I have been reading that the benefits of the HCR bill don't take effect until 2014. Is that correct? The taxes to pay for the benefits go into effect immediately? If this is true, then my criticism of the bill is that it is little more than a tax bill. Not that I think that is a bad thing. The extreme deficit spending of Washington is going to cause a financial meltdown if it continues. But if we are going to address the deficit, we should go at it directly, from both the spending and tax side.

Matt Tabbai and Robert Kuttner? That's as funny as the promo I saw early Sunday morning: "Coming up on Meet The Press....David Axelrod and Howard Dean debate the health care plan." The mainstream media is an accomplice to the admin and congress' crime of passing the worst bill in our lifetimes.
The only way I would have respected B Obama regarding the Nobel would have been if he had accepted the award on behalf of the US government with emphasis on the armed forces, the greatest engine of freedom and peace of the 20th century. Instead he just furthered his meme that 'the US is no better than any other country so let me help you loot its unjust riches'.

I have been reading that the benefits of the HCR bill don't take effect until 2014.

There is no way they want the effects of the goverment takeover to be felt until after Obama has been safely re-elected (I think right now a wait to see an orthopedic surgeon in the US is 16 days and in Canada it's 16 weeks). It was also the only way they could make their fake numbers show costs going down, which is absurd.

Quoting harkin: Matt Tabbai and Robert Kuttner?

That's as funny as the promo I saw early Sunday morning:

I think I saw these two on Bill Moyers' show last weekend. Two liberals wringing their hands over the inadequecy of the bill. The difference was one (Tabbai) wanted to kill the bill, while the other wanted it passed so the camel's nose would be in the tent. What makes me angry about the right is that when they had the power and they could have made an effort to fix the problems, which I see as an unwarranted rise in the cost of health care insurance and people with pre-existing conditions being in the position of not being able to afford insurance, they did nothing. Now they are crying about not being paid attention to. They're all deeply flawed.

Quoting badhatharry: What makes me angry about the right is that when they had the power and they could have made an effort to fix the problems, which I see as an unwarranted rise in the cost of health care insurance and people with pre-existing conditions being in the position of not being able to afford insurance, they did nothing. Now they are crying about not being paid attention to.

They're all deeply flawed.

And if what I have written is true, the Rebublicans are as much to blame for this bill as the Democrats.

"The evil men do lives after them" Shakespeare How true. Here is a highly schematic flow chart: 1. European anti-Semitism (evil) drives the Jews out of Europe. 2. They land in Middle-East (courtesy of Balfour Declaration) which, from the Arab/Muslim point of view, is a foreign invasion/act of aggression and therefore evil. 3. The Palestinians fight back against Israel, who respond in kind, with no end in sight. 4. The Muslim world as a whole fights back against Israel's allies in the West (9/11) who respond in kind (Afghanistan) with no end in sight. 5. Meanwhile, Europe, having purged itself of evil (Nazism, its "Jewish problem"), looks upon the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an innocent bystander. Conclusion: The evil men do lives after them like the furies in a Greek tragedy. Is there any way out? Maybe not. But I suggest the EU acknowledge Europe's original sin (culpability) and offer to compensate the Palestinian people for the wrongs they have suffered. If generous enough, compensation would address the sense of grievance and humiliation felt throughout the Muslim world. Little known fact in the West: the principle of compensation is recognized in both Arab culture and Islamic law and civilization. To end a blood feud the guilty party must pay

good post noah. during that ridiculous exchange, i started to understand more why some people think "liberal" is a dirty word. It was as if the word "evil" made them completely incapable of rational thought or analysis. by far the most disappointing conversation i've ever seen between these two. decent conversation about the health care "reform" at least.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: Little known fact in the West: the principle of compensation is recognized in both Arab culture and Islamic law and civilization. To end a blood feud the guilty party must pay blood money to the innocent victim.

This could be a great solution with the caveat that the amount be specified, that it only need be paid once and that once it's paid the conflict will end. This seems unlikely. Victims like to hold on to grievances. It's part of the dance.

