From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Sat Aug 1 02:33:41 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 02:33:41 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Bank Holiday? In-Reply-To: <20090731142531.GB31769@dminet.com> References: <20090731142531.GB31769@dminet.com> Message-ID: Dave Ihnat wrote: >This last one, today, is what prompted me to post this here--if true, >it's troublesome. But is it true? What do y'all think? > >--FELDMAN: >If you didn't think I was completely insane already, here is something >that might put the nail in the coffin. This is from Harry Schultz & >Bob Chapman and I am not suggesting I agree but it would not exactly >shock me either. > >"Some US embassies worldwide are being advised to purchase massive amounts >of local currencies; enough to last them a year. Some embassies are being >sent enormous amounts of US cash to purchase currencies from those govts, >quietly. But not pounds. Inside the State Dept there is a sense of >sadness & foreboding that 'something' is about to happen, unknown re a >date--just that within 180 days, but could be 120-150 days." > >Bob quotes another source that "Panasonic has told their people to be >back in Japan by Sept 09." "their people"... "Panasonic Corporation of North America and its subsidiaries and affiliates employ about 12,000 people in the region." sez http://www.panasonic.com/about/overview.asp Of course Panasonic is just one of hundreds of Japanese corporations with vast operations in the U.S.: Sony, Mazda, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Nintendo (which owns the Seattle Mariners: have they told Ichiro Suzuki and Kenji Johjima to bail out?), Sega, Kikkoman... This looks very much like clever-dick panic-mongering, which looks like woo-hoo "inside information", but makes no real sense when considered seriously. Let's say that the U.S. government is planning for a "bank holiday" during which dollars will cease to be legal tender. Then the alleged actions make no sense. To begin with, U.S. diplomatic offices are only a small part of U.S. government activity overseas. They are dwarfed by the the U.S. military presence: the network of bases, manned by tens of thousands of personnel, many accompanied by dependents, in Korea, Germany, Britain, Spain, Turkey, Japan... Let's not forget operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Peace Corps, and NASA stations overseas, and a great deal more. Then there's this alleged procedure: packages of cash are being shipped to various places to be exchanged for local currency. Say WHAT???? If the U.S. needed to have a supply of let us say _reals_ for our diplomats in Brazil, then the State Department would send a check to Banco Real and open an account. Banco Real is quite capable of accepting a deposit in dollars and converting it to _reals_; they're a subsidiary of the Spanish bank Santander. Indeed, I am quite certain that the U.S. government already has such accounts. There's no need to send Retief down to the currency exchange at the corner of Rua Santa Luzia and Avenida Rio Branco with a satchel full of $20s. It's rubbish. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From mbcrui at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 09:30:39 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:30:39 -0400 Subject: [Goglog] Bank Holiday? In-Reply-To: References: <20090731142531.GB31769@dminet.com> Message-ID: <4A74518F.9050401@gmail.com> Rich Rostrom wrote: > There's no need to send Retief down to the currency exchange > at the corner of Rua Santa Luzia and Avenida Rio Branco with > a satchel full of $20s. > But! but! What if the US government didn't WANT any other country to know what it was planning? What about THAT? > It's rubbish. > Yeah, but it might make a good Retief story, at that. -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Aug 6 18:21:09 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 18:21:09 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Bank Holiday? In-Reply-To: <4A7302AD.2040804@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <20090731142531.GB31769@dminet.com> <4A7302AD.2040804@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: Dave forwards: > "Some US embassies worldwide are being advised to purchase massive amounts > of local currencies; enough to last them a year. Stop right there. This triggers my BS meter big time. Why would *embassies* be buying money supplies? Out of what huge source of funds? And if it were a US policy, why would they be "advised" to do so? This makes no sense. - Steve G From ben at bl.com Sat Aug 8 15:16:25 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 15:16:25 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] overview of book on longitudinal research of criminal behavior Message-ID: "The Long View of Crime: A Synthesis of Longitudinal Research" The volume focuses on adolescent experiences with employment, gang involvement and first arrests as well as the link between early childhood and adolescence. The listing at the NIJ site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/260/books.htm Anyone want a copy of the overview? It is a 20 page document that describes the 6 reviews that were produced for the book, and gives the conclusions. The author wanted to make the conclusions generally available by putting them in the overview, which can be freely distributed because it is gov't funded. The book is $99 at Amazon http://www.amazon.com/dp/0387710876/ If you want a copy of the overview (20 pages, 10MB pdf), send me a note and I will email it to you. (or, if more than a handful want it, I will put it on a server and send you a link) You are free to redistribute it as well. -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From SteveG at swhi.net Sun Aug 9 08:21:33 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 08:21:33 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] overview of book on longitudinal research of criminalbehavior In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9EA2CF6DBC4F4C3A8798E97A2D68A6ED@StevePC> Ben writes: > "The Long View of Crime: A Synthesis of Longitudinal Research" > Anyone want a copy of the overview? I gather the editor is a relative of yours? Yes, I'd be interested in the overview. I doubt that I'd ever read the full book but would be curious about the gist of it. - Steve G From ben at bl.com Sun Aug 9 15:44:25 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 15:44:25 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] overview of book on longitudinal research of criminalbehavior In-Reply-To: <9EA2CF6DBC4F4C3A8798E97A2D68A6ED@StevePC> References: <9EA2CF6DBC4F4C3A8798E97A2D68A6ED@StevePC> Message-ID: At 8:21 AM -0500 8/9/09, Steve Gruenwald wrote: >Yes, I'd be interested in the overview. I doubt that >I'd ever read the full book but would be curious about >the gist of it. On its' way. PS - here's another quick read that you might find of interest. "Adolescents, Neighborhoods and Violence: Recent Findings From the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods" opening paragraph: "Why are some adolescents more violent than others? Why are some neighborhoods more violent than others? How do disadvantaged neighborhoods affect the development of resident youth? And, what is the relationship between violent neighborhoods and violent teens?" http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/217397.htm The web page has a link to the pdf and also two podcast interviews with the author, one on "Collective Efficacy" and the other on "Race, Violence and Exposure to Guns" -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From bentley at crenelle.com Wed Aug 12 08:52:31 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:52:31 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Bank Holiday? In-Reply-To: References: <20090731142531.GB31769@dminet.com> <4A7302AD.2040804@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: I believe it to be nonsense, but I will look for other similar indicators. It is possible that the Dollar pile is so large right now that it needs to be circulating more, and that embassies are a good place to promote circulation of millions of them. But millions times 100 embassies isn't a big number, relatively. For this to work, it can't just be embassies. It is possible that some oil providers have been shifting away from accepting payment in Dollars, causing a potential problem down the road. From ignatz at dminet.com Sat Aug 15 17:39:41 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:39:41 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Prison terms, news reporting Message-ID: <20090815223941.GA10443@dminet.com> [This was originally posted to the GT list; Steve Gruenwald stated that he believes it's 100% Goglog. Fine; I'll put it here.] Ok, this is something I've been looking at for a couple of days. On Wednesday, I think it was, I heard an article on WBBM about an inmate in the US coming to the end of his full prison term--no parole had been granted previously, and since it was a multiple murder, no early relase. In the piece, they said the prison officials don't want to release him because "he's too dangerous to release." Now, the reason I didn't pop up with the item here before is that I couldn't remember the name or state--one of those news items that caught my attention half-way through--but figured I could google for it. Wrong, bunky. I could find an item about a Canadian drug dealer and all-round number-one mafioso that the Canadians don't want to release; I'm pretty certain that's not the guy. And one about a similar case in, IIRC, Italy. So now I've got two items that bother me. First, no matter how bad the bad guy is, if he/she has been tried, convicted, and sentenced--and carries out that sentence--it seems that subsequently trying to change the sentence is simply wrong, and subverts our legal system. It's bothered me for some time WRT sex offenders--there is no such thing as "serving your time" and taking up your life. Instead, certain convictions carry life-long punishments above and beyond whatever tangible, immediate punishment attends to the sentencing (e.g., jail time, loss of voting and gun ownership rights.) This seemed wrong to me when first I heard it, and still seems so. I suspect it's rooted in the pendulum of "punishment" vs. "rehabilitation" that the legal and prison system in the US swings between on a regular basis--and we're currently deep into the "punishment" swing. But retroactively deciding to keep someone incarcerated beyond the term originally determined by the courts carries this to a new--and, to me, frightening--level. The second item is that this isn't the first time I've heard a broadcast news item from a reputable radio station--usually WBBM or WBEZ--that subsequently "disappears into the aether". No reference from other news sources, none on the station's website, and no further repetition of the item on the air. I know, it sounds like tinfoil hat conspiracy, but I have to wonder if there is some ex post facto self-censorship going on. Has anyone else ever noticed this? Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From bentley at crenelle.com Sat Aug 15 18:06:33 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:06:33 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Prison terms, news reporting In-Reply-To: <20090815223941.GA10443@dminet.com> References: <20090815223941.GA10443@dminet.com> Message-ID: First, let me recommend this radio article by NPR this week: http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=111843426&m=111851651 In January 1968, Johnny Cash set up his band on a makeshift stage in the cafeteria at Folsom State Prison in California. "Hello, I'm Johnny Cash," he said in his deep baritone to thunderous applause. Song after song, the inmates thumped their fists and cheered from the same steel benches now bolted to the floor. The morning that Cash played may have been the high-water mark for Folsom - and for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The men in the cafeteria lived alone in their own prison cells. Almost every one of them was in school or learning a professional trade. The cost of housing them barely registered on the state budget. And when these men walked out of Folsom free, the majority of them never returned to prison. It was a record no other state could match. Things have changed. California's prisons are all in a state of crisis. And nowhere is this more visible than at Folsom today. Overcrowded, Underfunded A Look at Folsom Prison Credit: Amy Walters and Laura Sullivan/NPR Folsom was built to hold 1,800 inmates. It now houses 4,427. It's once-vaunted education and work programs have been cut to just a few classes, with waiting lists more than 1,000 inmates long. Officers are on furlough. Its medical facility is under federal receivership. And like every other prison in the state, 75 percent of the inmates who are released from Folsom today will be back behind bars within three years. From bentley at crenelle.com Sat Aug 15 18:17:23 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:17:23 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Prison terms, news reporting In-Reply-To: <20090815223941.GA10443@dminet.com> References: <20090815223941.GA10443@dminet.com> Message-ID: So, not just because of the information provided in the npr.org article, I consider any opinion by prison officials to be a data point and absolutely not an actual consideration to be an action item. Now then. It is entirely possible that legislators will pass a law that allows the judicial system to not only shorten but lengthen sentencing, based on behavior. And the primary agents of behavior observation are: prison guards and officials. Well, yes they are in the best position to observe inmate behavior, but are they trained to understand it? Do they have a conflict of interest? Beyond that, I can't say because I just don't know enough about prisons. I do wonder why so many people are in the hoosgow here. From ignatz at dminet.com Sat Aug 15 19:42:18 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:42:18 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Prison terms, news reporting In-Reply-To: References: <20090815223941.GA10443@dminet.com> Message-ID: <20090816004218.GA14308@dminet.com> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 04:17:23PM -0700, Mike Bentley wrote: > Now then. It is entirely possible that legislators will pass a law > that allows the judicial system to not only shorten but lengthen > sentencing, based on behavior. And the primary agents of behavior > observation are: prison guards and officials. As for shortening or lenthening sentences--shortening, I can see, provided the purpose of prison is rehabilitation, and not sheer punishment. Lengthening--that makes a mockery of the trial process, and makes punishment a capricious process. > Beyond that, I can't say because I just don't know enough about > prisons. I do wonder why so many people are in the hoosgow here. Nationwide, drugs are the number one reason most prisons are overcrowded. I don't know about Washington, but in Texas--specifically, in Houston, in the lower-middle to middle-middle class crowd my brother tends to hang out with, it seems that a disproportionate number of people have spent some time in stir; far more than I've associated with the same strata in Chicago, at least on the north side. Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From SteveG at swhi.net Sun Aug 16 10:46:40 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:46:40 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Prison terms, news reporting In-Reply-To: <20090815223941.GA10443@dminet.com> References: <20090815223941.GA10443@dminet.com> Message-ID: <838AC35826C04BA2A9B56A434A789052@StevePC> Dave Ihnat says: > I heard an article on WBBM about an inmate in > the US coming to the end of his full prison term--no parole had been > granted previously, and since it was a multiple murder, no > early relase. > In the piece, they said the prison officials don't want to release him > because "he's too dangerous to release." > I could find an item about a Canadian drug dealer and > all-round number-one mafioso that the Canadians don't want to release; > I'm pretty certain that's not the guy. And one about a > similar case in, IIRC, Italy. > > So now I've got two items that bother me. > The second item is that this isn't the first time I've heard > a broadcast > news item from a reputable radio station--usually WBBM or WBEZ--that > subsequently "disappears into the aether". No reference from > other news > sources, none on the station's website, and no further > repetition of the > item on the air. I know, it sounds like tinfoil hat conspiracy, but I > have to wonder if there is some ex post facto self-censorship > going on. Has anyone else ever noticed this? Yes. AFAICT it has almost always been when, as you describe, I wasn't listening carefully, and it later turns out either (a) I heard wrong or (b) the news was read wrong on the radio and later corrected. In the latter cases I generally find something recognizable. In this case you find the article about the Mafia drug dealer in Toronto. I am inclined to suspect that you heard an item about that (possibly garbled). I find it *extremely* hard to believe that the news story you heard was a true story about a different person and a US jurisdiction and not only has disappeared from WBBM's site (I checked) but was never reported anywhere else. If I'm right, a crucial point is that it was Canada, not the US. What you describe could not legally happen in the US. (Then again, it's not clear it can happen in Canada.) The US Federal system does not have parole, hasn't for over 20 years. State systems are limited by Constitutional law (including court decisions), which mandates that prison sentences be given by legitimate court proceedings, generally involving a right to trial by jury, The only way a prison sentence can be "extended" by anything like "prison officials" is when the "extended" version was actually imposed by the original trial court, but conditioned on findings by an administrative board, e.g. a parole board, not "prison officials." (See below.) So if you say "prison officials *don't want to* release him because "he's too dangerous to release," I have no problem believing in any random case that that's what they *want* and will recommend - but if you mean they are going to make the decision, and it's in the US, I am not prepared to believe it without hard facts. > First, no matter how bad the bad guy is, if he/she has been tried, > convicted, and sentenced--and carries out that sentence--it seems > that subsequently trying to change the sentence is simply wrong, and > subverts our legal system. And the courts would agree with you. When criminal sentences are lengthened beyond what a court originally imposed, it *has to be* for conviction of additional crimes. (Haven't we discussed this before?) > First, no matter how bad the bad guy is, if he/she has been tried, > convicted, and sentenced--and carries out that sentence--it seems > that subsequently trying to change the sentence is simply wrong, and > subverts our legal system. There is no mechanism in the US legal system to *increase* the sentence imposed at trial: see above. (Some states have tried and they've been shot down in court.) The parole system can only decrease it from the sentence originally imposed. (There are some odd variants; see below.) The rationale as I understand it is twofold: (a) To some extent, in some cases, rehabilitation happens. That is, whether it is something about imprisonment that does it or not, some people "reform," see the error of their ways, or at least lose the will to harm others. Thus the need to keep them in prison for purposes of either rehabilitation or specific deterrence of the individual goes away. (The third purpose, general deterrence of others, may or may not be undercut.) (b) The original judgment about how long the person needed to be imprisoned in order for the purposes to be served might have been wrong. Practically speaking, this is usually indistinguishable from the above. Parole was done away with in the Federal system in 1987, and replaced with a complicated "point system" for more accurately determining the length of sentences. The reasons were complex but the main motivation was that the prospect of parole, especially combined with the loose standards for sentences, was seen as eliminating the deterrent effect of jail. That is, regardless of whether the sentences ultimately handed down and served turned out to be longer or shorter, the prospect of a real, specific sentence was deemed a better deterrent than a system in which the criminal could think he might well get off with a short sentence, or, if not, might only serve some small part of it. IMO both systems have big problems, but neither is inherently unfair. Some people continue to believe it's important to exercise leniency in selected cases based on the prisoner's behavior after sentencing, so many states still have parole boards. Then there are also people who believe it is necessary to be able to increase sentences and/or lock people up preventively, because they are deemed "dangerous." However, they know that this is unconstitutional (except for incarceration of the mentally ill who are deemed "a danger to themselves or others" because of a specific diagnosable disorder). So some states have (in recent years) experimented with models such as authorizing a *maximum* jail sentence in excess of what they really think will be warranted, but with automatic early release if there is no finding of continued bad conduct or "dangerousness." This has been struck down as unconstitutional too: the maximum sentence has to be one that would be supportable under community standards and the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause, not that plus a cushion for error. > It's bothered me for some time WRT sex > offenders--there is no such thing as "serving your time" and taking up > your life. That's a special case, really a substantially different issue. There are two general kinds of "life-long punishment" after sex offenses or other serious crimes: those imposed by society (applicable to all crimes) and those imposed by law (sex offenses specifically, maybe some others). There is little or nothing you can do or label as meaningfully "wrong" about the punishments imposed by society, other than to say "this is unfair, nice people shouldn't do it." As to those imposed by law, the theory about sex offenses is that the additional "punishments" (registration requirements, public lists of registrants, possible restrictions on daily activities) are not intended as punishments but only go so far as necessary to protect the population from someone who is likely to still be dangerous. The theory is that sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism because their offenses spring from a mental/emotional quirk that doesn't just go away. As a general theory that is perfectly valid and supported by hard evidence. There are two main problems I see: a. it is applied too broadly, by using strictly *legal* definitions of "sex offender" and not distinguishing those who are likely "dangerous"; and b. the effect is punitive even if the intent isn't. > This seemed wrong to me when first I heard it, and still seems so. I > suspect it's rooted in the pendulum of "punishment" vs. > "rehabilitation" > that the legal and prison system in the US swings between on a regular > basis--and we're currently deep into the "punishment" swing. Yes and no. I agree that we've been in a "punishment" swing for quite a while now, but that's partly because the rehabilitation model was tried and seems to have failed. I disagree that it would be why people would agitate for indeterminate sentencing, including increased sentences. Indeterminate sentencing is *more* consistent with a rehabilitation model than with punishment. No one can justify increased sentences (or, AFAIK, has tried to) on the basis that the original crime deserved a stronger sentence than was imposed, but rather on the basis that this person *still* isn't rehabilitated and instead still is dangerous. - Steve G From ben at bl.com Tue Aug 18 02:06:00 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:06:00 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Krauthammer on health care reform Message-ID: Over the past few weeks Charles Krauthammer has posted Op-Ed's to the Washington Post and other venues. http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/08/07/health_care_reform_a_better_plan http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/14/the_preventive_care_myth_97889.html -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net Tue Aug 18 22:55:17 2009 From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:55:17 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Krauthammer on health care reform In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2009-Aug-18 , at 02:06, Ben Liberman wrote: > http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/08/07/ > health_care_reform_a_better_plan Excellent! I have a few quibbles, but this would make a good start! Mark Hagerman From bentley at crenelle.com Wed Aug 19 11:16:44 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:16:44 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Krauthammer on health care reform In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is the first seriously cogent thing I've read from the conservative side on the subject in some time. I subscribe to a few conservative sources, I just haven't seen this kind of commentary for a while, something specifically targeted to contribute directly to the primary discussion. After weeks of pull the plug on grandma (while my mom, who is a grandma, recovers from cancer surgery in Chicago), does this mean that the discussion is finally settling down enough to get stuff done? The thing about wanting to kill legal recourse has not ever played well with constituents of the left largely due to lack of economic leverage at the family level. If an operation goes badly and a blue collar worker can no longer work, they want to institute military rules for dealing with injuries. It is interesting that the right wants insurance companies to be able to go national, while there's a bipartisan interest in maintaining the strength of statehood. That seems a little inconsistent. From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net Wed Aug 19 12:14:27 2009 From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:14:27 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Krauthammer on health care reform In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40C742BE-5782-4B72-A27E-DC1B4F910D87@worldnet.att.net> On 2009-Aug-19 , at 11:16, Michael Brian Bentley wrote: > The thing about wanting to kill legal recourse has not ever played > well with constituents of the left largely due to lack of economic > leverage at the family level. If an operation goes badly and a blue > collar worker can no longer work, they want to institute military > rules for dealing with injuries. I don't think that's what most conservatives want. For my own part, I'd like to see some sort of tort reform that limited damages to the actual loss, times some reasonable multiple for punitive damages. Traditionally, a court would assess three to five times actual losses, as I recall. In addition, I want a "loser pays" requirement; that is, the loser pays the winner's costs of prosecuting or defending the suit. In my view, that would encourage the guilty to admit their responsibility as soon as possible, to minimize their liability. > It is interesting that the right wants insurance companies to be able > to go national, while there's a bipartisan interest in maintaining > the strength of statehood. That seems a little inconsistent. Possibly. The recent spate of bailouts for banks that are "too big to be allowed to fail" has more than half convinced me that economies of scale may not be worth the resulting risks. To me, though, the most important point is to decouple one's medical insurance from one's employer. "Portability" is a major issue, because pre-existing conditions are usually (?) not covered. If one were enrolled in an insurance policy at birth, by one's parents, with a contractual or legal non-cancellation guarantee, and employers just paid a higher wage to offset their not paying for medical insurance directly, much of the problem would de-fuse itself. I think. Mark Hagerman From bentley at crenelle.com Wed Aug 19 15:44:17 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:44:17 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Krauthammer on health care reform In-Reply-To: <40C742BE-5782-4B72-A27E-DC1B4F910D87@worldnet.att.net> References: <40C742BE-5782-4B72-A27E-DC1B4F910D87@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: > >To me, though, the most important point is to decouple one's >medical insurance from one's employer. "Portability" is a major >issue, because pre-existing conditions are usually (?) not >covered. If one were enrolled in an insurance policy at birth, >by one's parents, with a contractual or legal non-cancellation >guarantee, and employers just paid a higher wage to offset >their not paying for medical insurance directly, much of the >problem would de-fuse itself. I think. > >Mark Hagerman The employers are doing it because 1) the tax break, and 2) the economy of scale and buyer's clout. A Cisco can arm wrestle a pretty darn good policy for its employee base because it has lets say 40,000 employees in the US. Unless a state has gone to the trouble of forcing insurance companies to provide sensible coverage to individuals, you MUST join some sort of group to be able to keep the insurance company from jacking up the rate two weeks after you get a policy with them, or watch them disallow a few things arbitrarily. I understand that San Francisco, of all places, has in fact set up such an arrangement. In WA state, there appear to be some mechanisms in place that were not present in Illinois. I'm experimenting. I'm checking out www.ghc.com. Expanding the tax break currently bound to employers seems like a good idea. These items do not fix my primary problem with insurance companies, which is that they screw with the terms of the policy after establishing a relationship, and they're just not above board with you in general. You need the leverage of an organization with thousands of members to get any leverage, to alleviate the problem. There is also my fundamental problem with the insurance company's fundamental conflict of interest, which is that they make money whenever they don't make a payout. I don't see a good reason to back a for-profit insurance company. A not-for-profit makes a whole lot more sense to me. The distracting behavior of the town hall ruckus makers ultimately produced lame results, I think they would have been better spent coming up with cogent questions and suggestions. I want sensible health coverage. From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Thu Aug 20 16:48:14 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:48:14 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Politicizing the Census Bureau Message-ID: There has been some concern recently about possible political influence on the Census Bureau. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) declined a potential nomination as Secretary of Commerce, in part because President Obama wanted the Census Bureau to report directly to the White House instead of to the Secretary of Commerce, the Census being part of that Department. I was reminded of this in reading of an occasion when the Census Bureau was plunged neck deep in political activity. This was in January and February of 1861. [Much background follows - but trust me, I'll get back to the Census Bureau eventually.] After Lincoln won the Presidential election of 1860, the most vehement pro-slavery men of the South ('fire-eaters) called for all the "Southern" (slave) states to declare secession immediately. They noted that Lincoln and the Republicans were overtly anti-slavery, and asserted that with such men in power in Washington, slavery was in danger of subversion - and that in any case, the South would be subjected to various oppressions and injuries. Seven "Deep South" states acted - South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. All declared secession by the end of January 1861. There was a popular clamor for secession in the Upper South as well, especially in Virgina, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Some of the political leaders in these states were pro-secession, but many others thought secession was a dangerous and foolish proposition. These Upper South Unionists mounted a great political drive to head off secession. (This drive, incidentally, united Whigs and Democrats who had been bitter enemies for many years.) The secessionists pressed for the states to elect conventions that would decide on secession. The Unionists worked a triple line of defense. The Unionists sought to have the election for convention delegates also include a referendum on holding the convention at all, ran Union candidates for the delegate seats, and sought to have the convention's action, if any, confirmed by referendum The key element in the Unionist drive was to persuade the voters of the Upper South to support their program rather than the secessionists. One important part of this campaign involved the Census Bureau. [Aha!] The head of the Census Bureau was Joseph Kennedy of Pennsylvania. Like nearly all Northerners he was a Unionist, and he put the Bureau at the service of the Upper South Unionists. He requested Census takers to send him reports on secessionist sentiment in their areas. This information was then used to guide targeted mass mailings to key areas. The voters were bombarded with copies of pro- Union speeches, editorials, and pamphlets. Twenty clerks of the Washington office were put to work stuffing and addressing envelopes - working every night from close of business to midnight. Unionist Representatives from the Upper South mailed the letters to their constituents, using the "franking" privilege to save on postage. Rep. Robert Hatton of Tennessee estimated that he had sent out 1,500 speeches every day for several weeks. Kennedy went further. He reminded Census takers in the South that if secession went forward, they might not be paid for their work! **** Now, the deep question is: was this activity improper? Should Kennedy have been dismissed or imprisoned for it? BTW, the fire-eaters accused Kennedy of purging "Southern Rights" men from the Bureau - and of sending anti- secession material to "free colored" residents. Several pro-secession postmasters admitted to intercepting and destroying Unionist mailings. ----------------- The outcome, and a further comment. In Tennessee and North Carolina, the Unionists got their referendum on holding the convention, and in both states the convention was voted down. In Virginia, the convention was held, but most of the delegates elected were Unionists, and the confirming referendum was required. However, all this ended up meaning nothing when Confederate troops bombarded and took Fort Sumter, and Lincoln called for troops to suppress rebellion, in mid-April - all three states declared for the Confederacy immediately. (Robert Hatton became a brigadier general in the Confederate Army and was KIA at Seven Pines, near Richmond, in May 1862.) IMO this outcome was inevitable, but in January, the Upper South Unionists felt otherwise: if they could prevent immediate secession, then some compromise would be reached that would remove the alleged necessity for secession. BTW, this in itself is surprising. The 'fire-eaters' insisted that the secession of the Deep South was irrevocable and not to be bought off with trivial or sham concessions. The Upper South Unionists ignored this and also expected Northern concessions far beyond anything Lincoln would agree to. Lincoln had stated flatly that there would be no going back from the Republican campaign platform - that he would never agree to 'buying' the office he had fairly won. Lincoln was determined to concede nothing on the issue of slavery in the territories, and said so repeatedly. Thus the Upper South Unionists made this huge effort in a cause which was doomed, if they had looked around seriously. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From jazz at qnet.com Thu Aug 20 19:59:48 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (jazz at qnet.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:59:48 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Politicizing the Census Bureau In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1250816388.4a8df184f0ccb@webmail.qnet.com> Quoting Rich Rostrom : > **** > > Now, the deep question is: was this activity improper? > > Should Kennedy have been dismissed or imprisoned for it? > > BTW, the fire-eaters accused Kennedy of purging "Southern > Rights" men from the Bureau - and of sending anti- > secession material to "free colored" residents. Several > pro-secession postmasters admitted to intercepting and > destroying Unionist mailings. > It might be considered improper in a hypertechnical sense, today. But in reality, no I don't think so. The main reason being that in 1861, the Census bureau and all the Executive departments were heavily politicized. That changed somewhat 20 years later with civil service reforms under President Arthur. But under Lincoln the spoils system reigned supreme. The person with the power was expected to use it to push the goals of the current administration. All the people working under them were expected to get on the program or get out. So it would not surprise me to see a senior chief actually use his agency to sway public opinion. The degree to which the effort consumed agency resources away from the overt mission might be questioned, but not the effort itself. Bill Taylor From jazz at qnet.com Thu Aug 20 19:59:48 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (jazz at qnet.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:59:48 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Politicizing the Census Bureau In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1250816388.4a8df184f0ccb@webmail.qnet.com> Quoting Rich Rostrom : > **** > > Now, the deep question is: was this activity improper? > > Should Kennedy have been dismissed or imprisoned for it? > > BTW, the fire-eaters accused Kennedy of purging "Southern > Rights" men from the Bureau - and of sending anti- > secession material to "free colored" residents. Several > pro-secession postmasters admitted to intercepting and > destroying Unionist mailings. > It might be considered improper in a hypertechnical sense, today. But in reality, no I don't think so. The main reason being that in 1861, the Census bureau and all the Executive departments were heavily politicized. That changed somewhat 20 years later with civil service reforms under President Arthur. But under Lincoln the spoils system reigned supreme. The person with the power was expected to use it to push the goals of the current administration. All the people working under them were expected to get on the program or get out. So it would not surprise me to see a senior chief actually use his agency to sway public opinion. The degree to which the effort consumed agency resources away from the overt mission might be questioned, but not the effort itself. Bill Taylor From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Aug 20 20:28:35 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:28:35 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Politicizing the Census Bureau In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51AC7313F1EA4DCE98484FBC1CF7809F@StevePC> Rich Rostrom says: > There has been some concern recently about possible > political influence on the Census Bureau. Senator Judd > Gregg (R-NH) declined a potential nomination as > Secretary of Commerce, in part because President Obama > wanted the Census Bureau to report directly to the > White House instead of to the Secretary of Commerce, > the Census being part of that Department. Was there a point you were trying to make, other than that everything Obama does, some Republicans say it is blatantly political, if not illegal? For the first 80 years of the US, the census was conducted by US Marshals. Only starting in 1880 were there appointed "enumerators" whose main job was not law enforcement. For a while it was under Interior, then I think Treasury, then starting in 1903 under Commerce. In 1861 there was no "Census Bureau"; it did not exist until 1903. In 1861 there was a Census Board, but it consisted of the Secretary of state, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General; they supervised the structuring of each census along with Congress. Kennedy was "superintending clerk" of the 1850 and 1860 censuses, assigned to the Department of the Interior. But it was a temporary job: each superintendant was appointed for a single census. Yes, he was a politician, like all his predecessors; he was also the first to take the job so seriously as to research statistics and methods of public administration. Once it was over, yes, he was assigned other duties along the lines you describe, but it was not a function of "the census bureau," which, as I said, didn't exist. The work of collecting census data was all assigned by statute to US Marshals (who could hire local assistants if needed). The US Marshals (part of the Department of Justice), Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Commerce all work for the President. So all this talk of the Reconstruction period is of some historical interest, but are you asserting that it has some relevance to the current situation? AFAICT Judd Gregg declined the position for two primary reasons: because of the economic stimulus program, which would impose significant duties on Commerce, and because he is a politician. He could not join the administration without being blackballed by his fellow Republicans for helping a Democrat president succeed in accomplishing anything, including the "big government," "big spending" policies in the face of economic hardship that were initiated by the Bush administration. There was a frightening risk that it might work out well under Democrats, and he'd be blamed. - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Aug 20 20:41:18 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:41:18 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Politicizing the Census Bureau In-Reply-To: <51AC7313F1EA4DCE98484FBC1CF7809F@StevePC> References: <51AC7313F1EA4DCE98484FBC1CF7809F@StevePC> Message-ID: <6B424C1431A6450A92000F8EF45F266B@StevePC> I wrote: > Once it was over, yes, he was assigned other duties along > the lines you describe Correction: once it was over he was assigned other duties related to the war effort, but I did not mean to say the ones you describe. Census Day was June 1, 1860. Some of the clerks assigned to finish the tabulation work in the Department of the Interior may be the same ones you are talking about. But again, what does this have to do with Judd Gregg? - Steve G From jazz at qnet.com Fri Aug 21 00:39:33 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:39:33 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Politicizing the Census Bureau In-Reply-To: <6B424C1431A6450A92000F8EF45F266B@StevePC> References: <51AC7313F1EA4DCE98484FBC1CF7809F@StevePC> <6B424C1431A6450A92000F8EF45F266B@StevePC> Message-ID: <200908210543.n7L5hEHG008166@mail.zarquon.net> At 20:41 8/20/2009 -0500, Steve Gruenwald wrote: >I wrote: > > > Once it was over, yes, he was assigned other duties along > > the lines you describe > >Correction: once it was over he was assigned other