programs). There is, typically, some truth behind sterotypes. I won't say always but I struggle to recall hearing Democrats commonly stating that a problem was not the Federal governments to fix, but I will try to be more atune to it from now on. And this by no means suggests that Republicans are immune from going down the same road.

"you benefit from the existence of the B-2 Stealth Bomber."

As cool an aircraft as that is, there is no doubt in my mind that we would have prevailed in Iraq & Afghanistan with or without it.

bsimon

The free market is producing the product. The problems stem, in part, from the government's tendency to keep introducing design changes into the process and the ineherent riskiness of producing cutting edge technology. The processes the DoD uses to monitor and approve the procurements is flawed. Also there are so few companies producing certain items that a classic free market doesn't exist for many systems.

Part II, learning from ideas like the X-prize, some groups are starting to conduct research by contest. Offer a prize & all the sudden people (and industry) get excited to participate. NASA has been doing some of this, as has DARPA, if you've seen any of the press on the autonomous vehicle challenges over the past couple years. Certainly those programs aren't as large as star wars, v-22 or f22, but it certainly implies that there's more than one way to skin a cat, as they say.

"isn't that a giant corporate welfare program that collects money from taxpayers for the benefit of corporations' shareholders? "

Bsimon -- you benefit from the existence of the B-2 Stealth Bomber.

Jim's right-

In business school, I studied big pharma.

They have massive, 10-15 yr developments and big pipelines, with lots of drugs in each stage of research.

Bsimon -- folks like you (not saying YOU) get mad at big pharma for charging what they charge for their drugs.

Imagine that, but on a MASSIVE scale when it comes to the successful production of a new weapons system. After all, industry has to survive, so it has to recoup its costs on all the dead ends it took to get there.

You don't want that hogwash.

"This kind of R & D is so expensive that the only feasible way is to have the government fund it."

My primary beef with gov't funding is who benefits from the investment. When NASA does research, the knowledge gets shared. When Lockheed or MD or Boeing do the research, the results are usually considered proprietary, are they not?

Ignoring the feasibility aspect for a moment, isn't that a giant corporate welfare program that collects money from taxpayers for the benefit of corporations' shareholders?

Considering the inherent problems in dealing with cutting edge technology, the idea that industry will do this on their own in the hope of selling something to DoD is wildly impractical. There are so many dead ends in the research that for every idea that makes it into production there are many more that never see the light of day. This kind of R & D is so expensive that the only feasible way is to have the government fund it.

JimD, when you say "[t]he procuement system is seriously flawed and almost designed to produce cost overruns," doesn't that seem like a prime candidate for the free market producing a better result than something the gov't controls? In other words, would not private industry be a bit more concerned with cost & waste if they were wasting their own dollars rather than taxpayers'?

"JD is absolutely right about the impossibility of industry funding R & D."

Hogwash. Just because thats how its done now does not mean its the only way it can be done.

bsimon

JD is absolutely right about the impossibility of industry funding R & D. He is also right that when you are dealing with cutting edge technology problems are inevitable. WIth most sytems the problems are worked out.

JD - Does your familiarity extend to major weapons systems procurement that runs into many billions of dollars? I was a financial manager for such a program and have dealt with fairly high level Navy budgeting for systems. The procuement system is seriously flawed and almost designed to produce cost overruns. Too many times problematic systems are rushed into production before design problems are ironed out. Sometimes there is a rationale for that - 70-80% of a cutting edge system was better than not having it. However, that is not so in every case. Also, intra and inter service politics become almost, and at times more, important than the merits of the system itself.

Program managers and their chain of command tend to take ownership of a system and it almost becomes irrelevant how well or badly the system performs. The Air Force A-10 program cancelled by Cheney is the poster boy for that. The Osprey has legions of critics within the military. Its very serious problems have persisted far past the point at which they are resolved for most systems.

'Or how about defining victory as no attacks on US soil in over 6 years?'

We didn't have any attacks on our soil for how many years before 9/11? And what did that prove?

mlalliso - thanks for your illumination

'Current plans call for building 458 Ospreys for $37.3 billion, or more than $80 million apiece, with the Marines receiving 360 Ospreys, the Navy 48 and the Air Force 50. The first prototype flew in 1989. As of early 2000 three test aircraft had crashed: no one was killed in the 1991 crash, an accident in 1992 killed seven men, and the third in April 2000 killed 19 Marines.'

Tha doesn't sound like much of an investment to me. But hey, that's just taxpayer dollars, not shareholder dollars, so what the hell. Dick Cheney, when he was at DoD, opposed it as too expensive, interestingly enough.