I agree with Glenn that Obama's rhetorical modulations have been what he (Obama) believes are the wisest choices in terms of accomplishing his goals in the current political environment.
Personally, I'm not convinced that Obama could have done better on government option in the health care bill if he'd pushed harder for it, twisted arms, made LBJ-style threats, etc., as some critics have said. I mean, the opposition from the right-wingers and the center-right, etc. was awfully stubborn. My jury is still out on Obama's effectiveness, but, so far, I think he might be doing as well as can be hoped for in our insanely polarized political reality.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: Is there any way out? Maybe not. But I suggest the EU acknowledge Europe's original sin (culpability) and offer to compensate the Palestinian people for the wrongs they have suffered. If generous enough, compensation would address the sense of grievance and humiliation felt throughout the Muslim world.

You might as well run it all the way back to the Romans, Babylonians, and Egyptians while you're at it.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: Little known fact in the West: the principle of compensation is recognized in both Arab culture and Islamic law and civilization. To end a blood feud the guilty party must pay blood money to the innocent victim.

The world ought to build on this principle.

You mean like in this Star Trek episode?

I do think, though, that Joshua is making a point worth considering about when Obama employs rhetorical "poetry" and when he doesn't.
I do always keep in mind that the most present father figure in Obama's youth was his maternal grandfather, a white WWII veteran from Kansas - ( if I have my facts right).
I think the reason used the term "evil" when he got the Nobel Prize was that he was addressing a group that promotes the morality of peace. I think it was necessary for him to justify his actions against al Qaeda when he was getting that prize. And it was necessary to say that some wars to defend against external threats are not immoral. I think it's fair for him to define the people who knocked down the World Trade Center and now seek nuclear weapons in Pakistan (next door to Afghanistan) as "evil."

I think Obama did look carefully at all sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan-alQaeda-Taliban-Karzai situation, listening to everyone in the room, applied his intelligence and came up with the best choice he could.
Is Obama weak? Can he be rolled? So far, I'm not convinced by his critics. Not so far anyhow.

Quoting Markos: I agree with Glenn that Obama's rhetorical modulations have been what he (Obama) believes are the wisest choices in terms of accomplishing his goals in the current political environment.
Personally, I'm not convinced that Obama could have done better on government option in the health care bill if he'd pushed harder for it, twisted arms, made LBJ-style threats, etc., as some critics have said. I mean, the opposition from the right-wingers and the center-right, etc. was awfully stubborn. My jury is still out on Obama's effectiveness, but, so far, I think he might be doing as well as can be hoped for in our insanely polarized political reality.

I've had it with most of the liberal carping about Obama. Do people really want him to go and punch Joe Lieberman in the nuts? How is that going to get Lieberman's vote? Is that really what LBJ did? Did LBJ punch people in the nuts? Or did he use mind-control? What? Arg. Anyway, what John Sides said. I think Obama's played a bad hand as well as anyone could have. The reason he's getting exactly 60 votes in the Senate is because he worked for the most liberal bill he could get (well, that and Republican

i stopped listening after claims that Hayek would have loved the Health Insurance Mandate bill.

Quoting claymisher: I've had it with most of the liberal carping about Obama. Do people really want him to go and punch Joe Lieberman in the nuts? How is that going to get Lieberman's vote? Is that really what LBJ did? Did LBJ punch people in the nuts? Or did he use mind-control? What?

Arg. Anyway, what John Sides said.

I think Obama's played a bad hand as well as anyone could have. The reason he's getting exactly 60 votes in the Senate is because he worked for the most liberal bill he could get (well, that and Republican intransigence). If people are unhappy with health care reform they need to stop whining about Obama and get working to net two more progressive Senators in 2010.

This is exactly what I believe. (But, I'll admit, suckering Lieberman isn't a completely charmless thought.)

Quoting moosecat: i stopped listening after claims that Hayek would have loved the Health Insurance Mandate bill.

Nobody loves this bill. It's a compromise. As for Hayek, here's what he said:

Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong ...

Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.

