Late yesterday two attractive female friends dropped by to check on my recovery. One said I looked good. The other, after only a brief pause, politely agreed.
Being shallow - its a lifestyle choice - I was so delighted by this I entirely forgot my scheduled painkiller intake for the rest of the night. In other news:
. . .
Overconfident, a few days ago I attempted to take a bath. Unable to haul myself out - no exit strategy - I was forced to call on the only other person in the house: my dear old mother. During an intensely awkward bath-extraction pas de deux, it was silently agreed that we must never speak of this again.
The level of cancer with which I was diagnosed: T3. Not the worst.
Weight before surgery: 82 kilograms (180 pounds). Present weight, after several days on solid food: 75 kilograms (165 pounds).
Im informally banned from driving lest sudden braking cause sudden breakage of slow-mending abdominal wounds and subsequent hilarious organ spillage. My mother - a former nurse - once saw this happen.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/06/2008 06:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Lotp posted this two days ago but without the text. I think everyone of us needs to read it carefully and so (mods privilege) am posting it again.
READ THIS CAREFULLY. While Mr. Aaronvitch writes about the case for Afghanistan, the issue is squarely about how the West will respond to Islamofascism wherever it appears in the world. It will be up to the United States to respond and defend the West; no one has the combination of will and resources. Would that should change, but I don't see enough political leaders in the EU today with a clear understanding of the problem and a willingness to call for the necessary sacrifices. There is no Winston Churchill in all of Europe today. We in the States shouldn't gloat over that; we're just a step or two away ourselves from turning our backs on the problem.
Read this carefully and consider the consequences as you vote this year. Mr. Aaronovitch correctly notes one of the key fulcrum points in the War on Terror.
If the West backs out of Afghanistan the consequences would be plainly catastrophic
David Aaronovitch
In recent days, and unsurprisingly, it has become common to hear the mournless rites being read for liberal interventionism. If anyone has opined publicly about Afghanistan in the last week - and plenty did - it was to regret our presence there and to wish us away. If ever an argument was being won by default this was it, especially since those making the case for quitting were far too exuberant to want to slow up and allow for the possible objections to their reasoning.
It was Condoleezza Rice, agitating for more Nato troops to be deployed in Afghanistan, who precipitated the current poison-ivy rash of isolationist critiques. This week in Lithuania Nato defence ministers are meeting to discuss finding 7,500 more troops to reinforce the existing 42,000, and last week there was a run-in between the Americans and the Germans over whether Bundeswehr resources could be sent to the dangerous south - a spat that the Bundesmedia seemed to enjoy a bit too much.
To which many resonant voices here were raised to make this point: we don't have the men, and even if we did we shouldn't send them; in fact we should start talking about withdrawing the ones we've got because the whole thing is broken and cannot be mended. We British, wrote Matthew Parris on Saturday on these pages, are at our limit and losing confidence in our usefulness. Independent reports speak of a danger of failure and a weakening international resolve, and the few gains of our continued presence - a few new schools and roads in the north, according to Simon Jenkins in The Sunday Times - are insufficient to stop the country fragmenting.
And it is worse than that, they imply, because most of the problems that exist we have ourselves provoked and indeed spread to neighbouring Pakistan. To have set one of the world's most ancient and ferocious people [the Pashtuns] on the warpath against both Kabul and Islamabad takes some doing. But Western diplomacy has done it, says Jenkins; though why the Pashtuns are any more ancient than the rest of us, and why it should be so surprising that one of the world's most ferocious peoples might be relatively easily provoked, he doesn't explain. The tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, he argues, should have been left alone.
There has, of course, to be another logical step taken here, and this is it: for what cause have these bloody errors been committed? The cause of combating terror. But terror is an overblown threat, they say, exaggerated by men like Bush and Musharraf: terror kills few in the West and is generally contained by good policing. Our troops are making things worse. Rather than a War on Terror, we might do better to talk of a musing on terror, or - at worst - the tiff with terror.
In the current circumstances of the failure of the opium strategy, the bloody fighting in Helmand, the row inside Nato and the argument about Paddy Ashdown's unacceptability to Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, much of this pessimism seems appropriate. But if we are to follow its dictates, its proponents should do a better job of spelling out what it means. Anyone who still favours a military presence is easily decorated with the order of the armchair commentator, but let us see what other commentators are prepared to sit through.
Canada has already threatened to pull out its troops from Kandahar province in a year's time if other Nato countries don't contribute more. We must assume that if Britain were to begin to talk about a draw-down, then Canada would carry out this threat. British forces would then be exposed in Helmand and, presumably, would also withdraw. Let us suppose that an angry and abandoned US follows the lead offered by its allies, and itself pulls out, leaving itself only an air-to-ground interdiction capability.
Here are the likely consequences of such a pattern. The Afghan Government would collapse, to be replaced by an overt civil war fought between the Taleban and local governors in the various provinces. A million or more Afghan refugees would again flee their country, many of them ending up in the West. Deprived of support from the US, as recommended by our commentators, President Musharraf or a successor would effectively withdraw from the border regions, leaving a vast lawless area from central Afghanistan to north central Pakistan. Al-Qaeda and other jihadists would operate from these areas as they did before 9/11. This time these forces - already capable of assassinating a popular democratic politician - would seriously impact upon the stability of Pakistan, which is a nuclear state.
Jihadists everywhere, from Indonesia to Palestine, would see this as a huge victory, democrats and moderates as a catastrophic defeat. There would hardly be a country, from Morocco to Malaysia, that wouldn't feel the impact of the reverse. That's before we calculate the cost to women and girls of no longer being educated or allowed medical treatment. And would there be less terror as a result?
We have been here before. After the Afghans managed to defeat the Russians, the Yanks - and everyone else - left Afghanistan alone, to be swallowed up by the Taleban. Who then let Osama bin Laden in. It wasn't us who provoked the ferocious Pashtun in 2001, it was their Mullah Omar who gave sanctuary to the topplers of the twin towers. Many of bin Laden's people had themselves been radicalised by the failure of the West - in another non-intervention - to prevent Serb atrocities against Bosnian Muslims.
Whatever the failures of Western policy - which have usually been about doing too little, not too much - they will not be dealt with by the creation of a new myth of non-interdependence. Just as the genocide in Darfur has refused to confine itself within the borders of the Sudan, but has now destabilised neighbouring Chad, so anything that happens in Pakistan or Afghanistan, whether we cause it or not, will come back to us in the shape of fleeing people, apocalyptic ideologues, weapons proliferation and the export of terror.
Fortunately, it isn't just David Miliband who recognises this. Today America may decide that the next presidential election will be between John McCain and Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. All three recognise that America must continue to be the ideological and physical arsenal of democracy. Thank God.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/06/2008 10:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Today America may decide that the next presidential election will be between John McCain and Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. All three recognise that America must continue to be the ideological and physical arsenal of democracy. Thank God.
