From today's issue of Slate, an article by Timothy Noah:

***

Chatterbox agrees with the conventional wisdom that last night's vice presidential debate was civilized and showed off both candidates well. But the convivial atmosphere was pierced at one point by Dick Cheney, after moderator Bernard Shaw asked Cheney whether he'd noticed Lieberman changing his positions on certain issues since being chosen as running mate. (Although posed to both candidates, Shaw's question was a little unfair because only Lieberman has been accused of changing his positions. There was no corresponding "get Cheney" question.)

Cheney responded first with a good-natured joke ("We've been trying very hard to keep this on a high plane"), then with a predictable (and fair) knock on Lieberman for softening his criticism of Hollywood since joining the Gore ticket. Then came the nasty part:

"We were especially disturbed, Joe, at a recent fund-raiser you attended where there was a comedian who got up and criticized George Bush's religion. And I know you're not responsible for having uttered any words of criticism of his religion, but to some extent, my concern would be, frankly, that you haven't been as consistent as you had been in the past, that a lot of your good friends like Bill Bennett and others of us who'd admired your firmness of purpose over the years have felt that you're not quite the crusader for that cause that you once were."

Lieberman's response was Pavlovian:

"First, let me talk about that joke about religion, which I found very distasteful. And, believe me, if anybody has devoted his life to respecting the role of religion in American life and understands that Americans from the beginning of our history have turned to God for strength and purpose, it's me. And any offense that was done, I apologize for. And I thought that humor was unacceptable."

Wow, viewers must have been thinking, that must've been some joke! In fact, it was a totally innocuous (and not particularly funny) joke uttered by former Seinfeld producer Larry David about which William Bennett has been making an unconvincing and obviously partisan fuss. Bennett repeated the joke in a Sept. 22 Wall Street Journal op-ed headlined, "I'm Disappointed, Joe." As a public service, Chatterbox will reprint this portion of Bennett's tirade:

Before Mr. Lieberman spoke, Larry David, who was executive producer of "Seinfeld," gave a speech in which he derided Gov. Bush as a "smirking" lightweight who is "making it possible for a lot of idiots like myself to actually consider running for office." Then Mr. David, who is Jewish, ridiculed the Texas governor's faith. "Like Bush," he said, "I too found Christ in my 40s. He came into my room one night, and I said: 'What, no call? You just pop in?'"

This is the sort of joke Chatterbox can well imagine being uttered by a Unitarian minister (or even an Episcopalian one after downing a couple of sherries). Here is how Bennett responded:

"This comment was not made in good fun; it was part of a cheap, derisive attack against George W. Bush. This kind of thing ought to be denounced, and I would have hoped that Mr. Gore and Mr. Lieberman, who have thrust their own faith forward and embraced a message of religious tolerance in their campaign, would have been among the first to do so. Instead, Mr. Lieberman was quoted as saying after the event that he thought Mr. David was 'very funny.' (Yesterday, when pressed about it, Mr. Lieberman said the joke was 'in bad taste' but 'on the other hand, that's freedom of expression.')"

Lieberman was obviously lying when he said, belatedly, that the joke offended him. However, Bennett and Cheney were also clearly lying when they characterized the joke as an attack on George W. Bush's religion. They were also lying, Chatterbox suspects, when they claimed to be offended themselves. Free Larry David!

***

My take on this? I find it outright alarming, a case of religious and cultural demagoguery designed to stir up resentment amongst Christians against a Jew.

Condemn a minority member of being somehow to blame for a joke made in his presence at the expense of the majority, an incident he had no control over and couldn't have predicted. Make sure, after your condemnation, that you state you know he wasn't "responsible," then go on to vaguely accuse him of being somehow responsible, somehow guilty, of making light of "George Bush's religion."

Condemn a Jewish candidate for being present when a Christian joke was made, but never make your accusation clear. Do this in front of millions of Christians who are watching so resentment will be fueled.

Cheap shot?

Not only cheap, but pretty damn frightening.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 06, 2000

Answers

I'm wondering how I missed Slate's take on this. I had no idea what Cheney was talking about when he mentioned this last night. We're talking about people who are still associating Clinton's cock with Gore here Celia. These are people who suggest that Gore MUST have known where it was, and what it was doing AT ALL TIMES, because he was, afterall, the Vice-President. Limbaugh and Russert don't know what to do if Clinton's cock falls off the radar screen, so they just keep bringing it up...and up...and up. It's the most famous cock- fight of all time.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 06, 2000.

Celia, makin with the anti-semetic smear. Never mind what Larry David said. And never mind what Lieberman thought was funny.If it was vice versa, I expect we would hear fron the ADL, and Morris Dees.

Anita, Clinton is dirty. It's a given. Limbaugh ad Russert want you to focus on his cock so you want ask any other questions. It's World Wrestling Federation.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), October 06, 2000.

I agree Celia. I was shocked to hear Cheney talking down to Lieberman like this, especially after him and Shrubya called a reporter a "major-league asshole, big-time". He's got some nerve trying to blame Lieberman for something that someone else said.

-- (cheney@is.a.dick), October 06, 2000.

Who is the Queen of the TB2K Left--Celia or Debra?

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), October 06, 2000.

I think Jo is.

-- (jm@h.o), October 07, 2000.

Lieberman was a little troll in a booster seat talking down to me and wagging his finger at me in a condescending tone the entire night. That offends me. I was also insulted that the little troll thinks he is smarter than me and knows what is best for me. I'll debate him any place and any time. I'll debate gore for free when I'm done. They are all losers but the dems take the cake on this one...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 07, 2000.

Celia seems to be working very very hard to find some reason to be "alarmed" by the disapproved candidate's disapproved running mate. I must say I've heard Rush Limbaugh build a stronger case -- if this kind of comment (with amusingly self-serving interpretation) bothers you, then you are either bothered by each and every sentence uttered by anyone (making for a grim life indeed), or your political leanings have overwhelmed your common sense.

Yet another case of deciding who you like ahead of time, and working backwards to fabricate the required "evidendial support" as required. Didn't we get enough of this last year?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 07, 2000.