9/11 wasn't about Israel, but you're right about Europe recognizing their sins though. It'd be cool if Germany gave all the Jews of the world some lebensraum inside Germany. They could even build a new Temple on the old Nazi field in Nürnberg. ... and the EU and the U.S. already provide compensation to the Palestinians. How do you think Yasser Arafat became so rich?

You support reparations for slavery too?

Quoting badhatharry: This could be a great solution with the caveat that the amount be specified, that it only need be paid once and that once it's paid the conflict will end.

This seems unlikely. Victims like to hold on to grievances. It's part of the dance.

Good point, badhat. If I were a Palestinian I would not settle for less than a Western standard of living for my children and grandchildren (including guaranteed civil liberties and democratic rights). And if I were an Israeli I would insist upon an ongoing program of aid and investment whose continuance would be contingent upon a future Palestinian state honoring the terms of any final settlement. I would guess the price to be around a trillion dollars spread over a generation.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: You support reparations for slavery too?

No. But you have got to start somewhere. This would be a good place because the whole world has an interest in the outcome.

So Josh wants health-care to be a right and then complains on how hard it is to keep costs down. But it's actually not that difficult of a question. The way to drive prices down is to have people pay out-of-pocket for their health-care. There's no reason why cancer medicine has to be so expensive. It is right now, because providers can get away with it. There's a huge pot of public money out there and health-care providers take too much out of it in a classic tragedy of the commons scenario. Competition does wonders for costs: look at how sophisticated cars have gotten, and cars are made of actual stuff. Medicines on the other hand cost almost nothing (marginally). It's all in the investment up-front: research etc...
There's no reason why providers can't compete, cutting costs, finding innovations and driving prices down. What's really scary about the current reform is all the innovations that we won't get because the fat cats will be happy to get fatter with no extra effort (by law). About the "Hayek point" that Josh makes, I don't know where to begin. Let me just say

Of course not.

Quoting AemJeff: This is exactly what I believe. (But, I'll admit, suckering Lieberman isn't a completely charmless thought.)

The best he could do? GMAFB. He danced in this spring/summer, threw the ball to the Democrats in Congress...told them to keep the ball away as best they could (NC 4-corner) from Republicans (and the American people) and now... here we are in December with them making weekend, middle of the night bills without a single Republican in their corner forcing a vote on Christmas eve. Obama has done nothing but clap from the sidelines like an ugly cheerleader. Oh and need I mention what the poll numbers on the bill look like How about leadership? How about instead of ramming a partisan piece of bullshit through, a leader and his bipartisan congress brainstorming on what works and what doesn't while making both sides feel a part of it while at the same time taking the best healthcare system in the world and making it better. How about that? The best he could do. God, I hope not.

Quoting Whatfur: The best he could do? GMAFB. He danced in this spring/summer, threw the ball to the Democrats in Congress...told them to keep the ball away as best they could (NC 4-corner) from Republicans (and the American people) and now... here we are in December with them making weekend, middle of the night bills without a single Republican in their corner forcing a vote on Christmas eve. Obama has done nothing but clap from the sidelines like an ugly cheerleader. Oh and need I mention what the poll numbers on the bill look like

How about leadership? How about instead of ramming a partisan piece of bullshit through, a leader and his bipartisan congress brainstorming on what works and what doesn't while making both sides feel a part of it while at the same time taking the best healthcare system in the world and making it better. How about that?

The best he could do. God, I hope not.

How about what? We get it, you don't approve of any Democratic version of health care reform. Let's see the Republicans try. They had majorities from '94 to '06 - and all they managed was to do was create

This diavlog was not very illuminating, and it frustrated me so much that I don't have a lot to say about it besides that. Except for one thing that jumped out at me, predictably so, I guess: Obama's decision on missile defense was not an instance of Obama being rolled, and there's no reason to cite it as one unless you're drinking the wingnut koolaid. And why would you be drinking the wingnut foreign policy koolaid if you just went on for ten minutes about how his Nobel speech had too much American triumphalism? Stop it.