duties >related to the war effort, but I did not mean to say the >ones you describe. Census Day was June 1, 1860. Some of >the clerks assigned to finish the tabulation work in the >Department of the Interior may be the same ones you are >talking about. Which brings up another point: The Census was June 1860, Lincoln's election was November 1860, he took office March 1861. The cesessions were in January 1861, after Lincoln's election but before he actually took office. They were clearly related politically, but all of this activity in the Census would have been in the Buchanan administration, before Lincoln took over. Bill Taylor From bentley at crenelle.com Fri Aug 21 11:27:02 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:27:02 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Politicizing the Census Bureau In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The last administration played the politicization card a great deal, and the current political minority party is concerned about the current admin doing the same thing. With regard to the Census, having the numbers come out strongly in your favor would be devastating to the other guy. Both primary parties realize this. The worst possible thing that the Democrats can do to the Republicans is promote an exceptionally accurate Census. I don't know why Obama wanted the Census operated from the WH by WH staff, but I would guess he probably wants to promote an accurate Census. There are minorities who are stumping to boycott the Census. Doing so makes no sense to me. >Replies are directed to the list. >If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! >____________________________________________________________ >There has been some concern recently about possible >political influence on the Census Bureau. Senator Judd >Gregg (R-NH) declined a potential nomination as >Secretary of Commerce, in part because President Obama >wanted the Census Bureau to report directly to the >White House instead of to the Secretary of Commerce, >the Census being part of that Department. > >I was reminded of this in reading of an occasion when >the Census Bureau was plunged neck deep in political >activity. > >This was in January and February of 1861. From steveg at swhi.net Fri Aug 21 14:00:16 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:00:16 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] Politicizing the Census Bureau In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16212.144.183.224.2.1250881216.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Michael Brian Bentley wrote: > The worst possible thing that the Democrats can do to the Republicans > is promote an exceptionally accurate Census. I don't know why Obama > wanted the Census operated from the WH by WH staff, but I would guess > he probably wants to promote an accurate Census. Possibly in part. Being a bit of a technocrat, he may have figured it was something to be managed by his own people rather than a big administration into which he had less visibility. But also, it was in fact a political decision - or maybe I should say an anti-political one. When Judd Gregg was nominated for Commerce, a lot of groups (especially minority groups) complained that he was not only a Republican and no fan of their constituencies (I'm not saying whether that was true, but it was the complaint), but also had an existing track record of not wanting to support the Census Bureau with adequate resources. Taking the Census out from under his control seemed like a fairly obvious (if political) reaction. So, to the extent that the move was made for this reason, it would seem to be in order to *avoid* a particular perceived risk of politicizing the Census.* Then he quit. * - Yes, putting it under Rahm Emanuel - *if* this is what is happening, as rumored - would be a poor way of counteracting that concern. > There are minorities who are stumping to boycott the Census. Doing so > makes no sense to me. Right. - Steve G From ben at bl.com Sun Aug 23 21:01:00 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:01:00 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] a very unusual route to mideast peace Message-ID: Not for the faint of heart... http://tinyurl.com/mrmgry -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From steveg at swhi.net Mon Aug 24 09:13:54 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:13:54 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] a very unusual route to mideast peace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22164.144.183.224.2.1251123234.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Ben Liberman wrote: > Not for the faint of heart... I'm not *quite* sure how you mean that, but if you mean it could be potentially explosive and could easily backfire, yes, that's for sure. The truth - assuming for sake of discussion it is the truth - is often politically unacceptable. In any event, very, very interesting. - Steve G From bentley at crenelle.com Mon Aug 24 12:40:51 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:40:51 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] a very unusual route to mideast peace In-Reply-To: <22164.144.183.224.2.1251123234.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <22164.144.183.224.2.1251123234.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: It appears to be well-factored into current affairs. I wonder if genealogy is as big a deal in the Middle East as it is here in the US? From ben at bl.com Mon Aug 24 14:39:51 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] a very unusual route to mideast peace In-Reply-To: References: <22164.144.183.224.2.1251123234.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: At 10:40 AM -0700 8/24/09, Michael Brian Bentley wrote: >It appears to be well-factored into current affairs. > >I wonder if genealogy is as big a deal in the Middle East as it is >here in the US? I does have some leverage. As the article said, family first. -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From ben at bl.com Mon Aug 24 14:45:27 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:45:27 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] a very unusual route to mideast peace In-Reply-To: <22164.144.183.224.2.1251123234.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <22164.144.183.224.2.1251123234.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: At 9:13 AM -0500 8/24/09, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > > Not for the faint of heart... > >I'm not *quite* sure how you mean that, but if you mean it could >be potentially explosive and could easily backfire, yes, that's >for sure. Yes >The truth - assuming for sake of discussion it is the >truth - is often politically unacceptable. and fortunately there are sometimes other workable routes to a progress than politics. I see politics often as the next to last resort. Then comes war. The route back from the abyss is, well... the route back. First war, then politics, and finally other effective approaches. -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From ignatz at dminet.com Mon Aug 24 16:08:30 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:08:30 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] a very unusual route to mideast peace In-Reply-To: References: <22164.144.183.224.2.1251123234.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <20090824210830.GA21153@dminet.com> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 02:45:27PM -0500, Ben Liberman wrote: > I see politics often as the next to last resort. Then comes war. Politics is--excepting corruption, etc.--diplomacy; and remember Carl von Clauswitz' assertion that "War is a continuation of diplomacy using other means." The problem is that it should be the _last_ step of diplomacy, and should have realizable goals. The mess in the Levant is/was neither. Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From steveg at swhi.net Mon Aug 24 16:52:44 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:52:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] a very unusual route to mideast peace In-Reply-To: <20090824210830.GA21153@dminet.com> References: <22164.144.183.224.2.1251123234.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <20090824210830.GA21153@dminet.com> Message-ID: <56272.144.183.224.2.1251150764.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Dave Ihnat wrote: > Politics is--excepting corruption, etc.--diplomacy; Not to quibble - oh, hell, yes, maybe to quibble - but I'd say diplomacy is a specialized subset of politics. Politics in general involves making deals (*some* of them productive and perceived to be in the public interest) and getting elected or appointed. Diplomacy is a very specialized kind of deal-making. > The problem is that it [war] should be the _last_ step of > diplomacy, and should have realizable goals. The mess in the Levant > is/was neither. Right, but FTM the diplomacy in the middle east, short of war, sometimes has suffered from the same shortcomings. I have the impression that as often as not, diplomats dealing with the Palestine problem since the late 19th century and perhaps earlier have mainly wanted to mark time, not visibly make things worse that they could be blamed for, and had no other goals they perceived as realizable. - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Mon Aug 24 18:39:29 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:39:29 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] a very unusual route to mideast peace In-Reply-To: References: <22164.144.183.224.2.1251123234.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <50D4659699FD4292BD0E5CE5EB8BA0AC@StevePC> Michael Brian Bentley says: > I wonder if genealogy is as big a deal in the Middle East as it is > here in the US? Depends on the specific culture. Those that have a long tradition of royalty and nobility, like the Saudis, yes. And of course anyone who can claim descent from the Prophet or his close companions is likely to know about it. Other than that, I don't know. Family relationships tend to be important, but the study of long-distant ancestry may not. Genealogy was not nearly as widespread an interest here as it is now, before the Web and online databases made it more feasible. That's not likely to be a factor in at least some areas of the Mideast. - Steve G From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Mon Aug 24 18:48:03 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:48:03 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] a very unusual route to mideast peace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ben Liberman wrote: >Not for the faint of heart... > >http://tinyurl.com/mrmgry Very interesting, in some ways not all that surprising. Genetic surveys in western Europe have found that, for instance, the inhabitants of England are much closer to the inhabitants of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales than to Germans - even though English is a Germanic language, which became prevalent in England due to migration and conquest by Germanic invaders in the Dark Ages (the Angles and Saxons). Apparently, conquest/migration can change language and religion, but the genetic flavor is more persistent. I'm not sure that the presence of a common rare trait in Ashkenzim and Palestians disproves the "Khazar conversion" theory. ISTM that it demonstrates some degree of common descent, but does not exclude the possibility that Ashkenazim are _in_ _part_ descended from Khazar converts; the deafness gene may have propagated into the Khazar genome by intermarriage with Jewish "missionaries". The claim about Aramaic speakers seems a little misguided. Modern "Assyrians" speak a form of Aramaic, and are all Christians. (There are quite a few here in Rogers Park, such as the guy I need to call and harass about the water bill for his building in our complex.) Here's some material on a related topic: a paper discussing "Palestinians" of sub-Saharan African descent. (The author is clearly pro-Palestinian, BTW.) http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2008/03/african-palestinians.html The groups discussed run from the supposed descendants of Sudanese guards stationed by the Mamleukes at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, to descendants of slaves imported under the Turks, as late as the 20th century, to volunteers for the 1948 war who stuck around afterwards. Some "Bedouin" are described as black; some particular clan and family groups especially. Notes: there are race barriers between "black" Palestinians and others; the term "abed" (slave) is still often used by "white" Palestians to refer to "blacks". -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From ben at bl.com Tue Aug 25 01:48:41 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:48:41 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] a very unusual route to mideast peace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 6:48 PM -0500 8/24/09, Rich Rostrom wrote: > >I'm not sure that the presence of a common rare trait in >Ashkenzim and Palestians disproves the "Khazar conversion" >theory. ISTM that it demonstrates some degree of common >descent, but does not exclude the possibility that >Ashkenazim are _in_ _part_ descended from Khazar converts; >the deafness gene may have propagated into the Khazar >genome by intermarriage with Jewish "missionaries". Jews are not supposed to evangelize. The only "Jewish missionaries" that I have ever heard of were Jews for Jesus - not very Jewish in my book, and only in existence since 1973. -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 27 08:45:53 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 06:45:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? Message-ID: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> So after 8 years of neoconservative war criminals shredding the constitution with nary a complaint from the republicans I find their sudden cries of "constitution uber alles" a little disingenuine, but I still think it's an excellent point. I accept the constitution as the law of the land, and I find the various arguments justifying health care a little weak... The preamble talks about general welfare, but as I understand it, that could be used to justify about anything, and it was argued against in the Federalist papers for exactly that reason. The commerce clause certainly seems sufficient to allow pretty broad regulation of health care, but I am not convinced it allows the government to provide it. So in the end, I am curious what the arguments are in favor. I happen to feel pretty strongly we need health care