Celia, Anita, Lieberman has been very respected by many because of his solid religious views and his stance against Holywood pushing violent films and shows that are viewed by the nations youth. That respect extended to those of other faiths, including Christians like William Bennett and others. His flip floping on the Hollywood issue by appearing with Gore at fundraiser where Bush's religion was bashed by the comedian should not be suprising.

The slanted take by Slate is a joke, and your charges of anti- semitism is well, to use your words, "cheap, and pretty damn frighting", lol.

Sorry, won't fly in Peoria. Nice try though.

-- David (David@bzn.com), October 07, 2000.

Actually, Lieberman was quite clever on the very first question Bernie asked. Lieberman spent several minutes thanking God, his wife, his mother (he told a story about his mother), and thanking everyone he could think of for allowing himself to be there. Bernie butts in and says, "Uh, Mr. Lieberman, you have 10 seconds left now to answer the question." Yeh, Joe wasted his time and left Mr. Cheney to answer the question for the full allotted minutes--what a chump.

-- ~~~~~~~~ (~~~~~~~@~~~~~~.com), October 07, 2000.

Anita,

I agree. The Republicans can't let go of Clinton's cock. They see it everywhere and behind everything, especially as they couldn't get Clinton out of office. And in Cheney they found the perfect man to do their dirty work, even if it means vaguely accusing America's first Jewish vice-presidential candidate of being against "George Bush's religion."

Kofe, why not tell me exactly what was so offensive about David's joke. It wasn't an anti-Christian joke, it was a play on the words "finding Christ."

You know what's really offensive, Kofe? Paternalistic, literalist, authoritarian, right-wing Christians scolding Jews for engaging in innocuous humor. Hell, the Jews make up, what -- 1.8 percent of people in this country? And how many Christians have you heard making Jewish jokes?

Even Gore/Lieberman aren't above making Jewish jokes -- Gore made one on Letterman to the effect of "Gore/Lieberman -- we're working for you 24/6." Isn't that funny, Kofe? Or does it just make you hopping mad?

I guess for fundamentalist Christian literalists, all that counts is finding an opening, any opening, to rip into the minority and go for the nasty veiled bigotry. Cheney was handled well, and he effectively reached his "southern base." Cheney was a good little GOP thug.

Uncle Bob,

Are most Jews "little trolls" in your mind, or just Lieberman?

Flint,

First, you have absolutely no idea what my political persuasions are. Just to set the record straight. I supported McCain, then seriously considered voting for Nader, and would probably vote for him except it's so close I don't want to give my vote to Bush. So I'm voting for Gore. I don't really have many problems with Gore -- he's smart, competent, and experienced, and he'll make a decent, fine President. As a reasonably intelligent person, naturally I'd rather have a smart president than a patently stupid one. (Of course, if I were a selfish person and only cared about cutting my taxes as much as possible at the expense of the good of the country as a whole, it wouldn't matter to me how stupid or incompetent the man was who promised to give me money back.)

Anyway, for you to make assumptions about the nature of my political leanings, which in reality are fairly complex and mixed, and have moved around the landscape quite a lot over the last year, is rather arrogant.

But back to article at hand. Yes, I find it alarming when a vice- presidential candidate confronts a Jewish candidate on television in front of millions of Christian viewers and makes vague slurs about that Jewish candidate having somehow been responsible for a supposedly anti-Christian joke. To me, it smacks of the kind of persecution minorities of all stripes have had to endure in this country at the expense of the majority.

David's joke wasn't anti-Christian, and Lieberman was not responsible for it. If you think Cheney's tactic is perfectly acceptable and ethical, fine. It just goes to show how far right you will lean to make excuses for underhanded, offensive religious slurs. Further, I didn't write the article, Timothy Noah did, and I'm not the only person offended by what Cheney said (obviously). This isn't about "common sense," Flint. It's about doing whatever it takes to win, even if it means making allusions to religious biases that have no basis in fact.

But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, here are Cheney's words again:

We were especially disturbed, Joe, at a recent fund-raiser you attended where there was a comedian who got up and criticized George Bush's religion. And I know you're not responsible for having uttered any words of criticism of his religion, but to some extent, my concern would be, frankly, that you haven't been as consistent as you had been in the past, that a lot of your good friends like Bill Bennett and others of us who'd admired your firmness of purpose over the years have felt that you're not quite the crusader for that cause that you once were.

Instead of ignobly attacking me, Flint, why not go out on a limb and defend Cheney's words? Tell me why he is correct, decent, and fair here. Tell me how it's "common sense" for Cheney and Bennett to make a big deal out of an innocuous joke made by a Jewish comedian. And while you're at it, perhaps you can explain, or literally translate, what Cheney is saying here, as it comes off as a pretty vague.

But could that have been the intended effect?

David,

Bush's religion was not "bashed." Tell me exactly how the joke Larry David told is Christian bashing. It certainly isn't mean or nasty, like Bennett and Cheney would have anyone unfamiliar with the joke believe. (Read the article above.) Who's really being mean and nasty here, Larry David or Cheney/Bennett? Second, obviously Noah did not intend his article above as a "joke." Finally, if "not flying in Peoria" means not flying with bigoted, thick-skinned Christian Republicans, yes, I would have to agree.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 07, 2000.

Celia Thaxter...

Lieberman is a jew!?! I just thought he was a troll...and what does religon have to do with it anyway? I didn't throw the Hebrew card, whay did you have to? Can't a finger-wagging troll be measured without bringing it up? How do you know I'm not from Tel Aviv? Geez..

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 07, 2000.

Gee, Uncle Bob, I guess you totally missed the point of this article by Noah -- that Lieberman is a Jew, and Cheney is a Gentile, and Dick Cheney played the religious card on the Jew.

You say didn't know Lieberman is a Jew?

Please.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 08, 2000.

Uncle Bob,

Are most Jews "little trolls" in your mind, or just Lieberman?

It's about what you said...not what Noah wrote. You don't get it, do you?

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

Celia wins. Sorry Debra.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), October 08, 2000.