'Your idea of asking industry to self-fund the R&D is insane.'

Once again, socialize the costs, privatize the profits. If shareholders gain a profit on taxpayer investment, then taxpayers should too.

Addrick -- Biden's solution is one now advocated by Iraq's defense minister. Turkey hates the idea. But everything that is happening now was all predicted by people opposing the war before it ever started.

I agree with you about about the Saudis and madrassas, too, the Saudis are the real enemy. It's no coincidnce tht nearly all the 9/11 culprits came out of there. So Bush just sold them $20 billion of advanced weaponry, and pled with them for more. They took the weapons which they will undoubtely use on us at some point -- as you recall, we trained and equipped the mujadeen in Afghanistan, who later became al-queda. And of course, everyone knows that virtually every terrorist training camp today is operating freely in Pakistan, with the collusion of the government.

Iran though, I don't see as that much of a threat. They talk big but they've never actually attacked us and I don't think they're stupid enough to do so...

Here is one conservative columnist's take on what he and I feel is an irrational dislike of McCain by conservatives.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3207017.ece

Mike - McCain doesn't call himself the "architect of the surge" in any of the number of speeches I have heard from him listening to POTUS-08. What he says is that he was calling for a troop increase for a long time prior to the surgen (absolute truth). When the surge started, John Edwards began referring to it as the "McCain surge". Then he says he'd be proud to have it called the McCain surge. That is the context.

As a delegate to the 2000 Democratic National Convention, I would like to respond to the reference made by one poster about not wanting to see a back-room deal brokered. What you need to realize is that delegates for the DNC pledge a first choice. So an Edwards delegate would only be pledged to vote for Edwards on the first ballot. After that ballot, the delegate is allowed to make his or her own judgment on the merits of the candidates. You can better believe that delegates take these responsibilities quite seriously. Just because one candidate suggests that another is the choice, does not mean that this pledged delegate would follow that lead. I, for one, would not have allowed that pledged status to alter my own viewpoints on a second ballot. It becomes a judgment call at that point and delegates tend to be very well-attuned to national political ramifications of their choice.

Further, Edwards (a fine man) would not necessarily be in a place to demand the vice presidency. I think the strongest ticket for the Democratic party is a Clinton-Obama pairing (best of both worlds). You better believe that would be a really serious consideration of delegates on the floor of a national convention.

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States.

JD, bsimon, and USMC_Mike,

As it happens, I was involved in military procurement for 20 years of a 35 year career (first 10 years was using the products of military procurement--so I really like it when it works. Last 5 years, much more commercial than DoD work). Following is only an opinion, but it is an informed opinion.

V-22 is a love-it/hate-it. Love the proposed capabilities, not sure if it will ever be fully capable at a realistic cost. Unfortunately, final judgment may be kind of like that of the B-2...great platform, unrivaled capabilities...might have been better to spend that astounding amount of money on something that gave us more than 20 airframes.

Military command structure fell out of love with the Osprey around 2000...it's been kept alive since then far more by the support of vendors and Congress than by the military. They might or might not have solved the unexpected "ring vortex" problem that killed a couple dozen folks. Still has the potential of providing a solution that no number of pure rotor craft ever will, but at what additional cost?

As always, no single right answer--at least none that will be available except in hindsight.

"War is a violent clash of interests between or among organized groups characterized by the use of military force."

C. C. Krulak
Commandant, USMC
MCDP-1 Warfighting

You're not the only one who gets to define war. And Clausewitz is not the only famous warfighter.

"how many of them would have been terrorists if we had not invaded"

I won't be changing your mind on the blame-America-first attitude. But your defeatism has endured through our history.

"terrorists came to Iraq to be able to take potshots at US troops."

This is called WINNING.

Wouldn't you rather them shoot at a US Marine in Iraq, who is trained to shoot back (with deadlier force), than to shoot a US citizen in NYC?

It seems that if you accept either of our definitions of war, we are winning, and should continue to do so (God willing).

Either killing the enemy in as great of numbers as possible is winning (Krulak),

Or, preventing the enemy from killing us on our soil (surely an extension of politics) is winning (Clausowitz).

Here's my cheap shot at a Navy man -- I like the USMC's definition of war better. It has the word violent in it. It's that violence that is our legacy, from which we draw upon - the legacy of Belleau Woods, Iwo Jima, Inchon, etc. But we do need taxis too ;)

"the taxpayer should happily fund the R&D, the results of which (i.e. knowledge) are kept by the contractor, whom we then pay on a per-unit basis for the end product. A nice deal, if you can get it."

What did Eisenhower say as he left office?

"Beware the military-industrial comlex."