with a strong public option, but I also feel pretty strongly that what I want has exactly jack all shit to do with what is allowed, and I dunno, for some reason I am kind of fond of the constitution. Janet From jazz at qnet.com Thu Aug 27 09:43:01 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:43:01 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200908271452.n7REqJLR002739@mail.zarquon.net> At 06:45 8/27/2009 -0700, Janet Plato wrote: > So after 8 years of neoconservative war criminals shredding the >constitution with nary a complaint from the republicans I find their >sudden cries of "constitution uber alles" a little disingenuine, but >I still think it's an excellent point. If no one complains it isn't a crime. At least, if no one I want to listen to complains. > I accept the constitution as the law of the land, and I find the >various arguments justifying health care a little weak... > > The preamble talks about general welfare, but as I understand it, >that could be used to justify about anything, and it was argued >against in the Federalist papers for exactly that reason. > > The commerce clause certainly seems sufficient to allow pretty >broad regulation of health care, but I am not convinced it allows >the government to provide it. Depends on how you mean "provide it". As you say, the federal government regulates all kinds of things interstate. And intrastate too, through some mechanism. If a health care law that regulates private companies is enacted, they would be on the same basis. Some regulation agency checks what the companies are up to and rewards or punishes appropriately. If the law were to enact direct provision of health care services by government employees, that might be different. They do it now, but only for well defined subsets of people, ie. veterans, military service members and families, Indians on reservations, people in disaster areas, etc. If the subset were to be defined as, "any citizen of the US anywhere in the US", that might be the same in principle, but in practice it stretches things tremendously. But I'm not sure if that is a real Constitutional law problem, or just a money and administration problem. And then there is the "Medicare did it" rationalization. Whatever basis was used to authorize Medicare could, and likely would, be used to authorize a National Health Care plan. Bill Taylor From jazz at qnet.com Thu Aug 27 09:43:01 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:43:01 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200908271452.n7REqJgO002740@mail.zarquon.net> At 06:45 8/27/2009 -0700, Janet Plato wrote: > So after 8 years of neoconservative war criminals shredding the >constitution with nary a complaint from the republicans I find their >sudden cries of "constitution uber alles" a little disingenuine, but >I still think it's an excellent point. If no one complains it isn't a crime. At least, if no one I want to listen to complains. > I accept the constitution as the law of the land, and I find the >various arguments justifying health care a little weak... > > The preamble talks about general welfare, but as I understand it, >that could be used to justify about anything, and it was argued >against in the Federalist papers for exactly that reason. > > The commerce clause certainly seems sufficient to allow pretty >broad regulation of health care, but I am not convinced it allows >the government to provide it. Depends on how you mean "provide it". As you say, the federal government regulates all kinds of things interstate. And intrastate too, through some mechanism. If a health care law that regulates private companies is enacted, they would be on the same basis. Some regulation agency checks what the companies are up to and rewards or punishes appropriately. If the law were to enact direct provision of health care services by government employees, that might be different. They do it now, but only for well defined subsets of people, ie. veterans, military service members and families, Indians on reservations, people in disaster areas, etc. If the subset were to be defined as, "any citizen of the US anywhere in the US", that might be the same in principle, but in practice it stretches things tremendously. But I'm not sure if that is a real Constitutional law problem, or just a money and administration problem. And then there is the "Medicare did it" rationalization. Whatever basis was used to authorize Medicare could, and likely would, be used to authorize a National Health Care plan. Bill Taylor From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 27 10:50:59 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <200908271452.n7REqJgO002740@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <147172.89814.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Bill, I am trying to understand your position here. In general I am pretty sure you are a conservative but I do not know if you are neoconservative, republican or something else. Are you saying that violating the Geneva convention is OK, since only the whiny liberals are complaining, or is there some level of sarcasm I am missing here. I kind of think I am missing your real point and I do not want to put words into your mouth. --- On Thu, 8/27/09, Bill Taylor wrote: > >???So after 8 years of neoconservative war criminals shredding the > > constitution with nary a complaint from the republicans I find their > > sudden cries of "constitution uber alles" a little disingenuine, but > >I still think it's an excellent point. > > If no one complains it isn't a crime.? At least, if no > one I want to listen to complains. > Cheers, Janet From jazz at qnet.com Thu Aug 27 11:13:35 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:13:35 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <147172.89814.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200908271452.n7REqJgO002740@mail.zarquon.net> <147172.89814.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200908271614.n7RGEU9c012158@mail.zarquon.net> Janet, Yes, you are somewhat missing my point. Doubly so if you're ready to call me a neocon. I don't mind being called a conservative, though most of the time I don't identify with the others that call themselves that. They are just wrong, and I'm OK with that. While it is often possible to successfully argue a point that proponent does not actually agree with, most people consider it somewhat intellectually dishonest. That is what I think of many of the positions of the former Bush administration. They could clearly put forth arguments as to why they were not in violation of treaties, laws and agreements the US was party to. But most people most of the time deal in the meaning underlying an agreement, not just the technical language of them. Thus you get the divergence between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The Bush people were willing to strongly put forth positions that didn't jibe with common understanding of what the Geneva conventions and other agreements meant. Their solution was to just argue louder and more strongly. The opposition got shouted down, ignored, or bluffed off. Policy didn't have to be changed and they did what they wanted to do. That is politics, not law, but it worked just the same. If the whiny liberals had been more prepared and more coherent, they would have got more results sooner, and they wouldn't have been standing around saying how awful it was the Bush got away with so much. There is a scene in Lean on Me where Morgan Freeman kicks the Fire Chef out of the school and makes a similar point. Eventually Freeman's character has to make apology, but he has his run of things for a while. Bill Taylor At 08:50 8/27/2009 -0700, Janet Plato wrote: >Bill, > > I am trying to understand your position here. In general I am >pretty sure you are a conservative but I do not know if you are >neoconservative, republican or something else. Are you saying >that violating the Geneva convention is OK, since only the whiny >liberals are complaining, or is there some level of sarcasm I >am missing here. I kind of think I am missing your real point >and I do not want to put words into your mouth. > >--- On Thu, 8/27/09, Bill Taylor wrote: > > > So after 8 years of neoconservative war criminals shredding the > > > constitution with nary a complaint from the republicans I find their > > > sudden cries of "constitution uber alles" a little disingenuine, but > > >I still think it's an excellent point. > > > > If no one complains it isn't a crime. At least, if no > > one I want to listen to complains. > > > >Cheers, > >Janet From jazz at qnet.com Thu Aug 27 11:13:35 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:13:35 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <147172.89814.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200908271452.n7REqJgO002740@mail.zarquon.net> <147172.89814.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200908271614.n7RGEUD8012157@mail.zarquon.net> Janet, Yes, you are somewhat missing my point. Doubly so if you're ready to call me a neocon. I don't mind being called a conservative, though most of the time I don't identify with the others that call themselves that. They are just wrong, and I'm OK with that. While it is often possible to successfully argue a point that proponent does not actually agree with, most people consider it somewhat intellectually dishonest. That is what I think of many of the positions of the former Bush administration. They could clearly put forth arguments as to why they were not in violation of treaties, laws and agreements the US was party to. But most people most of the time deal in the meaning underlying an agreement, not just the technical language of them. Thus you get the divergence between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The Bush people were willing to strongly put forth positions that didn't jibe with common understanding of what the Geneva conventions and other agreements meant. Their solution was to just argue louder and more strongly. The opposition got shouted down, ignored, or bluffed off. Policy didn't have to be changed and they did what they wanted to do. That is politics, not law, but it worked just the same. If the whiny liberals had been more prepared and more coherent, they would have got more results sooner, and they wouldn't have been standing around saying how awful it was the Bush got away with so much. There is a scene in Lean on Me where Morgan Freeman kicks the Fire Chef out of the school and makes a similar point. Eventually Freeman's character has to make apology, but he has his run of things for a while. Bill Taylor At 08:50 8/27/2009 -0700, Janet Plato wrote: >Bill, > > I am trying to understand your position here. In general I am >pretty sure you are a conservative but I do not know if you are >neoconservative, republican or something else. Are you saying >that violating the Geneva convention is OK, since only the whiny >liberals are complaining, or is there some level of sarcasm I >am missing here. I kind of think I am missing your real point >and I do not want to put words into your mouth. > >--- On Thu, 8/27/09, Bill Taylor wrote: > > > So after 8 years of neoconservative war criminals shredding the > > > constitution with nary a complaint from the republicans I find their > > > sudden cries of "constitution uber alles" a little disingenuine, but > > >I still think it's an excellent point. > > > > If no one complains it isn't a crime. At least, if no > > one I want to listen to complains. > > > >Cheers, > >Janet From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 27 11:46:40 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <200908271614.n7RGEU9c012158@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <395900.48866.qm@web33704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Bill, Thanks for the clarification, it was not my intention to call you a neocon, or anything else really. I simply did not know you well enough to have some reasonable expectation of your core beliefs. If I understood you correctly, you are saying that if the democrats would have actually made an attempt to stand up to Bush and company we might not be in this mess... I'd have to concur with that. In case you did not know, my position is basically: - socially libertarian, if you are in a position to make a conscious informed decision, and you take responsability for it, and it does not impinge on others, I do not much care about what you do. Own guns or not, smoke pot or not, drink yourself dead. I don't much care. But if you drive drunk, or your kids are starving and don't do well in school, we have a problem. There is a lot of gray area though, and I am going to intentionally avoid it since I think you can get really mired down in details. I am not laizzes faire. - fiscally moderate, although drifting left quickly. I tend to want a smaller government, with fewer regulations, and fewer services, but in direct conflict with that I have no children but want public schools and do not mind paying taxes for that, I want public roads and art museums and the national inst. of health and the center for disease control... so I guess most people would call me a big tax and spend liberal, but I want pay as you go, and small or reduced deficits in most cases. I want the DNR and I want a strong government that can enforce antitrust laws and keep people from polluting. Whether CO2 is a pollutant is a scientific matter, but the Bush lies on the subject push me far left of where I was 8 years ago, and to be frank, if Gore was elected I would probably be pretty damn suspicious of the need to cap and trade and CO2 emission restrictions and all that. - I think the democrats are mostly spineless, whiny cowards and would just as soon the party faded into irrelevance. The republicans and their malice and crime are the last thing standing between them and complete dissolution. - I think the republicans are mostly complicit war criminals intent on pillaging and raping the treasury while lying to cover their true intent. The democrats and their cowardice and stupidity are the last thing standing between them and complete dissolution. So I hope we understand each other better, but I am still confused, are you saying is it not a crime since the spineless democrats did not oppose it? I think it's a crime, and the democrats are complicit. Janet --- On Thu, 8/27/09, Bill Taylor wrote: > Janet, > > Yes, you are somewhat missing my point.? Doubly so if > you're ready to call me a neocon.? I don't mind being called a > conservative, though most of the time I don't identify with the > others that call themselves that.? They are just wrong, and I'm > OK