I'm not so sure about that. Hillary blows whichever way the polls point and Obama has not been a noted WOT supporter. I don't see either with the internal conviction necessary to convince allies to follow or to proceed alone.
#3
The fact is the Islamists will claim credit anytime we leave anywhere. That is the risk of putting a single footprint in an Islamic nation.
"Yes the Americans killed every last one of us, but they left! They have no stomach for combat!"
We should avoid giving them big victories but at some point it can't run our policy entirely. The Afghans should be stepping up. Sometimes fear Uncle Sugar is gonna leave is what it takes to get others to step up.
#4
At this rate the islamofascists won't have to lift a finger to destroy the US. Your paranoia combined with some of your other characteristics will do it for them.
#5
Really, Toronto troll, you grow wearisome. It's not the intentional disagreement here, but the limited number and shallow depth of the critiques that bores.
#6
Your name calling won't change the fact that you give the appearance of being plain whacked out paranoid. You don't need a PhD to make that argument.
#7
victor -- i would say with your shallow responses you do need a phd to comment..give some substance and you will not be a troll...canadians will be a running to the US once little oh denmark really gets agressive in the artic...or maybe the ruskies..oh wait they have already laid claim..puhtak
Posted by: dan ||
02/06/2008 15:35 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Never be more concerned about someone else's security than they are concerned themselves. Don't waste American lives to fight for those who won't fight for themselves. That applies to NATO states, Afghans, Iraqis and Saudis. And it applies to Canadians in the burkha capital of North America, Toronto.
Posted by: ed ||
02/06/2008 15:46 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Dan, it's an observation that I've made, over the years. Fred would say I have a "prejudice" of sorts.
"Don't waste American lives to fight for those who won't fight for themselves."
And while making that statement Ed seems to have forgotten about the lives sacrificed fighting alongside the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Whenever you're in the Burkha capital of N.A. I invite you to take a car ride along the Highway of Heroes, to remind you of what you seem to easily forget.
#13
It's your job to defend your civilization. Instead you take glee at the prospect of a neighbor's downfall. How small, mean and petty of you. Instead of strengthening your defenses against murdering barbarians, you choose to bury your head in the tar sand and let them do this crap in your hometown.
Posted by: ed ||
02/06/2008 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
#14
"Whenever you're in the Burkha capital of N.A. I invite you to take a car ride along the Highway of Heroes, to remind you of what you seem to easily forget."
That was then. This is now. Based on your history of postings at Rantburg, it is a bit hypocritical for you to be donning that mantle of the dead, no?
#15
Oh, and then you choose to hide from criticism behind the gravestones of better men than you. Be sure to wave the Maple leaf flag from behind those headstones just to show what kind of man you really are.
Posted by: ed ||
02/06/2008 16:39 Comments ||
Top||
#16
I at least, remember my friends who have sacrificed everything for our common good, and don't call them burka wearers.
I don't take glee at the prospect of a neighbour's downfall, quite the opposite in fact: when it's evident to me that my neighbour's "my way or the highway" approach will lead to failure, I make sure my voice is heard. The worst and most dangerous type of neighbour is one who doesn't say anything when danger is near.
#17
Listen up VEA. I didn't call Canadian soldiers burkha wearers. I appreciate what the Canadian military is doing. I don't don't appreciate how many Canadians ignore the genocidal cultists who are rapidly immigrating you your shores, who consider you mokeys and pigs and your women as nothing but cat meat to be taken for their pleasure. I did say Toronto is filling up burkha wearing islamists who recently plotted to blow up the Canadian Parliament, CBC, and Canadian military barracks. I called Toronto the burkha capital of NA. According to the 2000 Canadian census: 5% of all Toronto population is Muslims, , making Toronto the highest concentration of Muslims in any city in the US or Canada.
There are 21 Federal ridings with 7% to 14% Muslim population which can emerge as a major electoral force.
If Muslim maintained the same growth rate as the last decade since the census, today Muslims in Canada number 753,480. From 2001 to 2003, according to statistics from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, an estimated 132,600 Muslims immigrated to Canada. Thats a rise of 23 percent
Lets see, 23% rise in muslim infestation in 2 years gives an annual rate of 11%. Extrapolate 30 years and muslims form an absolute majority in Toronto (that's optimistically assuming Canadians have 2.1 kids). Wanna bet then the highway that honor Canadians in Afghanistan fighting Pakistanis keeps its name? But don't fret, it won't take 30 years. The muslims' knives will come out it's sheath well before then.
If you are not willing to defend Canadian civilization, don't expect your southern neighbors to do it for you. That is what is evident.
Posted by: ed ||
02/06/2008 17:42 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Typical fear-mongering. What of the Chinese and Indian immigrants? Do you have the numbers for those? Or are they just as bad as the Muslims?
#19
The Chinese and Hindu immigrants don't consider themselves entitled to take up arms against their host nation, nor do they demand laws be changed to accommodate their habits, dear Victor Emmanuel Angalet7366. My charming Quebecoise mother-in-law has the same problems with the Muslim immigrants to her neighborhood in Lackawanna (Buffalo). Burka clad Yemeni women are in the habit of pushing her off the sidewalk, and there are loud demands for time and space for daily prayers in the public schools... not to be polluted by unbelievers. If you think that kind of thing is acceptable, then all the deaths commemorated on your Highway of Heroes will have been in vain, for what boots a nation to win the war abroad, if it surrender at home?
#20
I will worry about the Hindus and Confucians when they believe stuff like this: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).
When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them
BTW, the first two verses are from the penultimate chapter of the koran. Any previous verses (when islam was weak) are abrogated by these final verses. Open your eyes VAE. You and your children ARE in mortal danger.
Posted by: ed ||
02/06/2008 20:38 Comments ||
Top||
#21
The Chinese and Hindu immigrants don't consider themselves entitled to take up arms against their host nation
Exactly. So I would think before Canada is doomed, radical Muslims would have to get by the Indian and Chinese and a myriad of other communities first, even the Quebecois, not to mention the Muslims who want no part of jihad and other religious nonsense.
You are also missing the growing backlash against multi-culturalism in Canada. The Conservative candidate for Ontario lost the election precisely because of his support for faith-based schools. At first he wanted to woo the Jewish community, but people aren't stupid and realized this would also mean funding for Muslim-only schools sooner or later.
#22
Muslims DO believe in taking up arms against their hosts, especially if their hosts are unaware and has their backs turned. Do you believe the Hindus and Chinese will step in the path of muslims knives to save YOUR unprepared ass? Or will they worry about the safety of themselves and their families?
Posted by: ed ||
02/06/2008 21:19 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Great repost SW. Must have passed the link by the first time. Thanks.
It wouldn't have taken a PhD for Chamberlain to have made condescending cracks about Churchill's whacked out paranoia in 1938 either. Ten years down the road, we'll see if America's general response towards the war on Islamism is more effective than Europe's. Then we can see with whom Canada chooses to cast their lot.