Quoting kezboard: This diavlog was not very illuminating, and it frustrated me so much that I don't have a lot to say about it besides that. Except for one thing that jumped out at me, predictably so, I guess: Obama's decision on missile defense was not an instance of Obama being rolled, and there's no reason to cite it as one unless you're drinking the wingnut koolaid. And why would you be drinking the wingnut foreign policy koolaid if you just went on for ten minutes about how his Nobel speech had too much American triumphalism? Stop it.

Good call.

Quoting AemJeff: How about what? We get it, you don't approve of any Democratic version of health care reform. Let's see the Republicans try. They had majorities from '94 to '06 - and all they managed was to do was create a doughnut hole. Now they want to pretend they have any moral authority at all on this issue? Bipartisanship would have required Republican contributions. It's hard to participate when you're sitting on your hands - a perfectly apt description of the that entire party's stance during this process, which nevertheless profoundly underplays the actual degree of cynicism manifest in their inaction.

I don't get the feeling from your words that you understand the nature of the Administration's efforts here; or even grasp the role of the Executive in the crafting of legislation, as opposed to that of the legislators.

I'd think I'd recommend reading polls a little more carefully; and, in particular - pay attention to the only really important polls- the next several elections.

So you are happy with the way this is being put together then? I think you are embarrassed by the truth of my statement. I see you cannot rebutt anything I actually said

Josh. Joshie, Joshie, Josh, Josh, Josh.
December 1937. Nanking.
Joshhhh.

Quoting claymisher: Nobody loves this bill. It's a compromise.

Somebody on the Reason "Hit and Run" forum said it far better than anybody I've seen:

Free market > good government system > what we have > bad government system > what we're getting > Civil War medical kit.

To Noahkgreen: I just finished listening to these guys, both of whom I have a lot of time for, even though I don’t have time these days for much of anything. I then thought I’d glance at a few comments to see what was cooking. I stopped at the first one—yours. I stopped because I never took from anything they said (or I just plain missed it) their view that Obama asserted in his Nobel speech the inherent nature of American goodness. Nor did I take from anything they said (or I just plain missed it) a line of reasoning that goes: Obama said there is evil in the world; therefore that shows he believes, to use your posted words, "America is inherently just". My understanding of what they said is that it is not helpful in analyzing, or explaining, America going to war, or waging it, to speak of needing to defeat evil. That high moral rhetoric distracts us, I heard them to say, from a sober and explicit assessment of the reasons for war. And at West Point, I thought they said, those reasons were woefully lacking. I think I disagree with Cohen and Loury to this extent: there ought be nothing wrong with calling evil evil. There ought

Quoting Tara Davis: Somebody on the Reason "Hit and Run" forum said it far better than anybody I've seen:Free market > good government system > what we have > bad government system > what we're getting > Civil War medical kit.

It would have been nice if somewhere between what we have and bad government system, the Republicans had acted wisely to fix the problems.

Quoting kezboard: This diavlog was not very illuminating, and it frustrated me so much that I don't have a lot to say about it besides that. Except for one thing that jumped out at me, predictably so, I guess: Obama's decision on missile defense was not an instance of Obama being rolled, and there's no reason to cite it as one unless you're drinking the wingnut koolaid. And why would you be drinking the wingnut foreign policy koolaid if you just went on for ten minutes about how his Nobel speech had too much American triumphalism? Stop it.

Agreed on the rolled part, but what was the foreign policy reasoning behind the decision? I have no fixed view of the matter. But my layman's, not entirely well informed and militarily untechnical understanding is that, most broadly, it was to appease Russia for its help with Iran. If that's not it, what was it? Nailing down the primary rationale sets the predicate for evaluating it. Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

Quoting basman: Agreed on the rolled part, but what was the foreign policy reasoning behind the decision? I have no fixed view of the matter. But my layman's, not entirely well informed and militarily untechnical understanding is that, most broadly, it was to appease Russia for its help with Iran.

If that's not it, what was it?

Nailing down the primary rationale sets the predicate for evaluating it.

Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

I think you have it, for the most part. There was no military value at all in the installations they bargained away. So, in return for something useless00, and extracted a Russian commitment to help with regard to Iran. That may be the best return we've seen, so far, on all the investment we've devoted to missile defense.