with that. > > While it is often possible to successfully argue a point > that proponent does not actually agree with, most people > consider it somewhat intellectually dishonest.? That is what I > think of many of the positions of the former Bush administration. >? They could clearly put forth arguments as to why they were not > in violation of treaties, laws and agreements the US was party to. >?But most people most of the time deal in the meaning underlying an > agreement, not just the technical language of them.? Thus you get the > divergence between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. > > The Bush people were willing to strongly put forth positions that > didn't jibe with common understanding of what the Geneva conventions > and other agreements meant.? Their solution was to just argue louder > and more strongly.? The opposition got shouted down, ignored, or > bluffed off.? Policy didn't have to be changed and they did what they > wanted to do.? That is politics, not law, but it worked just the same. > > If the whiny liberals had been more prepared and more coherent, > they would have got more results sooner, and they wouldn't have > been standing around saying how awful it was the Bush got away > with so much.? There is a scene in Lean on Me where Morgan > Freeman kicks the Fire Chef out of the school and makes a similar > point.? Eventually Freeman's character has to make apology, but he > has his run of things for a while. > > Bill Taylor > > At 08:50 8/27/2009 -0700, Janet Plato wrote: > > >Bill, > > > >???I am trying to understand your > position here.? In general I am > >pretty sure you are a conservative but I do not know if > you are > >neoconservative, republican or something else.? > Are you saying > >that violating the Geneva convention is OK, since only > the whiny > >liberals are complaining, or is there some level of > sarcasm I > >am missing here.? I kind of think I am missing > your real point > >and I do not want to put words into your mouth. > > > >--- On Thu, 8/27/09, Bill Taylor > wrote: > > > >???So after 8 years of > neoconservative war criminals shredding the > > > > constitution with nary a complaint from the > republicans I find their > > > > sudden cries of "constitution uber alles" a > little disingenuine, but > > > >I still think it's an excellent point. > > > > > > If no one complains it isn't a crime.? At > least, if no > > > one I want to listen to complains. > > > > > > >Cheers, > > > >Janet > _______________________________________________ > Goglog mailing list > Goglog at mail.zarquon.net > http://mail.zarquon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goglog > From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net Thu Aug 27 12:58:40 2009 From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:58:40 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <69600B4A-2CB9-4687-82AF-D07B50D44238@worldnet.att.net> On 2009-Aug-27 , at 08:45, Janet Plato wrote: > I accept the constitution as the law of the land, and I find the > various arguments justifying health care a little weak... > > The preamble talks about general welfare, but as I understand it, > that could be used to justify about anything, and it was argued > against in the Federalist papers for exactly that reason. That's my understanding, as well. Also, I've been _told_ that the "necessary and proper" clause in the body of the document is intended to mean "only what's needed to carry out the responsibilities relating to the enumerated powers. I _can't_ argue that point directly, as I haven't invested the time and attention that would be required (those guys wrote really long, complicated sentences.) > The commerce clause certainly seems sufficient to allow pretty > broad regulation of health care, but I am not convinced it allows > the government to provide it. As I understand it, the intent of the commerce clause was to grant Congress the authority to restrain the state governments from interfering in interstate commerce (e.g.: What if Iowa passed a law requiring commercial transport [semi tractors and trailers] to be licensed in Iowa in order to travel on Iowa roads? If a lot of states did that, there'd be a horrible lot of trans-shipping cargo at each state border.) I guess the commerce clause also empowers Congress to create a nationwide set of rules for commercial activities; at least, if those activities cross any state borders. Isn't there something called the Uniform Commercial Code? > So in the end, I am curious what the arguments are in favor. Well, I'm against it, but... 1. Availability - Pre-existing conditions often (always?) lock one out of private insurance, or at least result in a waiver of coverage for that condition. 2. Portability - This is a big one. It appears there are quite a few people who are "locked in" to their current employers, because changing jobs would end their existing coverage, and pre- existing conditions would make a new employer's plan unavailable. 3. Cost - It's been argued that a national health insurance system (even one operating in parallel with private insurance) would be a "900 pound gorilla" that could wield its purchasing power to force providers prices and profit margins down. 4. Anything else I've forgotten. > I happen to feel pretty strongly we need health care with a strong > public option, but I also feel pretty strongly that what I want has > exactly jack all shit to do with what is allowed, and I dunno, for > some > reason I am kind of fond of the constitution. I don't know if "fond" is the right word (for me), but I'm fairly certain that without it, we'd all be worse off. > Janet Mark Hagerman From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 27 13:30:51 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:30:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <69600B4A-2CB9-4687-82AF-D07B50D44238@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <746794.77131.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mark, I think you misunderstood my question, I am not interested in the arguments in favor of universal insurance, I am interested in the arguments claiming the constution allows the federal government to provide insurance, despite that fact that any non-enumerated rights are reserved to the states or citizens. Janet From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Thu Aug 27 13:33:18 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:33:18 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <69600B4A-2CB9-4687-82AF-D07B50D44238@worldnet.att.net> References: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <69600B4A-2CB9-4687-82AF-D07B50D44238@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <4A96D16E.5010708@CasaDelGato.Com> Mark Hagerman wrote: > ____________________________________________________________ > On 2009-Aug-27 , at 08:45, Janet Plato wrote: > > >> The commerce clause certainly seems sufficient to allow pretty >> broad regulation of health care, but I am not convinced it allows >> the government to provide it. >> > > As I understand it, the intent of the commerce clause was to > grant Congress the authority to restrain the state governments > from interfering in interstate commerce (e.g.: What if Iowa passed > a law requiring commercial transport [semi tractors and trailers] > to be licensed in Iowa in order to travel on Iowa roads? If a lot > of states did that, there'd be a horrible lot of trans-shipping cargo > at each state border.) > > I guess the commerce clause also empowers Congress to create > a nationwide set of rules for commercial activities; at least, if > those activities cross any state borders. Isn't there something > called the Uniform Commercial Code? > The Commerce Clause has been used to regulate pretty much everything. I'm not allowed to exhibit my animals unless I have a USDA license, since there is a chance that somebody from another state MIGHT be my "customer". Same argument is used for a LOT of federal licenses and controls. From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net Thu Aug 27 16:32:59 2009 From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:32:59 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <746794.77131.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <746794.77131.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <98D302BE-8448-4B25-9354-E195F2F35020@worldnet.att.net> On 2009-Aug-27 , at 13:30, Janet Plato wrote: > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > Mark, > > I think you misunderstood my question, I am not interested in the > arguments in favor of universal insurance, I am interested in the > arguments claiming the constution allows the federal government > to provide insurance, despite that fact that any non-enumerated > rights are reserved to the states or citizens. Ah. Yes, I misunderstood. I don't believe anyone has attempted to offer a Constitutional justification for national insurance. I rather suspect that's because there are no justifications that would stand up to inquiry. Mark Hagerman From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net Thu Aug 27 16:35:26 2009 From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:35:26 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <4A96D16E.5010708@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <69600B4A-2CB9-4687-82AF-D07B50D44238@worldnet.att.net> <4A96D16E.5010708@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <2D052767-0F08-40A6-96FD-C886FB64E6FB@worldnet.att.net> On 2009-Aug-27 , at 13:33, John G. Lussmyer wrote: > The Commerce Clause has been used to regulate pretty much everything. Yes, I know. A shameful abuse of power by the Feds. Mark Hagerman From steveg at swhi.net Thu Aug 27 16:47:00 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:47:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <15672.144.183.224.2.1251409620.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Janet Plato wrote: > So after 8 years of neoconservative war criminals shredding the > constitution with nary a complaint from the republicans I find their > sudden cries of "constitution uber alles" a little disingenuine, but > I still think it's an excellent point. Interesting. I gather that they are now saying that Government-provided health care is not a power the Federal government retains under the Constitution. I hadn't heard that this argument was being made (I haven't had time or the stomach to keep up with the many political statements on this subject lately), but it is appealing - legally. > The preamble talks about general welfare, but as I understand it, > that could be used to justify about anything, and it was argued > against in the Federalist papers for exactly that reason. AFAIK it's never been relied on in any ultimate court decisions as a sound basis for anything. I wish I had time to research this now, but I don't. All I'll say is that it's not a frivolous argument, but if it is valid, what does it do to Medicare and Social Security? Time permitting I'll have to look at what happened to the legal challenges to those. > I happen to feel pretty strongly we need health care with a strong > public option, but I also feel pretty strongly that what I want has > exactly jack all shit to do with what is allowed, and I dunno, for some > reason I am kind of fond of the constitution. Yeah, consistency is sometimes a real pain. - Steve G From steveg at swhi.net Thu Aug 27 16:48:52 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:48:52 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <2D052767-0F08-40A6-96FD-C886FB64E6FB@worldnet.att.net> References: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <69600B4A-2CB9-4687-82AF-D07B50D44238@worldnet.att.net> <4A96D16E.5010708@CasaDelGato.Com> <2D052767-0F08-40A6-96FD-C886FB64E6FB@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <23346.144.183.224.2.1251409732.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Mark Hagerman wrote: >> The Commerce Clause has been used to regulate pretty much everything. > > Yes, I know. A shameful abuse of power by the Feds. I don't know about "shameful" or FTM "abuse of power," since the real issue is the legal logic of the courts approving what other agencies are doing, but it certainly is a problematic issue. - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Aug 27 19:49:26 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:49:26 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <200908271452.n7REqJLR002739@mail.zarquon.net> References: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200908271452.n7REqJLR002739@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: Bill Taylor says: > > So after 8 years of neoconservative war criminals shredding the > >constitution with nary a complaint from the republicans I find their > >sudden cries of "constitution uber alles" a little disingenuine, but > >I still think it's an excellent point. > > If no one complains it isn't a crime. At least, if no one I want to > listen to complains. Actually, aside from the fact that AFAICT we're not talking about crime at all here, a significant part of my job is saying - within the government - No, you don't have authority to do that. (I did it twice just yesterday. And usually they listen.) Congress has lawyers too. Lots of 'em. Yes, sometimes it's hard to tell. > Depends on how you mean "provide it". > If the law were to enact direct provision of health care services by > government employees, that might be different. No, spending Federal funds on it is the same issue regardless of whether you do it by hiring people, contracting, or other means. If it is unconstitutional to do it one way it is unconstitutional to do it the other. > They do it now, but > only for well defined subsets of people, ie. veterans, military > service members and families, Indians on reservations, people in > disaster areas, etc. These are all different issues. For current military (and civilians) and veterans & retirees, it is part of their compensation. If they have a valid basis for hiring the people to begin with to perform a legitimate Federal function, then there is no problem paying fair compensation, which in the modern world includes benefits. (Conversely if there is no legitimate basis to hire them there is no basis to pay them.) Likewise we reimburse the otherwise legitimate costs of our contractors, including their health insurance as long as it's reasonable. This presents no constitutional issue. We also provide chaplains for the military, though we couldn't do so for the civilian workforce or for civilian communities. Benefits for Native Americans are, AFAIK, all required by treaty as compensation for taking away their land and related sovereign rights. There is a lot you can do by treaty that you can't do by civil law. (Including, in at least one case, building a church . . . .) Disaster relief . . . that's a harder one. I'm not sure just how it's funded or why. > If the subset were to be defined as, "any > citizen of the US anywhere in the US", that might be the same in > principle Nope. > And then there is the "Medicare did it" rationalization. Whatever > basis was used to authorize Medicare could, and likely would, be used > to authorize a National Health Care plan. But what was it? If there is a legal challenge, "we've done it before" won't help if you can't follow it up with "and we decided it was constitutional because . . . ." - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Aug 27 19:53:25 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:53:25 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <200908271614.n7RGEU9c012158@mail.zarquon.net> References: <200908271452.n7REqJgO002740@mail.zarquon.net><147172.89814.