You're still, um, preparing to attack Iran? Remember Iran? Everyone was so sure of it. Well, you still have a few months. Or maybe if McCain...nah...you won't vote for him, he's a rino.
"Do you believe the Hindus and Chinese will step in the path of muslims knives to save YOUR unprepared ass?"
Probably not, but neither would you so how are you any better than them?
I doubt that Muslims will become the majority any time soon. There's no reason to fear-monger.
#3
Excellent, excellent read, the very obvious results of unchecked immigration coupled with socialism and run-away taxation. Two issues seldom discussed by any politician on this side, or in the States. Yesterday was the German "Fasching" Holiday. It's similar to Mardi Gras or a Carnival, but with a two week lead-in binge. I didn't see much hee to celebrate, but if dressing up like clowns and devils or middle-ages garb makes one feel better, have at it.
A litre of deisel is about 1.30 anywhere in Rhineland-Patinate, Bavaria or Saarland. Thats roughly 5.20 to the gallon or $ 7.69 U.S. Dollars per gallon, at today's exchange rate of $1.46 A modest dinner for two will run 35. without alcohol (add another 25 to that for a meal in Paris). An average pair of men's shoes, not of J&M or Italian quality... 165. Nineteen percent of this is the Value Added Tax or VAT.
Most Germans over the age of 55 know the deal and hate it. They dispise the Euro, the influx of Turks and Russians, and have no use for Brussel dictates. I'll take the States any day and could care less what entrapped and envious Europeans think about America. If they want to endure the communist experiment, so be it.
#4
When you combine post-modernism with collectivism and cultural marxism, this is what you get. A society that is doomed to demographic extinction, and is no better economically than any other industrialized society (and demonstrably worse in many ways), which nonetheless must be constantly preening itself and braying about its excellence in order to maintain the self-illusion of its narrative.
Always remember that Democrat party has as its unstated but very obvious goal to convert the U.S. into a society exactly like this Europe. Let that govern your voting habits.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
02/06/2008 6:37 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Exactly No Mo Uro.
The Democratic party was once for the 'little guy'. Now it is all about keeping the 'little guy' as small as possible. They are openly saying that our economy must be slowed with higher gas prices, etc.. A feudal economy like the dark ages. Hillary Beast is the worst at wanting to see this. The Islamists, who Obama wants to talk and council with, want to control that feudalism.
#6
Any military personnel who've been stationed in Europe for the last forty years and had to 'live on the economy' knows the gauge of living standards up front and personal for all strata of the Euro society.
#8
I remember driving through Watts on my first trip to the USA in the early 1970s, at the time a notorious ghetto.
I was astonished. Big houses, big cars, big well fed people, nothing like the European style poverty I had experienced previously - badly fed, badly clothed people in rundown over-crowded tennements and not a car in sight.
Like many I prefer McCain but will gladly support Romney if he wins the nomination. His campaign ad here in California against Hillary's inexperience was excellent, and so was McCain's on his new views on illegal immigration.
But so far today I have gotten the usual daily spam e-mail from various fringe and self-acclaimed conservative groups and personages variously alleging that McCain was not a real war hero, questioning his conduct during capture, commenting on his marital situation, and suggesting he was unhinged and identical to Ted Kennedy, Hillary (fill in the blanks). I think for most the level of vituperation is astounding and completely unforeseen.
And given their furor expressed so far on the record, it would be almost impossible for them to recant, and they shouldn't be defamed or coerced to try. No doubt they will lead the charge in a year or two against the liberal Supreme Court nominations of a President Obama or Clinton, or payroll and income tax increases, or a timetable withdrawal from Iraq. Just as McCain is trying to win them back now, they will try to win back then those who are turned off by the venom expressed against the likely Republican candidate. In either case, it will be nearly impossible to do so.
#1
If I have too, I'll vote for McCain over the democrat. I've tried being petulant and withholding my vote (I didn't like Bushdad or Dole). Many did the same. We ended up with the Clintons for 8 years.
Never again.
I'll hold my nose and vote McCain if I have too.
I won't be happy about it but ANYONE is better than the clintoons.
#2
I'll hold my nose and vote for any Trunk over any Ass, but McCain will get neither my money nor my help. Let his Mex friends do it. They should do something for the amnesty he's going to give them anyway.
#4
Notwithstanding McCain (or anything in Congress), a number of States have passed laws making things more difficult for illegal immigrants.
These include augmented requirements for drivers license renewal, reregistration for welfare payments, etc. There is anecdotal evidence that in these States illegal immigrants are self deporting themselves.
Thus McCain's ideas on this may be less important than thought earlier.
#5
It is either a socialized America overrun with illegals and us getting hit with terrorist attacks, or a socialized America overrun with illegals and us not getting hit with terrorist attacks.
#6
It will be McCain Huckabee. McCain Romney might work if they can sell Romney as the Business Improvement guy.
On the other side it is going to be Obama Richardson. They need Richardson to get the Latinos out my way and as a bone to those of us who consider experience an issue. Will Richardson accept? He didn't in 2004.
#7
The reason I posted this one because I remembered what happened after Bibi antagonized the national camp by signing the Wye accords. You should look it up.
#8
The reason I posted this one because I remembered what happened after Bibi antagonized the national camp by signing the Wye accords. You should look it up.
#9
DISASTER !
Most Republicans, many office holders among us dislike McCain, a bitter, vindictive egomaniac as much as we distrust Hitlery, a bitter, vindictive witch. We owe this travisty to the MSM, the Republican party, and x-leaders like Newt Gingrich.
It's true that McCain has manuvered his way to the top, but I get the final word. I will never vote for him and never vote for Hitlery. I will vote for other offices, and perhaps write in a name that I consider a conservative leader for President. After all, that is what we want, a conservative leader. And I can't help but remember that it was the MSM that destroyed our first choice, George Allen. Please join me. Let's write in George Allen, and maybe we can break the die and cast it in the ocean.
#10
Romney and Huckabee are also pro-amnesty no matter what they now say on the subject. Romney specifically supported McCain's immigration plan until he decided to right for President.
So it is bad choices all round. What bothers me are the folks supported Romney as if he is any better than McCain on the same issue. McCain has a temper and he has been obnoxious to people who should be his allies. Sort of like France.
But the man WILL pull the trigger which is more than I can say for any candidate left standing. Time to left the Phakestinians and the Persians and the Chinese f*cking think twice.
#11
Lets be real, how much damage can really happen in 4 years?
Yes we're still dealing with JImmy Carter's mess three decades on but the Republic stood none-the-less. If we have a Hillary Presidency it very well might be one term (because she's totally unqualified, as is Obama) and then a good 12 years of Conservative Republican governance.
#12
"... or a socialized America overrun with illegals and us not getting hit with terrorist attacks..."