Quoting AemJeff: I think you have it, for the most part. There was no military value at all in the installations they bargained away. So, in return for something useless00, and extracted a Russian commitment to help with regard to Iran. That may be the best return we've seen, so far, on all the investment we've devoted to missile defense.

Well about this, a few immediate points: 1. I can't comment on the "military value" of the installations without further investigation. I can't imagine though that there was "no military value". On the other hand though, there surely was, was there not, some geopolitical significance to the installations, betokening some American support in the face of any Russian aggression or even tilts at Poland and the Ukraine, who were, clearly, chagrined at the change in missile policy. 2. So "useless" isn't the word I'd use; and I am unaware of any Russian commitment to help with Iran. Something like such a promise was being touted by the Administration, but Russia by its actions immediately thereafter countermanded or at least deeply qualified any such suggestion. 3. So I don't think that there was the return you speak of. 4. As for no return on America's entire policy of missile defence, that

Quoting basman: Well about this, a few immediate points:

1. I can't comment on the "military value" of the installations without further investigation. I can't imagine though that there was "no military value". On the other hand though, there surely was, was there not, some geopolitical significance to the installations, betokening some American support in the face of any Russian aggression or even tilts at Poland and the Ukraine, who were, clearly, chagrined at the change in missile policy.

2. So "useless" isn't the word I'd use; and I am unaware of any Russian commitment to help with Iran. Something like such a promise was being touted by the Administration, but Russia by its actions immediately thereafter countermanded or at least deeply qualified any such suggestion.

3. So I don't think that there was the return you speak of.

4. As for no return on America's entire policy of missile defence, that seems like a very sweeping proposition and one I wouldn't accept or decline without some investigating. But it does, preliminarily, and I say, sound too sweeping to me.

Diffidently,

Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

I've argued pretty strenuously (you can see the gist of my argument here) that Missile Defense, judged on the basis of

Really a phased array radar that is capable of watching over the Middle East has no military value?

Quoting piscivorous: Really a phased array radar that is capable of watching over the Middle East has no military value?

Look at the data. And the issue is missile defense, specifically GMD.

Oh and the loss of the capabilities, that the radar would provide, is what; just a little side issue I suppose?

Quoting piscivorous: Oh and the loss of the capabilities, that the radar would provide, is what; just a little side issue I suppose?

Yup, that's about the size of it. What do you propose we do with that radar, without an associated tactical defensive system? And why would Poland or the Czech Republic be the best place for such a thing?

Gee all those radars we built to look into the Soviet Union and it erst while puppet states had no value then because we had no GBD to make use of the information they gathered. It appears to me that you are either very naive about the intelligence value of being able to thoroughly watch the air space, above our potential enemies, or you are making a purely political argument in support of President Obama.

aemjeff: I'm a school boy at this stuff--the utility or inutility of American missile defence. Haven't really thought these things about since I took a couple of poli sci courses over 40 years ago.
Here's a place to jump in--guy seems reasonably credentialled and to the point here, even though it's a 2004 paper. If you want to read it and comment let me know. I'll do the same. I'll in the meantime check out a few other primer type essays. Diffidence doing a slow fade. Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

Mark Schmitt, shedding a little light of reality on the matter

The bill is flawed, but only by comparison to some hypothetical piece of legislation that could never have passed. The same could be said of any successful legislation, from the first progressive income tax to Social Security and Medicare to the Clean Air Act. And conservatives would say the same about their own legislative achievements. This is How A Bill Becomes A Law. And while some of the compromises that helped the legislation dodge the vicious attacks that killed the Clinton plan in 1994 were cooked up by the White House, other were baked into the consensus even before Obama took office. That insurance companies would benefit from an expansion of the base of the insured is built in to any approach other than single-payer, and the price of requiring insurers to cover anyone always had to be that we require everyone, in turn, to be covered.

to ames jeff

Quoting basman: aemjeff:

I'm a school boy at this stuff--the utility or inutility of American missile defence. Haven't really thought these things about since I took a couple of poli sci courses over 40 years ago.