He was right.

p.s.
bsimon, you posts are very well-reasoned... I appreciate that on this board.

JD writes
"Your idea of asking industry to self-fund the R&D is insane. No offense intended."

Controversial, perhaps. 'Insane' might be a bit over the top though. I'll point it out again: you're arguing that if the Marines want a weapons system, they should get it - independent of cost or feasibility. Furthermore, you're saying the taxpayer should happily fund the R&D, the results of which (i.e. knowledge) are kept by the contractor, whom we then pay on a per-unit basis for the end product. A nice deal, if you can get it.

And, in the end, you're agreeing: the free market doesn't always work on its own & sometimes government intervention is necessary in order to achieve results that would otherwise not occur on their own.

HRC hasn't really sharpened her message; she's just added more negative swipes at Obama. If anything, she's sounding more and more like a technocrat (memories of Mike Dukakis, anyone?). Meanwhile, she and Bill are both playing the terror angle (references to attacks in the UK; Obama as a 'risky' choice). Neither of those lines is very promising as a winning formula in November.

"Our government has less influence over the Maliki sectarian Shiite government than Iran does."

This is one of the unintended consequences that this conquest has bequeathed us...

I agree with most of what you've written JimD, but I do not think that Sunni and Shi'a CAN reconcile. I do not think a political reconciliation is in the cards.

So, what do we do? Stay there for decades like McCain suggests? What would be the cost to the US taxpayer for THAT!? How many of our young people would die?

I liked Biden's plan of dividing the "country" (Iraq was a creation of Britain and France, carved out of the old Ottoman Empire following WWI) into 3 sections: Shi'a in the south, Sunni in the center and Kurd in the north. Although this might cause trouble for our ally, Turkey. Again, unintended consequences.

Only candidates with a real shot of winning should make "The Line." This eliminates F. Thompson & John Edwards from contention.

Republicans:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Guiliani
4. Huckabee

McCain is the clear frontrunner with the military vote in South Carolina. He should win there, but Huckabee is on his trial with the Fair Tax plan & social conservatism. If McCain wins, he likely eliminates Huck from the race & wins Huckabee's endorsement. He also likely eliminates Thompson & win his endorsement. What victories for McCain tommorrow with a win in South Carolina, especially if he eliminates Huckabee & F. Thompson from contention & wins both endorsements! I think Romney wins in Nevada. If that happens, he moves on to Florida with momentum of his own. I also believe Duncan Hunter exits the race, and with what little to no good it does, Hunter will likely endorse Romney. That is something for Romney to tout, knowing that Hunter is popular among defense based conservatives. Then McCain & Romney take their momentum & organization into Florida to face & try to eliminate Rudy Guiliani before Feb. 5. We won't speculate on Florida this week, as we see what actually happens in SC & Nevada.

Democrats:
1. Barack Obama
2. Hillary Clinton

I rate Obama ahead just by a hair. But, he has Kerry's endorsement and should have an influx of fundraising from Kerry's fundraising list for Feb. 5. This is huge for Obama. Clinton, though, will sling more mud & characterize Obama as unfit more ways than we can imagine. We will see what happens in this very tough, and soon to be brutal, fight for the D. nomination.

bsimon, if you're looking for perfect weapons system development, then it's a quixotic quest. Stuff happens, especially when you're trying to invent game changers.

USMC says they want this platform. They say it's required for their mission. I believe them.

Do a little research, go check out DD 21, Littoral Combat Ship, F22, JSF, Commanche, and Crusader. See how that went. Short version: stuff happens. If you want to stay leaps ahead of the Chinese et al, you have to be willing to pay that price.

Your idea of asking industry to self-fund the R&D is insane. No offense intended.

All of this seems pretty simple to me.

There is only one "CHANGE" candidate on either side; Obama and Huckabee.They are both REAL.
BUT
I do believe America has something about the separation of Church and State going on? I mean, we used to?
And Huckabee, although he otherwise seems like he would be a strong candidate, should not come out and say he wants to change our Constitution to refelct "the ten commandments." Shouldn't we be reflecting them in our personal lives every day anyway?
What about Habius Corpus - maybe we could BRING THAT BACK? Or, oh, I donno - possibly DO something about being wiretapped or putting people in Gitmo for YEARS without representation and no proven crime? YEAH, let's change the constituion some more.

There is only one Real Thing out there. No matter what race, what religion, or best intentions of each of them. While Hillary takes credit for Bills years in office, she also has to take the blame. As for his anger over Ken Starr, etc. who can blame him? But his anger is visible on the campaign trail. Seeing him now just makes me sad.