Darth, I don't know about you, but the choice is easy for me.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
02/06/2008 11:46 Comments ||
Top||
#13
McCain wants permanent bases in Iraq. So do I, but he needs to clarify the role of field troops. If he would have US troops doing civil policing, then that policy will be a liability. The public appears resolved to the fact that it is up to locals to deal with the 1400 year civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. The US presence needs to be strategic. Let Obama and Hillary seek removal of the Middle East from the US strategic interest sphere. That will ensure their non-electability.
#14
One would think both sides learned something from the firestorm of anti-illegal alien sentiment expressed when the last shamnesty was proposed.
It seems some folks think we've forgotten.
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/06/2008 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Conservatives (of which I include myself) better stop whining into their Count Chocula and reacquaint themselves with what's at stake here. OK, we get it, we aren't going to get a conservative prez in '08. The disaster hasn't happened yet but it's staring us right in the face. rj nails it folks. 30 years out and we're still dealing with the fallout of Carter. And, from all that I see, Obama or Clinton have all the makings of being even worse. Get the trunk in office, and then work to get congress back in the hands of real conservatives.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/06/2008 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
#16
"we're still dealing with JImmy Carter's mess three decades on but the Republic stood none-the-less." Do we still have a Republic? Sometimes during stormy nights I hear Daniel Webster thundering, "Neighbor, how stands the Union?"
#17
With McCain as the standard bearer, the blowout will be on a par with what happened to Hoover, or more recently, Goldwater. Does anyone think that McCain can carry those indigo blue Northeastern states (New York, NJ, etc.)in the general election? Anytime that the Democrats and the talking heads on tv start pushing the candidacy of a Republican like McCain, you know that they are just salivating at the prospect of running against him in the general election.
#18
This is definitely a disaster. You will have the choice of voting for one of 2 Democrats. The beliefs of Hillary and McCain are indistinguishable. For republicans, do you sit it out and let the other team win? Or do you vote for the guy that undermines your own team? Nice choice eh. The latter is particularly distasteful to me. If McCain wins we can look at losing more seats in the House and Senate in 2010. So on balance a Hillary win might be the better of two evils. We would have the opportunity shore up the party and unify against Clinton in 2010, gaining seats in Congress. If Obama is the Donk candidate, I will hold my nose and pull the lever for McCain. I'm just not ready for a Hussein to have his finger on the button.
#20
Let's be honest here. THe next President will be choosing a lot of Supreme Court nominees. If that's important to you than you have to believe McCain and co would do a better job than Hillary or Obama.
#21
"How much damage can they do in four years?"
A lot. If Obama is elected, he will withdraw troops from Iraq, perhaps immediately. It will be almost impossible to re-insert them, no how badly they are needed. If Hillary is elected, she will institute national health care, which will never go away.
#23
Just a note: Too many good Rantburgers were driven away by the rancorous debate leading up to the last two elections. Let's not do that this time, when we'll need the knowledge and intuition of you all to best understand events and information on the other side of the election.
Thanking you in advance for assuming that those who disagree with you are equally men and women of goodwill.
#24
BTW, history hasn't been kind to establishment "liberal" republicans. Ford in 76 and Dole in 1996 failed to energize the party core. I believe Hillary will win if she's the nominee. I don't know what to think if Hussein Obama is the guy.
#26
The fallout of Carter would be Iran. I considered Reagan in the 12 years of Conservative government line.
To give Carter credit I believe his inept policies lead to Soviet overconfidence and overexpansion that left them totally unprepared when Reagan arrived. Not that Carter planned this, but it happened none-the-less.
#27
I love it when conservatives become irrational. Here, I'll pull a Coulter on you: I'm a 100% Clinton fan, but if McCain wins the nomination, I'll vote for McCain. Seriously, I wouldn't care who wins: Hillary or McCain. HA HA HA! I love it when a plan comes together.
#28
VEA...irrational? I'd say getting giddy over the prospect of either Hillary or Obama the epitome of irrational. At least on our side o' the isle, we actually had choices. We weren't jockying to see who could pull down the Latino vote, the female vote, the gay vote, etc. our differences are based on policy, not identity. I pulled the lever for Romney...but in the end if you really want to pull the lever for McCain, by all means please do. Better yet, get some friends along.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/06/2008 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
#29
At least on our side o' the isle, we actually had choices. We weren't jockying to see who could pull down the Latino vote, the female vote, the gay vote, etc. our differences are based on policy, not identity.
In previous elections this may have been true, but not this one. This primary season had the evangelical identity candidate vs. the veterans' identity candidate vs. the Mormon identity candidate (who has additional appeal, but leveraged that to his strong showings in the West and caucus states).
This is the most depressing part of the 2008 primaries: now both parties select on identity politics. The one candidate who rejected them (Fred) got nowhere, thanks largely to veterans' and evangalicals' identity voters in South Carolina.
#30
McCain cannot, and will not win. He's been lifted up artificially as a result of vile shenanigans orchestrated by the MSM. McCain did not maneuver himself this far without some serious behind the scenes help by the media.
It is the same sort of manipulation on the part of the MSM that buried Fred. Of course, he didn't have to give them so much help with his announcement games. It is the Media that is going to have to be dealt with first. I don't think it necessary to elaborate. Heat the tar, and bag the feathers.
And btw, given how you've screwed things up in the past few years, it's not only Canadians who are watching your elections intently. But you already knew that.
#34
The story of this election will be one of a loss, not a victory. With this set up as a McCain-Clinton contest, I have no doubt that one or the other of these human disasters will go so non-linear, whether it's McCain losing his temper or Hillary losing control of Bill, before the election that the other will win by default and have virtually no mandate. Let's hope it's Hill who goes haywire.
#35
I have noticed one thing the last few weeks. Bubba has been conspicuously missing from Hillarys! campaign.
Maybe her idea of "handling him" is sending him down to Tijuana with a couple of rolls of quarters...
#36
Conservative American patriots are not represented by the candidates of the day. We should attempt to put as many conservatives as possible in the Congress and write in for pres.
By October, the MSM will have the aged McCain at death's door, and the entire vote will be against one or the other. Who do you hate the most, the bitch, the turncoat, or the rookey ?
Oddly, my opposition to Obama is that occupation of the Oval office is not an entry position, and yet that applies to the other 2 as well. These people have never accomplished a thing. They are dirty political infighters who we have allowed to flourish in our midst.
Again I stress that the MSM has screwed us, and we are finished unless we stop with the scattered opinions, and stand together.
If we did have a political party, our party would not allow an insignificant state to decide our candidates. Our party would not allow deal makers to get nominated without disclaimer statements. Our party would survey us and create a 'Contract with America', and run a full slate as a unit dedicated to produce defined results.
No jerks like McCain who promise energy independence, yet vote against drilling in ANWAR. No jerks who reform campaign finance by paving the way for billionair foreigners to give millions to the Commies among us, while we are limited to 5k. No jerks who spent their entire lives in a border state, but support a Commie attempt to reward illegals with voting rights. Speaking of which, I strongly doubt McCain will be re-elected in Arizonia because of his positions on the border fence and illegals.