Here's a place to jump in--guy seems reasonably credentialled and to the point here, even though it's a 2004 paper.

If you want to read it and comment let me know. I'll do the same.

I'll in the meantime check out a few other primer type essays.

Diffidence doing a slow fade.

Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

I forgot to give you the cite: sorry http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_m...9/p74429-1.php

Quoting basman: to ames jeff

I forgot to give you the cite: sorry

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_m...9/p74429-1.php

Thanks basman - I'll take a glance as soon as I can.

Quoting AemJeff: Thanks basman - I'll take a glance as soon as I can.

Ok, I've read through a bit of it. I think that's a highly ideological argument - the long detour through Manifest Destiny, for example, seems to miss the point, as I see it. But, I'm not really making a political argument. If I thought that a missile shield was feasible, I'd have a hard time arguing that it would be a bad idea to construct one over my (precious) head. I think Reagan was boondoggled by a coalition of charlatans and true believers (e.g. Edward Teller, who was a bit of both of those things) who convinced him that a missile shield was not only technically feasible, but also a moral imperative. I think he (Reagan) held an honest belief that those things were true. I think that defense contractors made a rational choice to amplify those beliefs and have tried, to the extent possible, to make something that approaches the fulfillment of those ideals. I see no evidence of the sort of technical success that would validate that effort - complex arguments about the politics of its development, or the morality of such a choice notwithstanding.

aemjeff 1. I am dividing this into two parts. I read the whole essay closely. Though not a subject I have any grounding in, an attentive layman can work through the arguments. While the essay starts like an exercise in cultural studies in application to American missile defence, it leaves that approach behind as it overviews the shifts in missile defence thinking from its inception during WW II to 2004, the essay’s date. The essay ends mildly ideologically with a clear rejection of Bush missile defence thinking in context of what Chamberlain points to as the Rogue State theory prevalent in Clinton’s presidency. So your concern with the early essay emphasis in relation to the issue we seem to be mooting is valid till Chamberlain, as I say, leaves cultural analysis pretty much behind. In that respect, the essay until its ending stays more or less apolitical. The essay of course cannot have dealt with the continuities with, and breaks from, missile defence thinking since Obama but sets a good framework within which to view those, given the historical table Chamberlain has set. It must be the case that both breaks from, and continuities with, exist for

to aemjeff 2. Under the heading Nike X The missile defence concept found itself subject to rigorous examination on both its feasibility and its
financial cost. Kennedy’s Secretary of Defence Robert S. McNamara would become the bete noire of the missile defence establishment, and a dogged opponent of the program but paradoxically oversaw the greatest period of BMD funding and support up to that point. This provides one of the deepest mysteries of missile defence, its ability to continue and indeed thrive, in even the seemingly least conducive political, economic, or military circumstances. McNamara followed the previous administrations line, and continued to recommend Nike-Zeus not be deployed but remain primarily a research program (to the tune of
$270m in 1962). His testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on 4 April 1961 summed up the arguments of the proponents of missile defence: “Successful development [of Nike-Zeus] may force an aggressor to expend additional resources to increase his ICBM force. It would also make accurate estimates of our defensive capabilities more difficult for a potential enemy and complicate the achievement of a successful attack. Furthermore, the protection that it would provide, even if for only a

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: "The evil men do lives after them" Shakespeare

How true. Here is a highly schematic flow chart:

1. European anti-Semitism (evil) drives the Jews out of Europe.

2. They land in Middle-East (courtesy of Balfour Declaration) which, from the Arab/Muslim point of view, is a foreign invasion/act of aggression and therefore evil.

3. The Palestinians fight back against Israel, who respond in kind, with no end in sight.

4. The Muslim world as a whole fights back against Israel's allies in the West (9/11) who respond in kind (Afghanistan) with no end in sight.

5. Meanwhile, Europe, having purged itself of evil (Nazism, its "Jewish problem"), looks upon the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an innocent bystander.

Conclusion: The evil men do lives after them like the furies in a Greek tragedy.

Is there any way out? Maybe not. But I suggest the EU acknowledge Europe's original sin (culpability) and offer to compensate the Palestinian people for the wrongs they have suffered. If generous enough, compensation would address the sense of grievance and humiliation felt throughout the Muslim world.