The Clintons bring a new mafia to Washington to replace the one we have. Guliani is a criminal. Mitt is a hypocrite. McCain is the best the Republicans have as far as electability and that's sad too.

Obama may seem inexperienced to those who have not actually looked at what he as accomplished in his many mnay years of public service. His suit seems pretty full to me. He is both white and black, folks. There are a lot of mixed race people in the world. I have two mixed race neices and that's only one originally 'white' family. Who is really 'white" anyway? This whole thing is like country clubs.

Hillary wants to beat the Republicans.

Obama wants to help us change a broken government - it will take more than politicians to do that. It will take all of us.

Time to stop bickering. As Barack says - "Let's go out and change the world."

I refuse to believe this cannot be done.

Mike,

As I have pointed out before, war is "a continuation of politics by other means" (Clausewitz's famous definition). We should have a clear understanding of what we want to achieve by going to war. "Killing terrorists by the boatload" is fine but how many of them would have been terrorists if we had not invaded. The actual al Qaeda contingent in Iraq is 5-10% of the total combatants by our own government's estimates. These terrorists came to Iraq to be able to take potshots at US troops. The Sunni insurgents and the Shia militia are fighting as a direct result of our invasion.

As for the invasion - the "shock and awe" was brilliant. We did not need more troops to achieve that mission, we needed more troops for the occupation. The delusional thinking that informed what passed for pre-invasion planning borders on criminal negligence. The stubborn refusal of high level administration officials to recognize what we were facing there was breathtakingly stupid.

I say all this as someone who recognizes that we cannot withdraw our troops until some level of stability is achieved. I still cannot find any evidence of a coherent political strategy to bring the main Iraqi factions to agreement on a compromise political settlement. Our government has less influence over the Maliki sectarian Shiite government than Iran does.

USMC_Mike:

Saddam was NOT behind 9/11. Saddam did NOT have WMD. This is NOT about ridding the world of a tyrant we supported throughout the '80's, this is NOT about spreading 'democracy'.

It is about oil.

The real enemy is Wahhabi Islam that is spreading throughout the Muslim World and the radical strain of Shi'a Islam that's been thriving in Iran since February, 1979.

JD, I actually don't wish to joust with you on the subject, but the following excerpt from the wiki makes my point:

"The V-22's development processes have been long and controversial. When the development budget, first set at $2.5 billion in 1986, had reached $30 billion in 1988, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney zeroed out the budget, but was overruled by Congress. With its first flight in 1989, the V-22 has been in development for more than 25 years and despite having consumed $20 billion the Osprey program will require another $35 billion in investments from the Pentagon before the program is finished. A total of 458 V-22s are expected to be built for the Marines, U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy at an average unit cost of $110 million per aircraft."

Powell's view of war is a fairytale. [;)]

He sees it as a scientific process, with a predictable outcome based on controlling variables and calculating probabilities.

It can't account for human will, the fog of war, the unpredictable.

He was so afraid of casualties he wasn't willing to do his job. Can you imagine if U. S. Grant had the same problem?

What would Patton say?

Powell's doctrine is as wussy as any bully you ever stood up to. Bullies fight weaklings, but tough men stand up to tough challenges.

Does Bobby Fischer get a standing ovation for beating a 3rd grader, or for beating the Russian Chess Machine?

Why should Powell get credit for beating up and taking a smaller kid's lunch money?

What happens when that kid stands up to you?

That's what happened in Somalia. We got our asses kicked by a bunch of rag-tag punks.

"Dear MAtthew,

From the beginning of this campaign, Barack has pledged to be open and honest with the American people -- to tell us what we need to know, not just what we want to hear. That kind of honesty is at the core of our movement, because if we adopt Karl Rove campaign tactics of deception and fear, we're never going to change Washington and bring the country together to get things done.

Over the last few days, those same old tactics have come to Nevada.

Hillary Clinton has sent direct mail pieces to Nevadans distorting Barack's position on Social Security.
She is on the radio deliberately confusing voters about his long-standing opposition to Yucca Mountain.
She is on TV misleading people about his outspoken position against the war in Iraq.
But perhaps most disturbing, Clinton has attacked Barack on his 100% pro-choice record.

The tone of Senator Clinton's campaign has been so negative that even her supporters are saying enough is enough. Lorna Brett, a former Clinton donor and president of Chicago National Organization for Women, had this to say about the tactics:

"I was disappointed that Hillary Clinton would launch misleading attacks on Barack Obama and his unimpeachable record on a woman's right to choose. I have switched my support to Barack Obama because I know the truth. I cannot be a part of that kind of deceptive politics."
It is time to turn