All this not because we are stupid, but because we are lied to on a daily basis, and we have never made an attempt to retaliate against the MSM. Well, if and when that happens, I'll buy at the bar.
#37
I think the lesson from the recent Australian election is that the result will be determined by the under 30s who have only known economic prosperity and who pay more attention to what Britney Spears is doing than the Mullahs.
Which unfortunately means the young photogenic Obama is a shoo-in (should he get the nomination).
#41
3dc, do you have the raw numbers for primary votes to date anywhere? As in, how many votes each candidate has gotten (at least from primary states)?
#44
Don't forget the Motherly Commie Airborne + RUSSIA: NEW MILITARY NUCLEAR DOCTRINE 2008, aka
Russ REAGAN-ESQUE "FLEXIBLE RESPONSE" DOCTR FOR ANTI-NUKE/WMD TERROR.
Unless I'm reading it wrong, their new doctrine's definition of "CONVENTIONAL AGGRESSION" includes any and all WMD = NON-WMD? Terror attacks as INDUCED/SUPPOR BY A FOREIGN POWER(S) ANDOR ORIGINATING FROM ANY SOVER FOREIGN SOIL. IMO, in theory any high-profile or major Terr attack(s) launched agz Russia-Allied from sovereign foreign territory, wid or widout the knowledge or consent of any local Govt, MAY BE MET WID AN OVERWHELMING/SUBSTAN, OVERT OR COVERT, RUSS-SPECIFIC NUCLEAR RESPONSE, AND NOT ONLY A TACNUKE RESPONSE EITHER.
WARNED ABOUT THIS ON THE NET YEARS AGO BACK IN THE 1990's + AGAIN POST 9-11- LOOKS LIKE PUTIN FOR ONE HAS FINALLY GONE AND DONE IT!
So iff Russia is de facto attacked by an Islamist cell or network based = mostly based in CONUS-NORAM, technically Russ reserves its right to unilaterally attack and destroy said Islamist group-orgz AND SURROUNDING LAND AREAS WIDOUT THE FORMAL PERMISSION OF WASHINGTON OR THE MACKENZIE BROS, ESKIMOS, etc.
#45
VDH is right in every respect, and this is a man with superb conservative credentials.
As does McCain, as politicians go.
It is bad sense and bad politics to write people off because they lack perfection according to our lights. And it is almost 180 degrees away from the conservative tradition. Burke would not think well of us for being so rigid.
Conservatism is a notoriously undefinable quality, a negative of ideology rather than an ideology, and it is a big, big mistake to try to make an ideology out of it. Holding ones nose and voting for the lesser of two evils - accepting the imperfect nature of humanity - is pretty much the essence of conservatism. It really isn't conservative to vote "for" and not "against".
#46
D *** NG IT, BOYZ, AMERIKA's [the USSA = Global USR] sacred mainstream Motherly NATIONAL COMMUNISM - YOU KNOW, CONSTITUT REPUBLICANISM, DEMOCRACY, LIBERTARIANISM, DEMOCAPITALISM, ETC - must be saved from the ARROGANT FASCIST MALE BRUTES OF FASCIST-RIGHTIST REPUB-IST SOCIALISM.
SOCIALIST AMER HAS TO BE SAVED FROM SOCIALISM.
#47
Remember, people, that you are not just voting for who gets to sit behind the big desk. You are also voting for who gets to appoint judges and veto stupid congressional acts.
As for VEA7366, feel free to lecture us when Canada becomes a shining example to the world as opposed to Britain Lite.
#48
I agree that the last few years have been embarassingly bad -> time to replace Congress.
Had the exact same thought 3dc.
Out here:
Conservative - do the tried and true way as it is working
Liberal - not afraid to tweak the system knowing that if it does not work there is a tried method to fall back upon
We have a good mix of these Liberals and Conservatives out here. Note this does not necessarily translate into Republican and Democrat but it works in this microcosmos.
East State:
Conservative - goes to church, does not rock the boat.
Liberal - the system is broken and must be changed, knows what is best for ya.
By that logic, Phelps though a 'conservative' platform is 'liberal'.
VEA, if you are Canadian you best not be voting for either Clinton or McCain or whoever. If you are Canadian and awaiting the results of this election you best hope neither side is irrational and I don't see that as yet as compared to '04. And if wxjames sounds irrational to you it is because by pointing out the various positions of the candidates those positions contradict each other and make the quoting incomprehensible. And if anyone doubts the MSM's slant you should have heard the morning news and NPR circle jerk this afternoon.
Canadians......feeling superior to Americans without a real reason, for decades now.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
02/06/2008 17:56 Comments ||
Top||
#52
it's not only Canadians who are watching your elections intently. But you already knew that.
Of course I do, since I have occasion to professionally interact with members of the Canadian, British, German, Italian and other allied armed forces. Most of whom are quite concerned that twits like you will have an influence here.
#54
wellll...I've supported (in order) Hunter, then Thompson, then Romney. Apparently I'm teh kiss of death. McCain is our (GOP) guy now, it's ineveitable with the delegate count. To make the best of it, we need to make him promise - with NO weasel words - to appoint strict constructionist judges, work HARD to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, build the fence FASTER and no bitching about it, strike the McCain-Feingold first campaign free-speech infringement, NO AMNESTY, and SMILE while you do it, dammit. AND NO Huckster as VP. I've had all I can stand of that snakeoil bastard. Pick someone strong as VP - how about Hunter or Thompson or Steele (boy, that would be fun), but McCain needs to show humility and promise conservatives these things or he won't win
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/06/2008 19:18 Comments ||
Top||
#55
"Unassailable proof that Canadians are inherently less intelligent than Americans"
Is anyone more intelligent than you? ...speaking of tedious hubris.
"Most of whom are quite concerned that twits like you will have an influence here."
You can relax, I don't plan on voting in your election.
#58
lotp said..."Prediction: a Dem will will mean a flood of military resignations."
My USMC LtC son said: 'If it's Hillary, I will resign, as will most all those that I know'.
VEA seems to be having global warming problems up there in polar bear country, eh?
#59
Not to worry, VEA. Even if you DO get plugged by some Rantburger and go to your fiery just reward, you'll still be able to vote--in Chicago! What's more, you'll be voting Lib, just the way you want. What's not to like? That would have more effect on a U.S. election than just running your mouth!
Just let him go back to taking away people's guns, promoting socialism, and committing acts of bigotry against Christians.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
02/06/2008 21:01 Comments ||
Top||
#63
Sure. Just like 2000 and 2004. Hillary Clinton, the most hated woman in America. Or Barak Obama, son of a muslim and himself a radical black supremacist. Sorry, it just goes to show the Dem nominating process is controlled by the left wing fringe (esp. money) of the Dem party. But, just like John Kerry, the news media blackout on Obama's beliefs or radical associates won't survive past the primaries. The election is depends entirely on conservative acceptance of the GOP candidate. Middle class America already rejects the two Dem nominees.