Uncle Bob,

You made a nasty attack on Lieberman the man in the middle of a discussion about Lieberman the Jew. Then you say you didn't know Lieberman is Jewish. (Right.)

Look, if you have a problem with Lieberman's policies, fine. But you obviously have a problem with Lieberman as a human being. In the context of a discussion that directly touches upon Lieberman's being Jewish, your attacks on Lieberman the man are offensive.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 08, 2000.

"Lieberman was a little troll in a booster seat talking down to me and wagging his finger at me in a condescending tone the entire night. That offends me. I was also insulted that the little troll thinks he is smarter than me and knows what is best for me."

Oh, I take it all back. I guess you don't sound like a meanspirted, bigoted little man.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 08, 2000.

Celia...

Give me your address so I can mail you 5 bucks to buy a clue. I don't give a shit if the nasty little troll is a jew, gentile, homosexual, pervert, liar, or your brother (rewind your post and you'll notice I never mentioned it). You are dragging this into religious bias. Let me remove my tongue from my cheek, of course I know he's a jew. Lets see, how can I make you understand this...I DON'T CARE! Don't wag your finger at me and pretend you know what's best for me...

geez

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

>> I was also insulted that the little troll thinks he is smarter than me and knows what is best for me. <<

Uncle Bob, here is your big chance. There are pplenty of exact transcripts of the Cheney-Lieberman debate out there. Why not quote some passage spoken by Joe Lieberman that shows exactly what you are talking about when you say he "thinks he is smarter than me and knows what is best for me"?

If you can't quote anything, then you are blowing smoke, making absurd characterizations of the man's actual words, and so on... If you can make a goos case using Joe's own words, then you are very likely to win over a couple dozen votes to Bush.

Care to play the game?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 08, 2000.

Uncle Bob,

In the context of this discussion about Lieberman's being Jewish, your attack on Lieberman the human being struck me as more than usually offensive.

There are people all over the internet making smears and attacks on Lieberman merely because he's Jewish. You have made it clear that you are not one. I apologize for having found your comments offensive in the context of this discussion.

Can we let this go now?

A virtual handshake,

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 08, 2000.

sure brian...i'm no better off now than i was 8 years ago because of dot.gov. the nasty little troll had to steal that quote from reagan...he is a nasty little troll, really he is. and he was on a booster seat...

here's 5 bucks for you too brian...i was acused of being religiously biased. i take exception to that.

celia...apology not necessary but thank you...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

"he is a nasty little troll, really he is"

To me, that is outrageously laughable. Your bias is showing Uncle Bob.

Why don't you just admit that you've had your mind made up about ALL Democrats for quite some time. And since you seem to be a very narrow-minded person, that isn't likely to change.

-- (archie@bunker.bob), October 08, 2000.

Celia:

Call me terminally cynical about the political process. Of course they'll say whatever they think will help them win. After all, our system is designed to select for ability to win elections, NOT for ability to govern once elected. And by now there's no question that attacking your opponent is more cost effective than any other tactic, whether or not the attack has any factual merit. The attempts to undermine Lieberman because he's Jewish are very mild compared to the flat out "The Pope will rule the US" campaign in 1960 when Kennedy tried to become our first Catholic president. Of course that was nonsense in 1960, but it nearly worked.

People have never understood the genuine complex subtlety underlying political races, so it has never been a good idea to say "my opponent is good, but I'm better." That approach loses elections, apparently because the choice isn't clear enough. What works is more like "my opponent has no redeeming qualities and I have no faults." If this is what wins elections, it's common sense to do it.

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" (H.L.Mencken). Any candidate for president wearing a big KICK ME sign (i.e. any religion but Protestant, any color but white, any sex but heterosexual male, any name or ancestry other than Northern European, etc.) is going to be kicked. No matter how obvious or uncalled for. This demonstrably helps your campaign, and the goal is to win whatever it takes. This is common sense. As Leo Durocher might observe about single-member districts, Nice Guys Finish Second.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 08, 2000.

archie...you hit the nail on the head, all dems anr pinko-liberal- fabian-socialist-rat-bastards. at least i admit it and stand by it.

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

btw...i'm writing-in alan keyes

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

Mean spiritedness and bigotry is not convince to any political persuation,as noted by much of the commentary here

-- Buster (Hiway441@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

Uncle Bob:

I fail to see the logic in writing in someone who withdrew from the race, but it's certainly your choice to do so.

Principles, eh?

Flint: I certainly agree with you. Politics ARE politics. These folks will say/do anything to get elected, and we all know it.

David: I was well aware of the Christian view of Lieberman, both before and after the fund-raiser where Lieberman didn't make a stink over a harmless joke. If you don't see the political influences at work in making HIM the fall-guy for the joke of another, *I* certainly do. The whole Hollywood thing is a joke. There are SOME in Hollywood that are targeting youthful audiences with inappropriate material. This is NOT to suggest that ALL of Hollywood is doing this. Joe and Al know this. BTW, were you aware of George's funding role in the movie "Hitcher"? [I THINK that was the name.] It was the one where the woman was torn apart by being tied to two trucks that drove away in opposite directions with her tied to both. Were you aware that Cheney's wife wrote a book entitled, I think Sisters wherein she discussed the lives of Lesbians and the beauty of their closeness? She failed to mention this when asked what books she'd had published and then simply said, "Well, I think that one only sold 500 copies. Perhaps now there will be increased interest."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 08, 2000.

Al Gore

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

Dubya

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

Pat Buchanan

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

Ralph Nader

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

Anita...play fair

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

I AM playing fair, Uncle Bob. I gave you the source of all skeletons in EVERYONE's closets. For ANYONE to run on principles is ludicrous. The truth is, however, that Keyes withdrew from the race. He's no longer a principal on principles. It's easy to not find anything current about him, because he withdrew from the race. The other guys are still out there stumbling, and bumbling, and Keyes sits at home saying, "Heh....look at that. Nobody can pin THAT ONE on me. Heh. I withdrew before anyone had the REAL scoop." If he were still a candidate, Uncle Bob, you could bet on someone finding more.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 08, 2000.