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200908271614.n7RGEU9c012158@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: Bill Taylor says: > If the whiny liberals had been more prepared and more coherent, they > would have got more results sooner, and they wouldn't have been > standing around saying how awful it was the Bush got away with so > much. Yes. Or more of them, anyway. A few liberal politicians made the right objections but not enough of them stuck to them. Other than the actual victims, the only ones I know of that actually said anything, in the right place, at the right time, and got results, were the ACLU. Not that they aren't sometimes whiny, but they also hire lawyers and file real legal complaints. - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Aug 27 20:09:35 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:09:35 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <69600B4A-2CB9-4687-82AF-D07B50D44238@worldnet.att.net> References: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <69600B4A-2CB9-4687-82AF-D07B50D44238@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <2522C10ED1F9466995D61E4F6495E453@StevePC> Mark Hagerman says: > Also, I've been _told_ that the > "necessary and proper" clause in the body of the document is > intended to mean "only what's needed to carry out the > responsibilities relating to the enumerated powers. Who knows? The actual language is: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." It means what it says - that is, something vague. How "necessary" or how "proper" it needs to be is debatable, but whatever it means, yes, it seems pretty clear that it has to relate to "the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." > As I understand it, the intent of the commerce clause was to > grant Congress the authority to restrain the state governments > from interfering in interstate commerce Very likely, but (as we've seen in regard to the Second Amendment) to the extent that the words are clear, the original intent may have to take second seat. > Isn't there something called the Uniform Commercial Code? Yes, but like most "uniform" laws, they are not Federal. A "uniform" code is one set up by some independent body in hopes that many or maybe all states will adopt it. Each state has its own version, largely but probably not entirely matching the "uniform" draft. > 2. Portability - This is a big one. It appears there are quite a few > people who are "locked in" to their current employers, because > changing jobs would end their existing coverage, and pre- > existing conditions would make a new employer's plan > unavailable. Which, BTW, is an argument tending to bring in the Commerce Clause, and the Interstate Travel clause. I'm not saying conclusively or that I like it, but it's similar to the arguments supporting the constitutionality of some other laws. - Steve G From jazz at qnet.com Thu Aug 27 20:50:08 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:50:08 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <395900.48866.qm@web33704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200908271614.n7RGEU9c012158@mail.zarquon.net> <395900.48866.qm@web33704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200908280152.n7S1qedC014330@mail.zarquon.net> At 09:46 8/27/2009 -0700, Janet Plato wrote: >So I hope we understand each other better, but I am still confused, >are you saying is it not a crime since the spineless democrats did >not oppose it? Its not a crime if no one does anything about it. The people in a position to do anything serious chose not to act. They may have had good reason to do nothing (not enough cause of action, no standing, insufficient funds, etc.), or maybe they were just spineless, but the effect is the same. Bill Taylor From jazz at qnet.com Thu Aug 27 20:50:08 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:50:08 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <395900.48866.qm@web33704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200908271614.n7RGEU9c012158@mail.zarquon.net> <395900.48866.qm@web33704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200908280152.n7S1qeiY014331@mail.zarquon.net> At 09:46 8/27/2009 -0700, Janet Plato wrote: >So I hope we understand each other better, but I am still confused, >are you saying is it not a crime since the spineless democrats did >not oppose it? Its not a crime if no one does anything about it. The people in a position to do anything serious chose not to act. They may have had good reason to do nothing (not enough cause of action, no standing, insufficient funds, etc.), or maybe they were just spineless, but the effect is the same. Bill Taylor From jazz at qnet.com Thu Aug 27 21:04:42 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:04:42 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: References: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200908271452.n7REqJLR002739@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <200908280221.n7S2LTF2017873@mail.zarquon.net> At 19:49 8/27/2009 -0500, Steve Gruenwald wrote: >Replies are directed to the list. >If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! >____________________________________________________________ > >Bill Taylor says: > > > > So after 8 years of neoconservative war criminals shredding the > > >constitution with nary a complaint from the republicans I find their > > >sudden cries of "constitution uber alles" a little disingenuine, but > > >I still think it's an excellent point. > > > > If no one complains it isn't a crime. At least, if no one I want to > > listen to complains. > >Actually, aside from the fact that AFAICT we're not talking >about crime at all here, a significant part of my job is >saying - within the government - No, you don't have authority >to do that. (I did it twice just yesterday. And usually >they listen.) > >Congress has lawyers too. Lots of 'em. Yes, sometimes it's >hard to tell. > > > Depends on how you mean "provide it". > > > If the law were to enact direct provision of health care services by > > government employees, that might be different. > >No, spending Federal funds on it is the same issue regardless >of whether you do it by hiring people, contracting, or other >means. If it is unconstitutional to do it one way it is >unconstitutional to do it the other. I was only setting this up in contrast to doing it by regulation of the industry. The actual way the funds are spent don't matter in that sense. > > If the subset were to be defined as, "any > > citizen of the US anywhere in the US", that might be the same in > > principle > >Nope. Why can't the Congress simply directly declare or recognize health care as a right of all citizens, and then provide for a way to collect on the right? I can think of a lot of reasons they wouldn't or shouldn't, but they clearly do have the power to recognize the rights of the people. Bill Taylor From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Aug 27 21:35:30 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:35:30 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] a very unusual route to mideast peace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rich Rostrom says: >I'm not sure that the presence of a common rare trait in >Ashkenzim and Palestians disproves the "Khazar conversion" >theory. ISTM that it demonstrates some degree of common >descent, but does not exclude the possibility that >Ashkenazim are _in_ _part_ descended from Khazar converts; >the deafness gene may have propagated into the Khazar >genome by intermarriage with Jewish "missionaries". Ben Liberman responds: > Jews are not supposed to evangelize. That's modern Judaism. It's hard to be as sure about the past. No, that's not to say there is any evidence for the existence of "missionaries" to the Khazars, and I don't know why Rich apparently supposes there is; I would be less surprised if the Khazars themselves adopted evangelical practices. (No, AFAIK there is no direct evidence of that either; it just seems more consistent with their attitudes than those of most other Jewish populations.) In any event, the speculation that Ashkenazi Jews descended from the Khazars is nothing but that - speculation without any evidentiary support - so while it may not be "disproven," the DNA evidence discussed in this article, if correct, is merely demonstrating that it is still sheer speculation. The article, BTW, does not say "disproves": it says "should dispel the canard." I.e., if the speculation were true you'd expect to find some genetic evidence of it, and once again, as in the past, none has been found. I can't imagine why it is significant to argue "not disproven": no, and it's also not disproven that they descended in part from ancient Aleuts. No rational reason to think so - just not impossible. > The only "Jewish missionaries" that I have ever heard of were > Jews for Jesus - not very Jewish in my book, and only in > existence since 1973. Well, no, not very. Their movement is to convert Jews to Christianity without calling it that. It's a rather unconventional form of Christianity, but unequivocally Christian by any rational definition. - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Aug 27 21:41:38 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:41:38 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Does the constitution allow health care? In-Reply-To: <200908280221.n7S2LTF2017873@mail.zarquon.net> References: <684911.387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com><200908271452.n7REqJLR002739@mail.zarquon.net> <200908280221.n7S2LTF2017873@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <04307CE8138D42EEBC253AAC14CE9105@StevePC> Bill Taylor says: > Why can't the Congress simply directly declare or recognize health > care as a right of all citizens, and then provide for a way to > collect on the right? I can think of a lot of reasons they wouldn't > or shouldn't, but they clearly do have the power to recognize the > rights of the people. No, AFAICT Congress has *no* legitimate power to create rights unless they are in some reasonable way implied by the Constitution. Yes, they have to *recognize* rights that exist, but your argument would mean they have literally unlimited power: *anything* could be "recognized" as a "right." - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Fri Aug 28 08:14:11 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:14:11 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Krauthammer on health care reform In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ben Liberman posted: > http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/08/07/health_care_reform_a_better_plan > > http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/14/the_preventive_care_myth_97889.html Mark Hagerman wrote: > Excellent! I have a few quibbles, but this would make a good start! and Michael Brian Bentley wrote: > It is the first seriously cogent thing I've read from the > conservative side on the subject in some time. I don't get it. I looked for something new, "cogent" or creative and didn't find it. What am I missing? > If an operation goes badly and a blue > collar worker can no longer work, they want to institute military > rules for dealing with injuries. What does that mean? What are "military rules"? > It is interesting that the right wants insurance companies to be able > to go national, while there's a bipartisan interest in maintaining > the strength of statehood. That seems a little inconsistent. Why? Insurance companies are not states. More specifically, Mark says: > For my own part, > I'd like to see some sort of tort reform that limited damages to the > actual loss What is the actual loss in the case of someone who is crippled for life? > times some reasonable multiple for punitive damages. Oh, so not limited to actual loss. I don't get how what you are proposing is materially different from existing systems. Well, maybe more expensive; many cases today do not warrant a multiple of actual losses as punitive damages. > Traditionally, a court would assess three to five times actual > losses, as I recall. I recall nothing like that as any general system. AFAIK punitive damages have always been reserved for egregious cases and always adjudged on a case-by-case basis. I used to settle tort cases on behalf of the Air Force and used reference materials that collected and compared jury verdicts, and I recall nothing like that. (Of course we did not pay punitive damages, but I think I would have been exposed to such a formula at some point.) In any event, I don't see the rationale for this. Why would appropriate punitive damages be proportional (at any level) to actual damages? They are supposed to reflect the extent of outrageous conduct involved, and *not* be based on the tortfeasor's luck in not actually causing very expensive harm. Take two cases: a. Big company with lots of research capacity releases a new dietary supplement. It performs shoddy research and shuffles aside concerns by its own employees that it may cause immediate heart failure if used by people with a genetic condition known to exist in about 2% of immigrants from southeast Asia. Rumors of this risk leak out and few Asians actually buy it. The first one to take it and suffer heart failure is given good CPR and pulls through with no lasting injury and just a two-day hospital bill. b. Local delivery company generally follows a good maintenance schedule for its vehicles. In one instance, through a paperwork error, it fails to get a truck's brakes serviced. As a result the truck slips while parked, just at the moment when a 21-year-old