Posted by: ed ||
02/06/2008 21:08 Comments ||
Top||
#64
But you won't vote for McCain either...so...what now?
I have a lot of respect for McCain not because I agree with his policies, but because he stuck to his guns when every one else hated his guts. It takes a lot these days to stand up to people who consistently believe "it's my way or the highway".
"Hey Victor, how do you feel about the NAU (North American Union)? Can't wait to get your piece of the USA, right ?"
Hell no! And stay away from our water!
What else...I think NAFTA is a disaster, I don't want a common currency either, and I think China is a bigger threat to our economies than 12 million illegal Mexicans.
I don't like guns, but for historical and practical reasons I wouldn't take them away. When you live in the boonies and the closest cop is 300km away, you need a gun.
As for health care, I would keep a free health care system, but I wouldn't prevent someone who wants to pay for faster or better service.
#65
VAE, McCain has his problems (e.g. immigration), but if he is the nominee, there is no red line that will prevent the majority voting for him. On the other hand, Hillary is ALREADY hated by the majority of Americans and Obama is a black RACIST with nice teeth (paid for by his white grandparents). That's a gut check that won't pass GO with middle America.
Posted by: ed ||
02/06/2008 21:35 Comments ||
Top||
#66
Victor, may I say you were so horribly misnamed?
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/06/2008 21:40 Comments ||
Top||
#67
You can say whatever you like, it's a free country.
#68
"I have a lot of respect for McCain not because I agree with his policies, but because he stuck to his guns when every one else hated his guts. It takes a lot these days to stand up to people who consistently believe "it's my way or the highway"."
-cool, based on that reasoning you should respect George W. Bush for also sticking to his guns.
#69
Frank G, you and I have tracked down the same road in terms of support. I even had the misfortune to donate to Fred Thompson's campaign about an hour before he withdrew. Unfortunately though, I don't see how John McCain can, at this late date, change the habits of a lifetime. Humility and a humble demeanor are anathema to the man. I think he might say most anything, but would revert to type if elected and throw open the borders. His comment to "just calm down" was one of the stupidest, most arrogant statements uttered in recent memory and had exactly the opposite effect.
#70
based on that reasoning you should respect George W. Bush for also sticking to his guns
Yes but he had plenty of support back then during the worst of Iraq, unlike McCain. I actually like George W. Bush. His mistake was that when people saw that Iraq was turning into an aparent SNAFU, he should have reacted sooner, instead of listening to his pal Rumsfeld and "staying the course". And as it turns out, the so called surge seems to have given good results. Which you'll remember, McCain supported.
By Ahmed Al-Jarrallah
In Lebanon, some leaders who are now accustomed to living in dire situations believe they can only achieve their objectives through violence and by instigating conflicts. Lebanons problems lie in its geographical location. While Israel is in the south waiting for an invitation to Lebanon, where it can wreak havoc on the Lebanese and their properties, Syria is in the east and north practising the Baath ideology, thinking that Lebanon is part of its territory. Syria is currently working on the approval of its structure in Lebanon with the help of influential people who immobilized moves on the presidential election, closed the parliament, paralyzed half of the cabinet and desecrated religious symbols. These people include Hassan Nasrallah.
After obstructing peace initiatives in Lebanon, the Syrian cohorts in the country are now targeting the Lebanese Army. These cohorts are castigating the government for protecting the southern border and effectively rooting out terrorism in the north. However, the government has continued to exert tremendous efforts to maintain peace and order as well as unite the Lebanese. We then wonder why such crimes are happening in an Arab country which has the right to live freely? Several countries including the US, France, Turkey and other European and Arab nations tried to solve the problem in Lebanon but their efforts went in vain. It seems there is no solution to the problem because the Syrian regime is taking advantage of those who put the country up for sale to get rid of Lebanon. These traders earn their living out of Lebanons destruction.
Those who brought sorrow to Lebanon and shattered the dreams of the Lebanese are the ones who stopped the heart of Beirut from beating. While criticizing the poor performance of the economy, these people ransacked the Ministry of Electricity and went out in the streets complaining about the power shortage. They took control of the Israeli Army, wreaked havoc all over the country and accused the government of being an Israeli follower.
They are now pushing Lebanon in to a pool of blood murdering innocent individuals because of their identities and sectarian affiliations similar to what happened in Kosovo. They have also blocked moves of the international community to solve the crisis. This situation is an atrocious crime in the modern history of an Arab country, which saw a civil war that killed one hundred thousand people, maimed two hundred thousand and displaced almost half a million. Violence reigned in the country giving unscrupulous persons chance to commit various crimes such as drug trading, mafia activities and illegally crossing of the borders. Only criminals can deceive their nation and its people. They traded the blood of their countrymen to serve the interests of foreigners. These people have placed their nation at the bottom of their list of priorities. For them , what matters is the opinion of Iran and Syria and without a spirit of nationalism, they have severed ties to their country and community.
How can Suleiman Franjieh explain his announcement on his preparedness for civil war? His grandfather, former Lebanese President Suleiman Kabalan Franjieh, highly regarded national identity but his grandson worked against Lebanon. Franjieh served in the ministries and the Parliament for several years due to his connections with the Syrian influences in Lebanon. His Hezbollah alliances, on the other hand, remained respectable through their resistance in the south, which they continued to the Doors of Fatema. Later, they went out on the streets trying new ways to get attention. Isnt it true that Hezbollah is being paid by those who control their guns starting from the Doors of Fatema to the Windows of Aisha?
Posted by: Fred ||
02/06/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
"...Israel is in the south waiting for an invitation to Lebanon, where it can wreak havoc on the Lebanese ..."
"They took control of the Israeli Army, wreaked havoc all over the country and accused the government of being an Israeli follower."
Aside from the irrational Jew hatred I note this sort of seems to make sense and calls out Iran & Syria and their followers. BUT, exactly who are the they that took control of the Israeli army? And why does he think that Israel wants to invade Lebanon? (and since when do you need an invitation to invade?)
When you mention "Berkeley, California" to most conservatives, they picture a leftist community of graying hippies, radicals, and protesters. Activities in the last few weeks have only reinforced this image.
The City Council of Berkeley last week voted to ask the U.S. Marine Corps to vacate their recruiting office in town, and that if they chose to stay they did so as "uninvited and unwelcome intruders."
During debate of the resolution, one council member called the Marines "the President's own gangsters" and "trained killers." Another said the Marines had given the country "horrible karma" and said they had a history of "death and destruction." In a document drafted to support the resolution against the Marines, the council stated: "Military recruiters are sales people known to lie to and seduce minors and young adults into contracting themselves into military service with false promises regarding jobs, job training, education and other benefits."