You get better candidates two ways, MHO. In return a ton of the "issues" will resolve themselves as economic/social ones do in a Free Market economy.

First you support campaign finance reform. Al Gore has pledged this would be the first item he will send to Congress for consideration. Specifically citing the McCain/Feingold proposal and going further. More on Gore's stance here

All other political talk is frankly smoke and frustration. The result of a process controlled by a few special interests.

Second the Electoral College system has to be eliminated. Doing so will help end the control a few have in choosing who runs. Like why is New Hampshire so dam important anyhow? or Iowa? Freaking election is over early and this type of political bs has to end if we ever have any hopes of candidates beyond Joe and Smo.

They all suck cause the system as is sucks, what is the mystery?

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 08, 2000.

Uncle Bob, you forgot the Alan Keyes closet and Uncle Bob's closet.

-- (lets@see.those.too), October 08, 2000.

Alan Keyes

Uncle Bob

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

No Paracelsus, Celia doesn't win. Every inch that opens further to the Left I'm moving over. Gets me that much further from the religious right.

Flint, I don't think Cheney's intention can be defended. I agree with Celia ... it is pretty damn frightening. He was being vague and misleading (as they all are) but he was playing the persecuted Christian by a Jew card. It doesn't get more frightening than that. He's a smart man and he knew exactly what he was doing. Let's hope that most Christians are more intelligent than he gives them credit for.

Lieberman has more decency in his little finger than Cheney has in his entire body and this comment proved it.

God, I hope the Republicans don't win this election.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 08, 2000.

As far as this Cheney-thing is concerned, I STILL like him better than Joe. In fact, I like him BETTER than GW...

watchin' the rain...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), October 08, 2000.

Hey, Uncle Bob:

Is your E-mail address real? I have a document produced in MS OFFICE 97 and I can't see the footers in a print display or in a real print. If I send it to you, can you let me know if the footers show up in a print display with MS OFFICE 2000? [I noticed you were using 2000 on your website.] I need to know if this is a bug within MS Office 97 or whether I did something wrong. It's for my Thursday night class.

[Sorry I took the thread off topic, everyone.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 08, 2000.

Thanks Uncle Bob, but I don't see any skeletons in your bunker. Maybe you need to run for president, then we'll really see how you compare to the other candidates! :)

-- (not@lookin.good), October 08, 2000.

Nice post Debra. Your are still in the race but Gelia leads. You must become much more vicious.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), October 08, 2000.

Debra:

[Every inch that opens further to the Left I'm moving over. Gets me that much further from the religious right.]

Unfortunately, it also gets you that much further down the throat of the religious left. Granted, we don't formally recognize the Church of Big Brother, but the philosophy is the same -- prevent you from doing or being what you want "for your own good". I find it difficult to decide which candidate is promising to deprive me of what I hold more valuable, but in general I find the conservatives at least promise not to tax me quite so heavily to pay themselves to deprive me of it. In practice, I fear the promises are ignored and the costs are the same either way. Sigh.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 08, 2000.

Anita

addy is real...i have ms2k...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

anita...are you sending me a virus that will convert me to a lib.dem? or just wipe out my hard drive?

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

Some interesting responses here -- thanks everyone.

Debra, glad I'm not the only one who finds Cheney's remarks pretty outrageous.

Flint, you disappoint me. I see you defending the status quo, but not defending principles that lead us to a nation that accepts any qualified candidate as viable despite race, religion, or gender. Sure, people made Pope allusions to JFK, but heck, that was almost forty years ago. Haven't we made some progress in that time?

You make it sound like it's always been that way, and it will always be that way. I disagree. I think the country is moving inexorably to more civilized and progressive principles. A good example is the public's exasperation with negative campaigning, and the small but significant block of new voters signing up for Nader.

Your take on taxation doesn't surprise me. Despite its popularity, it's rather simplistic. But do you measure the quality of a nation by how much money each individual saves from the government, or by how good its public infrastructures and services such as healthcare and transporation?

Every citizen should have free schooling through college, so everyone has an equal shot at a college degree or specialized training. Likewise, everyone should have free universal health care regardless of age or health status. These ideas are considered heretical in a capitalistic society, but they are in fact indicators of a civilized society.

There will always be people left behind, people who are on the fringes of society who cannot fend for themselves. (Then there are people like me, who fend fine for themselves but cannot find affordable health insurance.) The state of quality health care and prescription medicine in this country is an unmitigated disaster.

My point is simply that healthcare and education are so important to everyone that they ought to be made universally available to everyone. You can't put a price on that, or reduce it to free market logistics. The free market is often a poor manager of public good.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 08, 2000.

Anita, see the message I just left in your forum for a possible fix of the problem.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), October 08, 2000.

Oh, before I dig into my dinner, I wanted to ask Doc Paulie, if you're still around, how you would reform the electoral college. Or what would be a better system.

Incidentally, looking at the msnbc.com electoral map, I see that Gore needs only 28 points to win. What am I missing here? Everyone keeps pointing to the polls and talking about this race being a dead heat, but if Gore only needs 28 electoral points, isn't this race wrapped up already?

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 08, 2000.

...but if Gore only needs 28 electoral points, isn't this race wrapped up already? 'fraid so. The state-run media, who picked dubya BTW, made sure of that. Oh well, us hard working conservative capitalists will have to support the snivling little socialists who can't make it in the real world for another 4 years. Rmember, it's not your fault. You were abused, picked-on, made fun of, came from a broken home, yadda, yadda, yadda...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

Celia,

The Electoral College should be abolished. This will require a change in the Constitution so don't hold your breath.

We need to operate as a Democracy, real one this time. Your vote for President is basically a sham. Your vote really means zero. Any wonder why half the country would rather watch TV then go and participate in something so meaningless? Many out west are told the outcome before they even get home from work, why bother? Problem is all the local issues and candidates do not benefit from a better turnout based on the phoney Presidential vote. These local races DO matter and depend on YOUR participation which the Feds seem intent on beating out of you thru campaigns of boredom by the usual suspects playing musical chairs in DC.