college student is walking between it and the next vehicle, and crushes his legs and hips. The student is being actively recruited to play for the Lakers. He spends months in surgery and therapy, will require lifelong treatment for pain and mobility problems, and loses a probable $30 million in income. How would your or *any* mathematical model for punitive damages work? > In addition, I want a "loser pays" requirement; that is, the > loser pays > the winner's costs of prosecuting or defending the suit. That's normally the case now, except that it's usually limited to reasonable costs, not whatever the winning lawyer bills. The main issue in the debate about tort reform is not what tort law should be. Never has been. The big issue is mandating it at the Federal level. Tort law is and always has been a matter of state law. Even if you sue the Federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act for tortious misconduct, the law applied is local law. With the exception of a handful of congressionally created torts (e.g. much of environmental law), there is no such thing as Federal tort law. Imposing national standards on how much you can sue for in a car or workplace accident would be a big, big issue. Significant secondary issues include taking away the traditional common-law right of the jury to decide what any injury is worth on an individualized case-by-case basis. That is, the argument goes, crippling sweet little Jenny when she was riding her tricycle because the UPS delivery truck's brakes slipped is not the same as crippling 47-year old Mike, the grumpy and pot-bellied shipping clerk, because the 87-year-old granny in the Oldsmobile was virtually blind and should have stopped driving years ago. It's the jury's right to say the first is a $50 million case including punitive damages against UPS, which has lots of money anyway, and the second worth nothing but actual provable loss of income and medical expenses, because - well - it's Granny, and all she wanted was to be able to drive herself to Bingo. Both of these - state's rights and the right to jury trial - are serious Constitutional issues (7th and 10th Amendments). Yes, many of the people involved in the debate actually have entirely different personal motivations, such as money and/ or votes, but they are serious issues and you can't just skip them and talk about what the measure of damages ought to be instead. Obviously I'm not saying tort reform is a bad thing, but it's not worth talking about in terms of "damages are too high" unless you're also willing to deal with the concepts that maybe Congress knows better than the average of voters in any given state, and that the jury system is neither flawless nor a fundamental human right. > To me, though, the most important point is to decouple one's > medical insurance from one's employer. Sounds Socialist to me. Good medical care is not something you earn and pay for by the sweat of your brow? Yes, that's partly tongue-in-cheek, but a fundamental premise of our capitalist, free-market, individualistic society is that you deserve better if you earn the money to pay for it. Therefore a good medical plan is something you can get as part of your employment compensation. What next, decouple public education from property values? (Or is medical care obviously a Constitutional right and equality of education not?) - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Fri Aug 28 08:17:22 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:17:22 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Krauthammer on health care reform In-Reply-To: References: <40C742BE-5782-4B72-A27E-DC1B4F910D87@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <221AC17CE4A74B63B7C2BF25363DC4FA@StevePC> Michael Brian Bentley says: > These items do not fix my primary problem with insurance companies, > which is that they screw with the terms of the policy after > establishing a relationship, and they're just not above board with > you in general. You need the leverage of an organization with > thousands of members to get any leverage, to alleviate the problem. Exactly. That's why the Federal employees and military dependents' systems have tended to work pretty well. > There is also my fundamental problem with the insurance company's > fundamental conflict of interest, which is that they make money > whenever they don't make a payout. I don't see a good reason to back > a for-profit insurance company. A not-for-profit makes a whole lot > more sense to me. I don't see that big a difference there. Some, but both have similar incentives to cut costs and increase premiums. - Steve G From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Fri Aug 28 18:51:26 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:51:26 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] a very unusual route to mideast peace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ben Liberman wrote: >At 6:48 PM -0500 8/24/09, Rich Rostrom wrote: >> >>the deafness gene may have propagated into the Khazar >>genome by intermarriage with Jewish "missionaries". > >Jews are not supposed to evangelize. > >The only "Jewish missionaries" that I have ever heard of >were Jews for Jesus - not very Jewish in my book, and only >in existence since 1973. I put the word in quotes because, presumably, if there was large scale conversion among the Khazars, it was _not_ due to formal evangelization by Jews - but there had to be some kind of contact. Somehow, a large population of Jews came to exist in Ukraine and Poland-Lithuania. It seems unlikely that they were all the descendants of migrants from the Middle East. It's also fairly obvious that there has been a lot of intermixing of Ashkenazic Jews with the other peoples of that region. Many Ashkenazic Jews have blonde or red hair and very fair skin, clearly indicating non-Levantine ancestry. There are also genetic traces in this population which clearly indicate Levantine ancestry. It seems plausible, therefore, that some Jews migrated from the Middle East to eastern Europe, and propagated both the Jewish religion and "Israelite" genes into the population there. I used "missionaries" (in quotes) as short way of referring to such migrants. Incidentally, while it is true that Jews do not evangelize, there have been other apparent cases of conversion. At the time of Mohammed, the population of Arabia included "Jewish" tribes. The Koran draws on the Hebrew scriptures (Yusuf, Daoud, Suleiman, Yakub, and Ibrahim are all common Moslem names). -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From ben at bl.com Fri Aug 28 22:00:49 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:00:49 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] a very unusual route to mideast peace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 6:51 PM -0500 8/28/09, Rich Rostrom wrote: >Ben Liberman wrote: >>At 6:48 PM -0500 8/24/09, Rich Rostrom wrote: >>> >>>the deafness gene may have propagated into the Khazar >>>genome by intermarriage with Jewish "missionaries". >> >>Jews are not supposed to evangelize. >> >>The only "Jewish missionaries" that I have ever heard of >>were Jews for Jesus - not very Jewish in my book, and only >>in existence since 1973. > >I put the word in quotes because, presumably, if there >was large scale conversion among the Khazars, it was _not_ >due to formal evangelization by Jews - but there had to be >some kind of contact. Thanks for clarifying that -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From SteveG at swhi.net Sat Aug 29 08:11:37 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 08:11:37 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] a very unusual route to mideast peace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rich Rostrom says: > Somehow, a large population of Jews came to exist in > Ukraine and Poland-Lithuania. It seems unlikely that they > were all the descendants of migrants from the Middle East. Why? > Many Ashkenazic Jews have blonde or red hair > and very fair skin, Really? Not in my experience. > Incidentally, while it is true that Jews do not evangelize, > there have been other apparent cases of conversion. At the > time of Mohammed, the population of Arabia included "Jewish" > tribes. The Koran draws on the Hebrew scriptures (Yusuf, > Daoud, Suleiman, Yakub, and Ibrahim are all common Moslem > names). How are these factors evidence of conversion? Note, I am not saying no one ever converted, but I don't see any indication of it in what you are saying. - Steve G From ben at bl.com Sun Aug 30 16:50:09 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:50:09 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] a very unusual route to mideast peace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 8:11 AM -0500 8/29/09, Steve Gruenwald wrote: >Rich Rostrom says: > > Incidentally, while it is true that Jews do not evangelize, >> there have been other apparent cases of conversion. At the >> time of Mohammed, the population of Arabia included "Jewish" >> tribes. The Koran draws on the Hebrew scriptures (Yusuf, >> Daoud, Suleiman, Yakub, and Ibrahim are all common Moslem >> names). > >How are these factors evidence of conversion? > >Note, I am not saying no one ever converted, but I don't >see any indication of it in what you are saying. BTW - It actually goes a bit further than "Jews do not evangelize". Traditionally, Jews actively discourage conversion. The only sanctioned reason for conversion, that I know of, is that you have examined the religion and its' obligations, and you think that it is something that you would like to do. For example, it is NOT OK to convert for the sole reason that your sweetie is Jewish and you want to get married. -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From bentley at crenelle.com Mon Aug 31 12:57:36 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:57:36 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Krauthammer on health care reform In-Reply-To: <221AC17CE4A74B63B7C2BF25363DC4FA@StevePC> References: <40C742BE-5782-4B7 2-A27E-DC1B4F910D87@worldnet.att.net> <221AC17CE4A74B63B7C2BF25363DC4FA@StevePC> Message-ID: > > There is also my fundamental problem with the insurance company's >> fundamental conflict of interest, which is that they make money >> whenever they don't make a payout. I don't see a good reason to back >> a for-profit insurance company. A not-for-profit makes a whole lot >> more sense to me. > >I don't see that big a difference there. Some, but both >have similar incentives to cut costs and increase premiums. > > - Steve G Hmmmm. How can we set things up so that insurance companies make more when they don't just emphasize the well being of the insured, but also garner measureable results of having insured live a whole lot longer, and in terrific shape, even when their health really sucked going in? From steveg at swhi.net Mon Aug 31 14:38:46 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:38:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] Krauthammer on health care reform In-Reply-To: References: <40C742BE-5782-4B7 2-A27E-DC1B4F910D87@worldnet.att.net> <221AC17CE4A74B63B7C2BF25363DC4FA@StevePC> Message-ID: <56519.144.183.224.2.1251747526.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Michael Brian Bentley wrote: > How can we set things up so that insurance companies make more when > they don't just emphasize the well being of the insured, but also > garner measureable results of having insured live a whole lot longer, > and in terrific shape, even when their health really sucked going in? Simple. Just put a price tag on it. Let them charge higher premiums for a long and healthy life, and/or make them refund some of the premiums when you get sick or die. (The technique for determining what your health would have been like and when you would have died otherwise is left as an exercise for the reader.) - Steve G From ben at bl.com Mon Aug 31 14:57:31 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:57:31 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Krauthammer on health care reform In-Reply-To: References: <40C742BE-5782-4B7 2-A27E-DC1B4F910D87@worldnet.att.net> <221AC17CE4A74B63B7C2BF25363DC4FA@StevePC> Message-ID: At 10:57 AM -0700 8/31/09, Michael Brian Bentley wrote: > > > There is also my fundamental problem with the insurance company's >>> fundamental conflict of interest, which is that they make money >>> whenever they don't make a payout. I don't see a good reason to back >>> a for-profit insurance company. A not-for-profit makes a whole lot >>> more sense to me. >> >>I don't see that big a difference there. Some, but both >>have similar incentives to cut costs and increase premiums. >> >> - Steve G > >Hmmmm. > >How can we set things up so that insurance companies make more when >they don't just emphasize the well being of the insured, but also >garner measureable results of having insured live a whole lot longer, >and in terrific shape, even when their health really sucked going in? I must admit that, at first glance, I am quite taken with Kent Conrad's co-op model. http://www.jamestownsun.com/event/article/id/91859/ Before I heard Conrad speak, I was thinking about the 1930's WPA, VISTA, the Peace Core, etc. I make no claims of practicality but I was musing about a system of government run hospitals and clinics, like the VA on steroids, that would be available to anyone who walked in the door, and that would maybe also have it's own teaching division. Young people who could not afford the education but wanted to enter the field of medicine could study at its' schools, or, sans teaching division, have their tuition paid at current medical institutions, in exchange for a multi year commitment to work in the system after they graduate. -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From bogus@does.not.exist.com Tue Aug 18 02:06:19 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:06:19 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Q-What do you think? A-I do not think about things I don't think about. Q-Do you think about things you do think about? A-Well, sometimes. - Steve G From bogus@does.not.exist.com Tue Aug 18 02:06:19 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:06:19 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: the system shown in the video, that it requires a download before starting the patrol; I expect, as wireless networks become more pervasive, both the download and real-time upload of data will become _de rigeur_. I've some observations about the scanning--up to 3,000 plates/hour--that I'm going to put over in goglog. Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com