After voting to insult the men and women who fight and bleed for their freedom, the City Council cast another ridiculous vote in favor of giving the radical protest group Code Pink a parking space directly in front of the Marine Corps recruiting station. They also voted to give Code Pink a sound permit for protests in front of the Marine Corps building. The City Council stated in the resolution that they "encourage all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station" and to "applaud" Code Pink for working to "impede, passively or actively" the work of the Marines Corps in Berkeley.
Code Pink is a fringe organization that distinguishes itself by attacking American policy, while defending dictator Hugo Chavez. The group is so disrespectful that they have no problems demonstrating in front of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Medical Center with signs reading "Maimed for a lie."
The council's resolution sparked an escalation of anti-Marine protests. Code Pink organizer Zanne Joy points to the City Council as justification for the escalation. She said that "anything legal is justified if it succeeds in persuading the Marine Corps to move its recruiting station out of Berkeley." According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Code Pink protesters have been heard shouting at young men who are trying to enter the recruiting station, "You guys are just cannon fodder!" and "They want to train you to kill babies!"
It is sad to see a city like Berkeley moving so far left. Thanks to its elected leadership
the city in which, as a young naval officer, the legendary World War II Pacific Theater Commander, Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz established the Naval ROTC in the fall of 1926 is now sadly a shell of its former self.
This is disappointing, but in a republican form of government, it must be up to local voters to change their leadership.
However, this particular case became the business of all Americans when they insulted our troops while coming to the federal government asking for special taxpayer-funded handouts. Over $2 million was secretly tucked away for Berkeley earmarks in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill, projects that were never voted on or debated.
I do not believe a city that has turned its back on our country's finest deserves $2 million worth of pork-barrel projects. So, I will introduce legislation to revoke the funding.
Included in the $2 million worth of pork are some particularly wasteful projects.
One earmark provides gourmet organic lunches to schools in the Berkeley School District. While our Marines are making due with MREs of Sloppy Joe and Chili with Beans, the organization Chez Panisse is getting federal tax dollars to design meals that promote "environmental harmony." Chez Panisse's menu features "Comté cheese soufflé with mâche salad," "Meyer lemon éclairs with huckleberry coulis" and "Chicory salad with creamy anchovy vinaigrette and olive toast."
Are we to understand that the city that has been home to many of the country's most rich and famous cannot afford to pay for its own designer school lunches?
Another $975,000 earmark is for the Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service at U.C. Berkeley, which may include cataloging the papers of Congressman Robert Matsui. Is it really necessary to tax the paychecks of Marines so we can earmark nearly $1 million for a school that is already sitting on a $3.5 billion endowment?
Let me be clear, my bill does does not cut off all federal funds to the city of Berkeley, though I am sure most Americans would feel that is justified. My bill merely rescinds wasteful earmarks. Berkeley is free to compete with other towns and cities across America for merit-based federal grants.
Actions have consequences. When the Berkeley City Council decided to insult the Marines in a time of war, it was a $2 million decision. Especially in a time of war, we cannot just allow cities to play insulting games at our troops' expense while continuing to shower them with congressional favors.
There's nothing surprising - or objectionable - about an anti-war protest outside a Marine Corps recruiting office in Berkeley. Bullhorns, locked arms, chanted slogans: Bring it on if that's the way demonstrators want to oppose the Iraq war.
But what is the Berkeley City Council doing by endorsing statements denouncing these recruiters as "uninvited and unwelcome intruders" and reserving curb space for the convenience of weekly protesters?
Berkeley's leaders have taken the worthy notion of political protest and shoved it over the cliff. While playing up arguments of free speech and organized protest, the council has loaded the deck with insulting language that denigrates the military and embarrasses the anti-war cause.
The motion approved by the council includes a number of remarkable statements: "The United States has a history of launching illegal, immoral and unprovoked wars of aggression" and "The military recruiters are sales people known to lie to and seduce minors."
The move has provoked an uproar. South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint wants to yank some $2.1 million in Washington money bound for Berkeley schools, food programs and ferries. Sorry senator, we don't see the connection - or sense of fairness.
Two Berkeley City Council members, Sharon Olds and Laurie Capitelli, are hurrying a resolution for the council's Feb. 12 meeting to paper over the harm done. Their idea is to state Berkeley's opposition to the Iraq war and support the troops, no-brainer notions in local politics. The measure would also attempt to undo the damage by also dropping the offending rhetoric of the original resolution that singled out the Marine recruiters. That would be a welcome ending to a foolish crusade.
This article appeared on page B - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle
#2
I guess I do have to agree with the Berkeley city council on one thing: the Marines are, in fact, "trained killers".
Of course, I consider that a feature, not a bug.
#3
There's a recruiting poster in the new Marine Corp museum at Quantico I admire - not sure of what vintage - that says, "nobody wants to fight, but somebody has to know how."
Outstanding museum, by the way; really well-done, and all private money. They finished the WW II, and more recent wars part first, so the vets could enjoy. The Revolutionary-WW I period will be built later.
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/06/2008 13:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
one council member called the Marines..."trained killers.", they had a history of "death and destruction."
Well, that is the purpose of a military. Thanks Marines!
The move has provoked an uproar. South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint wants to yank some $2.1 million in Washington money bound for Berkeley schools, food programs and ferries. Sorry senator, we don't see the connection - or sense of fairness.
#11
Put on your comfortable filibustering shoes senator when any Berkeley appropriations bill come up. I'll send the drinks and throat lozenges.
Posted by: ed ||
02/06/2008 15:58 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Just got a reply from the Mayor, who immediately tried to gain legitimacy by mentioning his military background. And then defended the resolutions against US troops. And then said "Bring the troops home." In other words, capitulate to the terrorists abroad.
I intend to reply. And I will address him as "Soldier!", and dress that coward down. My motto in the reply will be "WWGPS", What Would Patton Say".
#14
Though it kind of mixes things up a bit, I think that a few companies of Marines ought to be encouraged to take shore leave in Berkeley, after being given W.T. Sherman's directive: that they should "forage freely upon the land."
#15
I intend to reply. And I will address him as "Soldier!", and dress that coward down.
Were you a sergeant once, www, or do you know someone who was? And may I have a copy of the letter -- I've always wanted to know how to dress someone down.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
02/06/2008 9:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I grew up in Buffalo. My father and Mr. Wife both did oncology research at Roswell Park where the gentleman in the video likely had his surgery. The Canadians come down to shop in Buffalo, too.
Trauma doctor Hisashi Matsumoto said he gets $6 an hour, or less than the average minimum wage, for a 16-hour night shift. The low pay and long shifts have left hospitals short-staffed nationwide...About 14 percent of emergency centers across Japan lack 24- hour specialists on duty and were unable to treat some emergency cases, citing a particular shortage of obstetricians...One hospital in Hokkaido had to close its emergency room because all the doctors quit...Convenience store attendants receive more on an hourly basis than some doctors working extended shifts in hospitals, said Kobayashi, the former head of the emergency center at Teikyo University Hospital.