Little known fact in the West: the principle of compensation is recognized in both Arab culture and Islamic law and civilization. To end a blood feud the guilty party must pay

It must be inspiring to a racist like TGGP to see an intelligent black man like Loury.

Quoting claymisher: It must be inspiring to a racist like TGGP to see an intelligent black man like Loury.

claymasher, Maybe I have missed something from the past (although knowing your past has me doubtful), but please point out what you found to be racist in TGGP's post...because unless setting history straight is racist...you are (once again) all wet.

Quoting claymisher: It must be inspiring to a racist like TGGP to see an intelligent black man like Loury.

I've been a fan of Loury's for a while.

Quoting T.G.G.P: I've been a fan of Loury's for a while.

I saw nothing racist in what you said. Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

Quoting basman: Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

I can see how the two could be easily confused.

Thanks for taking the time to condense your article, basman. Have you ever heard say that an advantage of orbiting BMD platforms would have the advantage of turning outward to intercept incoming meteorites? I thought this was especially interesting:

Indeed, the Soviet Union had made several candid public
statements on its missile defence capacity. At the 1961 Communist Party Congress, Marshal Rodion Malinovsky stated, “the problem of destroying enemy missiles in flight
has been successfully resolved.”In 1962, Nikita Khrushchev made his celebrated statement lauding the Soviet militaries’ ability to “hit a fly in space”.

Subsequently, it was discovered that the Soviet Union had deployed the first ballistic missile defence around Leningrad although it was abandoned in 1962. However, by 1965, a more sophisticated system, nicknamed the Galosh, was deployed covering the Moscow area. The remnants of this system remain in place today.

Whatever the real capabilities of the Soviet missile defence, it underscored the perception that anything other than a deployment of an American missile defence would be a dangerous and indeed unconstitutional folly. After Sputnik, the first ICBM launch, and now BMD advances, the apparent Soviet technological lead over the USA made it politically impossible for the Kennedy administration

[quote=look;144235] Have you ever heard say that an advantage of orbiting BMD platforms would have the advantage of turning outward to intercept incoming meteorites? No I never heard that. Itzik Basman (also known as Itzik Basman)

Good golly - I'll try to flesh out a proper response when I have more time; but my perspective on this is mostly technical. If you examine the testing track record, GMD has scored very little that would lead anybody examining it to think that the goal of providing a missile shield has even been approximated. The most successful interceptions have been unconvincing demonstrations of the promised capabilities. We have successfully hit targets - under ideal conditions in clear skies, or among decoy balloons (balloons and missiles traveling at supersonic speeds are not good proxies for one another.) One test was described as "threat representative" - but the parameters defining that term have not been provided, to my knowledge. That politicians publicly pronounce confidence in a multi-billion dollar, decades-long project is not, in my estimation, better evidence than the test data - nor is the logic of need.

Quoting badhatharry: What makes me angry about the right is that when they had the power and they could have made an effort to fix the problems, which I see as an unwarranted rise in the cost of health care insurance and people with pre-existing conditions being in the position of not being able to afford insurance, they did nothing. Now they are crying about not being paid attention to.

What action would you propose, assuming a perfect world and all?

Quoting Markos: I agree with Glenn that Obama's rhetorical modulations have been what he (Obama) believes are the wisest choices in terms of accomplishing his goals in the current political environment.
Personally, I'm not convinced that Obama could have done better on government option in the health care bill if he'd pushed harder for it, twisted arms, made LBJ-style threats, etc., as some critics have said. I mean, the opposition from the right-wingers and the center-right, etc. was awfully stubborn. My jury is still out on Obama's effectiveness, but, so far, I think he might be doing as well as can be hoped for in our insanely polarized political reality.

I don't know. During the campaign I thought that Hillary and her camp were underestimating the American people and now I kind of think Obama is.

Quoting bjkeefe: Good call.

Agree on that particular point, but I agreed with Loury more than usual in this one. Plus, Cohen was his usual sensible self.