Here is a de cent link about what the Electoral College is, the history, and discussion of pros and cons of it.

In the new age of the Internet, the lines are fading. Time for the Electoral College to bite the dust.

We need to start making THE popular vote count as it should and some still assume. We have mountains of legislation protecting one's right to vote for what? if the process is silly as it is? Elections where your vote "maybe" means something, is this it? Hypocrisy, a longtime scam which benefits those in power. It has created the one-party two- party boring exercise we all follow like dumb sheep every four years.

Things are fundamentally broke in America when it comes to who is running things. Campaign Finance Reform and doing away with the Electoral College will do more to turn the tide than most. If we ever get "real" Democratic Tax Reform and end that special interest benefit program, we may indeed be left with but contrails and aliens as discussion topics here. Crazy but one can hope.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 08, 2000.

Doc,

I agree completely about the Electoral College. As to finance reform it depends on what is proposed. Public funded elections could lock out third parties forever, something that I think could be very bad over the long haul. I would have zero qualms about ending corporate, union, PAC money. Individuals should be allowed to give whatever they wish, but only with full public disclosure of who was giving what to whom.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 08, 2000.

The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

Boxer, Feinstein, and Waxman are voting for me...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

I sent you the document, Uncle Bob. I wouldn't want to destroy all those back-copies of the Onion by including a virus. [Truth is, I don't even know HOW to include a virus.] Unless your mind moves to the left when it reads about computer training in grades 6 through 8 in Texas, I don't think you'll have to worry about turning into a pinko commie, either.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 09, 2000.

Unless your mind moves to the left when it reads about computer training in grades 6 through 8 in Texas

Anita, how can I possibly help you now? I mean, I'm from Norman, Oklahoma...We can't keep giving Texans all our stuff...BTW, Sooners 63 - Longhorns 14...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 09, 2000.

Anita...

Check your mail...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 09, 2000.

Celia:

[that was almost forty years ago. Haven't we made some progress in that time?]

Indeed we have, thanks to better polling techniques, better communications technologies, and a much larger database. We now recognize the utility of mud slinging much better than 40 years ago. We know exactly how to use it and exactly when it does the most good. But whereas our techniques have greatly improved, our goal has not changed. The goal is to win the election. Always has been. Whatever it takes. Are you seriously suggesting that politicians have become more willing or gracious losers over the last 40 years, while campaign costs have skyrocketed? From a candidate's perspective, "progress" can ONLY mean "more effectively manipulating voters' impressions".

[I think the country is moving inexorably to more civilized and progressive principles. A good example is the public's exasperation with negative campaigning...]

Snort! You and 'a' should discuss this -- he sees nothing but devolution. But our methods ARE improving. We can now describe the positive correlation between *expressed* exasperation and *actual votes for the negative campaigner* much better than ever before. The vast gulf between what people say they want and what they *do* can be measured with unprecedented precision. Great. Personally, I would *love* to see this sea change in human nature your sweet personality causes your imagination to conjure up. But once again, my desire to see what's not there just isn't strong enough to actually see it.

[But do you measure the quality of a nation by how much money each individual saves from the government, or by how good its public infrastructures and services such as healthcare and transporation?]

Depends on what you mean by "public" infrastructure. If you are implying that decent transportation or health services are ONLY possible through government, then I cannot agree. You provide a laundry list of "civilized" services that should be "free". Are you joking? NOTHING is free. In your context, "free" means someone else pays for what you want. Apparently if you chant "free" enough, you can convince yourself that it's "simplistic" to wonder just who PAYS for what YOU get for free. And we wouldn't want to be uncivilized or simplistic, now would we? So let's pretend this manna comes from heaven, with the government as beneficent intermediary. Powerful magic.

Until you wean yourself from any notions of "free", you aren't going to be taken seriously. Try being honest enough to recognize that you can't do a convincing cost-benefit comparison if you just pretend the costs do not exist.

[The state of quality health care and prescription medicine in this country is an unmitigated disaster.]

In what way? I'm not saying you're wrong, but by this point I have reason to suspect that what you consider worst, I might consider best and vice versa. I DO recognize that state of the art medical procedures are hideously expensive. As an economy, we simply cannot afford to make them available to all who need them; we don't have the resources. I also recognize that there are some people who take as a given that any medical procedure that might conceivably help someone should never be denied that person. But this leads to staggering costs! How do we get around this? Easy! We make them FREE!

I'm not sure whether this is simplistic or simply dishonest. But it's surely one or the other, and whichever it is, the costs must STILL be paid. There's got to be some optimum way to allocate costs and care, so as to get the most care for the least cost. But so long as we're in the fantasyland of "free" services, we can't even begin to address the real issue. And the real issue is a nasty one. Every dollar spent keeping someone alive through heroic measures (or any other medical application) is a dollar that cannot be spent on education or transportation. Difficult tradeoffs are not well made by pretending anything is free.

[healthcare and education are so important to everyone that they ought to be made universally available to everyone. You can't put a price on that]

Groan. Now I KNOW you are being dishonest. OF COURSE I can put a price on it, and someone will HAVE to put a price on it one way or another. Teachers, doctors and nurses (and their administrators) must be paid. Facilities must be provided, and those who build and maintain them must be paid. Books, equipment, supplies are required, and whoever provides them must be paid. Even if we decide the government is the "best" intermediary (according to some definition of "best"), the government still has a budget. It must determine the cost of doing these things, and raise the money to do them.

As a provider of services, the government has certain drawbacks. The feedback is extremely indirect. There is no motivation to do a good job, because there's no penalty for doing a bad job. Government administrators tend to be drawn from the industry they are administrating, with a clear (and historically obvious) conflict of interest. Compared to the private sector, government services are amazingly inefficient and overhead is huge -- Washington DC and the surrounding area isn't the wealthiest in the country by accident. It's bureaucrats paying themselves very well, thank you.

Ah, but we're not talking here about the dirty nitty gritty of paying taxes and wasting most of them while necessarily putting prices on salaries and materials. Oh no! We're in the clean clouds, talking about how a civilized country provides what YOU most value for FREE. Uh huh.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 09, 2000.