#6
re: #4, There are various options here for the uninsured. Emergency rooms do not turn away acute cases and often end up treating less pressing conditions as well.
When my young brother was diagnosed with aggressive cancer while in the middle of moving with his family to a new job, doctors at two well known hospitals waived all their fees and a local fund paid for the hospital charges. He did have to declare bankruptcy but did not lose any assets -- and worked to repay every cent of those cancelled debts once he was cured. He went on to qualify for a mortgage, establish a good credit record and is now employed as VP of information services at a company in our home state.
And best of all - he was treated as soon as he was diagnosed, which saved his life.
#11
My comment on socialized medicine and developmental disabilities is getting diverted to the Roadside America website. I do not know why. Mods, any ideas?
The Katie Beckett Medicaid program, which goes by various names in various states, is designed for long term care for children with disabilities. Some years ago, a family named Beckett, whose daughter had multiple birth defects, sued the government: why should a family have to sell the roof over their heads and beggar themselves to qualify for aid for long term care for their child? The courts agreed, and the Katie Beckett program was established to provide one form of
Medicaid for children, which is "Not means tested," not dependent on family income.
What has happened to this program?
I don't know about other states, but here in Wisconsin, the Doyle (democrat) administration gutted the Katie Beckett program for autism funding in 2003. My youngest, who has Asperger's Syndrome and Severe Emotional disturbance, still qualifies for $8500 a year in funding. For him, this amount is exactly right, and he is making progress. It covers respite care, where our respite worker teaches our son how to play with other kids; and it covers a therapist who is
teaching him to deal with situations that his autistic logic can't handle.
Our friend "Jerry", age 12, autistic with 40 words, has a scrambled sensory system, and needs an electronic message board to communicate. Jerry gets exactly the same as my son: $8500 a year. This doesn't even begin to cover his needs.
Somebody, I do not know who, just decided that age 7 was the cutoff for a child to receive in-home and other critical therapies for autism. A child who isn't diagnosed til age 6 is lucky if the bureaucracy gets his paperwork cleared in time for him to receive any benefits at all, and it ends on the child's 7th birthday. I have strong suspicions that the villain of this particular piece is a local practitioner who specializes in early childhood care. I know he had a lot to say to legislators when this issue was being debated. I get, "Gee, you mean a child over 7 can benefit from therapy?" from judges and legislators who ought to know better.
Our friend "Kitty", age a year and a half, has cerebral palsy. Her insurance covers most of her needs, but since the family has Katie Beckett for a few things, the rules require that insurance people wait til the Katie Beckett people get around to processing the forms before they can pay. The kids who are entirely dependent on Katie Beckett wait for months. Orthopedists and others making equipment no longer bother to measure the child until the paperwork clears, because the kids grow a size or three by the time the bureaucracy gets around to taking care of the paperwork.
For children with developmental issues, rapid response is as critical in its own way as rapid response for a cancer patient.
No private insurer covers autism. The HMOs stopped approving any motor or speech therapies for children on the grounds that the school is supposed to provide these things. However, we have learned how to play a little game we call DSM Røulette. We find a diagnosis that fits, with a little stretching, that is covered. For example, a diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder covers a lot of therapies such as communication. Our practitioners have gotten creative in arranging group therapies (groups being two or three) for modest fees, on a sliding scale, and with funds available for those who just can't handle even that.
We live near the University of Wisconsin, and their Communicative Disorders Clinic helps our kids over the summers, for a modest fee.
For adults, I think the time lag for a hip replacement is about 6 weeks. My friend just had one, and is greatly relieved even though she is not particularly mobile yet, she is glad to be rid of the pain. What's the wait for a hip replacement in Canada? I've heard two years.
Dealing with HMOs and providers can be challenging. But I have had enough experience with state bureaucracies that I simply do not trust any of these people to know what is best for a child and what is best for family health. If we were to adopt single payer, I don't think any child's needs would be met in time.
[Note from Fred: The system kicked this out on the word "röulette." By coincidence, there's a spam waiting in the queue offering us the opportunity to play even as we speak blog. For what it's worth, the current (brute force) filter works better than the weighted filter we used to have.]
Most people here don't need to rely on charity because we have insurance or don't need it because we are young and healthy. Charity is there for the few people that life takes a giant shit on if it is needed.
You want a 18 month wait for a colonoscipy like they do in Europe and die 14 months later because they never found the tumor like a friend of the family did? Fine. You can have your socialized medicine. Otherwise, stay away from ours.
You still feel like forcing your morals and views upon us? Drink bleach and die.
#16
Victor Immanuel, when was the last time you had to deal with a government bureaucrat with the intelligence of a turnip, because your child needed help?
The difference between our system and yours is precisely that we DON"T start out with the premise (as does the rest of the formerly Western world) that man is perfectible, and that the instrument of that perfection is government.
America knows human beings are not capable of being perfect (unlike your philosophical ilk), but also knows that our form of capitalism is the best possible way amongst others, all of which (including yours) are not merely flawed as well, but inherently MORE flawed.
You and yours opt to believe that you are perfection on Earth.
Hubris is so tawdry.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
02/06/2008 18:04 Comments ||
Top||
#18
And tedious.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/06/2008 18:20 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I thought the character "Junior" in the novel Ragtime got killed off, but his malady lingers on.
#21
Toronto Troll:
If the medecine is so wonderful in the u.s., why do some people have to rely on charity?'
We pay for our insurance and if you do not have insurance you pay your debt -- my debt should not be a burden to society. But if you cannot pay in the US there are solutions and it is the giving nature of Americans to help. You still did not answer the question -- why do canadians come south for medical care if it is so wonderful in canada? You try and dance around the issues (and you are doing this on all the threads I have seen your comments) with clichés. Your clichés masks the issues -- can you answer the question?
Posted by: dan ||
02/06/2008 18:24 Comments ||
Top||
#22
yes -- at least aris had some intelligent comments
Posted by: dan ||
02/06/2008 18:29 Comments ||
Top||
#23
"...our form of capitalism is the best possible way amongst others, all of which (including yours) are not merely flawed as well, but inherently MORE flawed."
Geeze Louise, what are you talking about? Your form of capitalism is the same as ours.
"You still did not answer the question -- why do canadians come south for medical care if it is so wonderful in canada?"
Because your health care system is better than ours, but only if you have the money, are perfectly healthy, or if someone decides to be charitable. I doubt it's the poorer Canadians who are flocking to your health care system.
"when was the last time you had to deal with a government bureaucrat with the intelligence of a turnip"
Our turnips are smarter than your turnips so I never had that problem.
If you like Aris so much, why do you keep banning him every time he shows up? YJCMTSU
#26
Where have all the good trolls gone? Why back in the day we had flamewars that would char a 1200 baud modem. Of course, we also had newsgroups like alt.cobol. Sick trainset gloria monday, indeed.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