Oh Flint, you are so reactionary.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), October 09, 2000.

Flint,

First, your cynical description of how polling techniques have improved does not make a very compelling case for Cheney's behavior. How a politician behaves, what he or she says or does in the course of trying to influence voters, is still a necessary and viable discussion. We still need to make our judgments based on a politician's discourse, voting record (Cheney's is self-serving, to say the least), and behavior (Cheney has barely bothered to vote in the past dozen years). So you still haven't offered a viable defense of Cheney's words, other than that's just how politicians are -- ugly, cruel, and manipulative. And that's the way it's always been, and that's the way it'll always be . . . .

Onward to the gist of your response.

A rational voter will make choices partly for his or her own good, and partly for the good of the whole. An irrational voter will vote for the person who promises to give him or her the most money back. Obviously, decent transporation, environmental quality, public health, and education can be provided by agencies other than government. But governments can do an excellent job of providing quality services to their citizens.

A little story for you, Flint:

In 1988, I stayed for an extended period of time in Amsterdam and Paris. While in both cities, I had occasion to seek medical attention. In both instances, I was received at a clean, efficient, modern health clinic. In Amsterdam, the clinic was a little smaller, more like a neighborhood clinic. There the doctor saw me, prescribed medication, and saw me out the door. The cost?

It was FREE, Flint! Absolutely FREE!

Later, I went to the pharmacy to pick up my medication. The cost? It was absolutely FREE!

Later, in Paris, it was the same story -- I received competent, first- class health service and prescription drugs -- all for FREE!

Yes, Flint, it was like manna from the clouds!

No one asked to see my identification. No one cared if I was Dutch or French. The doctors and clinics were there to serve all the people who walked through their doors, and these first-rate professionals were decently compensated for their work. (A recent study showed that France has the best public healthcare system in the western world.)

Meanwhile, here in the States, I cannot find affordable health insurance. None. In fact, individual healthcare policies are not available in my state. I can't even PAY for health insurance here!

You tell me -- why is America so far behind the curve when it comes to quality health care? If a dinky little ancient town like Amsterdam can do it, why can't big brawny ridiculously rich USA compete?

A note about higher education. Michael Saylor, CEO of some gigantic information systems company I now forget the name of, is proposing to developing an online university that will be absolutely free to all adults. Yes, FREE, to every adult in the world! This noble public works project is being funded largely by Saylor himself.

Obviously government doesn't have to perform all noble functions for the betterment of humanity. The point is that Saylor saw the big ideal, the big dream, and he's making it a reality. He's in the clouds, and he's working in his own way toward a more progressive, civilized future.

Of course "costs must still be paid." But in reading your reply, I kept thinking of a joke headline on a "fake" Seattle Post- Intelligencer released during the WTO conference (they were placed illegally in PI boxes, and many people bought them thinking they were real). The headline read:

Congress Scraps One F22 Decides to Build 20 Thousand Schools Instead

You see, Flint, it's all a question of priorities. In civilized nations, high priorities include free health care and free upper college education (my friend went to Oxford for free. In England, if you're smart enough, you get FREE admission to Oxford and Cambridge! Think of it! Here, in the humongous, rich, SUV-driving USA, only a small percentage of students get free full-time scholarships, and usually if they're only poor and brilliant.)

When I say "you can't put a price on something," I am in fact quoting my Oxford friend, who, being raised British, naturally possesses a civilized view of government (he's voting for Gore, of course). What's the point of keeping X amount of taxes in your back pocket if the air you breathe is poisoned? What's the point of keeping X taxes if a child from a poor family will never even get a fighting chance at a higher education? What's the point of keeping X much money if you can't even find affordable health insurance, much less pay for outlandish medical care costs?

Of course "difficult tradeoffs will have to be made." Of course people "must be paid." But to use these caveats as a justification for voting for the guy who apparently lacks even a shred of intellectual curiosity just to fatten your wallet is a shortsighted approach to voting.

But don't take my word for it. Why not talk to the Norwegians. They have one of the highest taxation rates in the world. Ask any Norwegian if they'd like to trade some of that tax money in exchange for losing their high-quality public services (retirement, health care, education, etc.) Their answer: a resounding "No." (!)

In short, instead of saying, "We can't do that because it's too expensive, and it costs money, and it's going to come out of my paycheck!" perhaps we should ask ourselves what this country can and should achieve, and then ask, "How can we best achieve these goals for the good of our country?"

It's all about possibilities, not realities. And to achieve what seem like pipedreams to us (but are realities to other nations), we have to elect intelligent visionary leaders who value the greater public good over the individual fiscal good.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 09, 2000.

"But don't take my word for it. Why not talk to the Norwegians. They have one of the highest taxation rates in the world. Ask any Norwegian if they'd like to trade some of that tax money in exchange for losing their high-quality public services (retirement, health care, education, etc.) Their answer: a resounding "No." (!)"

UFFDA! LINK PLEASE.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 09, 2000.

Celia:

OK, here we go...

[that's just how politicians are -- ugly, cruel, and manipulative. And that's the way it's always been, and that's the way it'll always be . . . .]

I said the goal was to *win the election*. This is done by manipulating voter perceptions, always has been and always will be. But this is a matter of definition more than anything else. If a politicians statements get him elected, no further defense is needed. If they backfire, they take notes and do it different next time. Lessons like Nixon's 5 0'clock shadow are indelible.

[A rational voter will make choices partly for his or her own good, and partly for the good of the whole. An irrational voter will vote for the person who promises to give him or her the most money back.]

Wow, how stirring! Now, let's think a moment, OK? First, people aren't neatly divided into the "rational" (agree with you) and the "irrational" (selfish and short sighted). If you know better than this, why not say so? If you don't, well, the wonderful thing about democracy is that any fool gets a vote.

Second, politicians do NOT promise to "give money back"! They promise not to take it away in the first place. You sound like you believe the government deserves all you earn, and they give you some of it back out of sheer kindness. Some of us believe the government does NOT automatically deserve all we earn, and that everything they take from us is confiscated. Now, we agree that the government is in a position to provide services the private sector simply isn't appropriate for -- national defense, police, environmental protection, the court system. We acknowledge this and grudgingly permit some of our earnings to be confiscated for these purposes. But we don't ever forget that we are making a *voluntary purchase* of these services, and we have every right to stop buying whatever we feel we aren't getting our money's worth out of.

[governments can do an excellent job of providing quality services to their citizens.]

I agree with this. It's not common and not easy, but it's not impossible either. It's also an entirely different question from whether government *should* provide these services. Clearly there's a philosophical gulf between your implication that government ought to provide any service they possibly can, and my position that government should ONLY provide necessary services unavailable (in practice) by any other means.

[It was FREE, Flint! Absolutely FREE! ...The cost? It was absolutely FREE...all for FREE! ...manna from the clouds!]

I hope by now you've recovered from your paroxysms of short-sighted gratitude to actually think about this. Clearly, these services weren't really free. They cost YOU nothing, but that doesn't mean SOMEBODY didn't pay for them. You say these professionals were decently compensated. Great. I'd be grateful too if I could go to a foreign country whose taxpayers subsidized my treatment.

But France in fact pays heavily for their healthcare system. Their productivity is low, their unemployment is high. They have few competitive products on the global market. By most measures, their standard of living suffers. Their tax structure inhibits innovation and places a very steep penalty on success.

OK, from your perspective they have made a good bargain, although these aren't the tradeoffs I would prefer. Perhaps if a country is demographically homogeneous enough, this sort of socialism works because enough people have close enough agreement about what everyone wants or needs? This is critical because NO economy can support heroic life-preserving care for EVERY citizen. Subsidized medicine, even in France, tends to be very inefficient. This doesn't mean it's poor treatment, only that it is unnecessarily expensive in some ways.

[I cannot find affordable health insurance. None. In fact, individual healthcare policies are not available in my state. I cannot find affordable health insurance. None. In fact, individual healthcare policies are not available in my state.]

Which gives you some idea of just how expensive healthcare really is, once you must face the actual cost directly rather than pretending it's free. I can assure you it's just as expensive in France, even if the cost there is hidden from those who don't want to recognize it. Now, why is health insurance "affordable" in France and not in the US? Good question, and I'd need many details and long study. I've read that the Canadian system is great for standard checkups and minor emergencies, but if anything is seriously wrong with Canadians, they come to the US and pay very high prices to get REAL healthcare, rather than wait a very long time in line to get "free" care of questionable competence in Canada. AND they pay high taxes to subsidize their system, which in turn has indirect but very visible effects on their employment rate, price levels, the relative value of their currency, etc. Any useful discussion of the proper role of government *must* address these indirect costs. And unless medical care is provided entirely by magic, there are ALWAYS costs, which must ALWAYS be paid one way or another.

I'm just not up to addressing point-by-point your paean to the glories of socialism. Why bother? All I can suggest is some simple word substitution in your praises. I'll provide a couple of examples to help you out:

---------

You see, Flint, it's all a question of priorities. In civilized nations, high priorities include subsidized health care and upper college education paid for by those who can't attend those colleges. (my friend went to Oxford courtesy of those denied that privilege. In England, if you're smart enough, someone else pays your admission to Oxford and Cambridge whether they like it or not! Think of it! Here, in the humongous, rich, SUV-driving USA, only a small percentage of students get someone else to pay for their higher education, and usually if they're only poor and brilliant.)

---------

There's no such thing as a free lunch, Celia, but there *IS* such a thing as a stolen lunch. And it's just as stolen no matter how much you gussy it up with labels like "civilized" and "rational" and "Oxford-educated". What a DAMN shame that here in the rich USA, nearly everyone must earn their own way and few get to steal it. Makes you wonder how the USA ever got so rich in the first place, doesn't it?

[I am in fact quoting my Oxford friend, who, being raised British, naturally possesses a civilized view of government (he's voting for Gore, of course).]

Of course. If I considered it my civilized right to be handed "free" health care and education and *anything else* I could vote someone ELSE into paying for, this would influence my views as well. While I was at it, I'd consider my view of socialism "naturally civilized". Why not?

Of course, if you really THINK about all this, you'll realize that it can NOT work unless only a small minority gets the "free" goodies. The vast majority can't go to Oxford or other expensive school, because if they did, *everyone* would have to pay the $50,000 a year or so that such an education costs. The vast majority better not need medical care, and VERY few of those who do better need extensive care, or the system would collapse. As "free" services have penetrated further and further into most European countries, the economic impacts have become serious. The many can support the few, but as the supported population grows, something MUST give way. Either services must be curtailed, or waiting lists become impractically long, or taxes become prohibitive, or some combination of these. Meanwhile the administrative overhead is STILL not particularly accountable and the entire enterprise is inefficient. See Russia for example.

[perhaps we should ask ourselves what this country can and should achieve, and then ask, "How can we best achieve these goals for the good of our country?"]

I agree entirely. I simply don't believe the European model is achieving goals that are for the good of their countries -- quite the opposite. I believe the government should regulate rather than provide. I favor the school voucher system, and I support home schooling. I believe the costs of services should be borne as much as possible by those who *use* those services (and yes, Saylor is making a purchase. It may be enlightened self-interest, but it's still self- interest).

And I do NOT believe I should be forced to pay so that YOU can get something for "free", regardless of how comically gleeful you wax at the glories of a system where you never have to look those people in the eye who actually paid for your treatment. I believe there is a limit to shared risk -- insurance is fine and makes good sense, *provided* I'm permitted to keep my money and take my chances if I so choose. I'd much rather risk making stupid mistakes, than be forced to have government shove wisdom down my throat. I'd like to make my OWN choice as to how I allocate my resources, thank you. I believe you should have this same choice.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 2000.

"And I do NOT believe I should be forced to pay so that YOU can get something for "free", regardless of how comically gleeful you wax at the glories of a system where you never have to look those people in the eye who actually paid for your treatment."

Although the tone might be ever so slightly more personal than I would have put it, this was very well said, Flint.

I believe it was Alan Greenspan, in an essay a ways back, who said something to the effect that, "at the bottom of the massive stack of government regulations lies a gun."

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 10, 2000.

Celia: I've recently shared six months of conversation with family members in Norway, discussing how some of our family fell by the wayside due to the long waiting lists for medical treatment. You were lucky to have a hang-nail-type problem that could be treated immediately.

The reason I entered this thread again, however, was to ask for the link on the MSNBC Editorial Vote. They're ALL projections, you know. Personally, I've been using Orvetti. The state polls change daily. Gore, two weeks ago had 319 of the electoral votes on Orvetti, and yesterday he had a majority of votes once again, after a week and a half of being in the hole. Today, another swing-state has moved closer to Bush. It's a constant switching from pink to blue, back to pink, back to blue, etc. I think THIS is why folks call the race a close one.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 10, 2000.

Another way to look at health care, is the availability of services. For example, compare the distributions of GammaKnife units Link in the U.S. or Japan with those available in your Socialist paradise.

It doesn't matter if treatment is free if you need it NOW and can't get it for 6 mos. Why do you think so many Canadians come to the U.S. when they need treatment NOW?

Personally, I'd rather be able to receive a treatment even if I had to pay for it than be forced to wait for "free" treatment until I died.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 10, 2000.

Anita, thanks for the link (but, ouch!).

Onward to you, Flint.

"If a politicians statements get him elected, no further defense is needed."

Is that right? No mind whether it's fair, or true, or ugly or not -- the bottom line is whether it works? Do you believe this a just defense of Cheney's actions during the debate? If Cheney wins the election, then do you see that win as justification for what he said to Lieberman about religion during the debate? Please explain. By your reasoning, we cannot condemn Hitler, Mussolini, or Slobo, because they all did whatever it took to gain political power.

Hey, it worked for them. Must be okay.

"Everything they take from us is confiscated."

"Confiscated"! Wow! You sound like a card-carrying militia member.

"We are making a *voluntary purchase* of these services, and we have every right to stop buying whatever we feel we aren't getting our money's worth."

Do we have the right to stop paying into the nation that guarantees us certain rights and privileges and freedoms? Are you simply going to stop paying taxes, Flint, when you're damn well ready to? If not, how to you propose to "stop buying"? Through voting alone?

"Clearly there's a philosophical gulf between your implication that government ought to provide any service they possibly can . . ."

I never stated that government ought to provide any service they possibly can. I believe that the best governments of the future will be an innovative mix of visionary public and private enterprise. I support vouchers and charter schools, for example. I'm open to any innovation that might work to improve the greater good.

"Clearly, these services weren't really free."

Well, they were for me, Flint. Sorry, but they were all free to me. I'm sorry that upsets you. But in fact, services are free to everyone who walks in that clinic door, whether they reside in the country or pay taxes or not. And obviously the people of Europe rather like the system as it works, or else they would have changed it long ago.

"By most measures, their standard of living suffers."

Sure, if you measure "standard of living" by materialistic means only. How much money did they make? How much did they keep? What did they buy with it?

This is the American way. Never mind who is hungry, homeless, abused, or mentally ill. Hey, let them work for a living, even if they're stark raving mad. Put 'em on the streets! Reagan did!

I'd wager that Europeans have an enormous advantage in quality of life over Americans. They have excellent public transportation, excellent schools and worker training, superb housing and public health, generous pensions, much longer vacations than Americans, and a more established, deeper cultural life in which to recreate (there're those damn taxes again -- making life more amusing and uplifting to their citizens. Hey, compare Italian opera to a night of U.S. television and tell me which you'd prefer. I'll take the opera, thanks). They eat better than Americans (their cuisines are much more imaginative), they dress better than Americans (they have wonderful boutiques, accessories, and clothing stores), and they're even thinner than Americans! They walk the streets of their cities at night free from worry about random gun and gang violence, and their children enjoy gun-free schools. Hey, they even look out for their teenagers, providing real places, real environments where they can go to dance and drink beer. Because their 16 and 17 year old boys are treated like adults, with respect and consideration, and because alcohol is treated as a normal accompaniment to a civilized cuisine, children learn to drink responsibly. The result is European teenage boys of 16 are far more polite and truly courteous than most 30-year- old American men.

The fact is, America is rather a laughingstock and horror to most Europeans. They see cultural insipidity, random violence, and a national capital where a grown man's love affair is treated as a horrific crime, and laugh and laugh and laugh. They get a lot of laughs and gasps of horror out of us, all the while enjoying their higher standard of living.

"NO economy can support heroic life-preserving care for EVERY citizen."

Oh Christ, here we go, into the high-tech, "heroic life-preserving care" argument. Hey, what about decent affordable preventive care? Why don't we place an emphasis on preventing those diseases that cause the need for "heroic life-preserving care" in the first place? Why is it I cannot even find affordable basic care, never mind heroic care? I'm talking about basic checkups, blood tests, screenings, that kind of thing. Not the high-tech gadgetry right- wingers use to justify a healthcare system that denies millions of people basic care so a few can get that life-preserving heroic high- tech treatment that may or may not work in a pinch (don't count on it).

I say we ought to provide the basics first, to everyone, then focus on the "heroics."

"I can assure you it's just as expensive in France."

I believe you're wrong here, Flint. NPR recently reported the results of an international study of healthcare systems for children. France came through on quality, effiency, universality, and did it at a much lower cost than America. In fact, the study concluded that America would do well to emulate France in trying to find ways to guarantee healthcare to all its children.

"They come to the US and pay very high prices to get REAL healthcare."

So only "heroic", outrageously expensive, surgically intrusive, or otherwise "high-tech" medicine is "real" healthcare? Are you kidding? Also, I think most Canadians will take issue with your calling Canadian healthcare workers of "questionable competence."

Just what does that mean, Flint? On the one hand you say that Canada provides first-rate basic healthcare for its citizens, but because it chooses not to expend its healthcare dollars into expensive high-tech wizardry, that the doctors are somehow incompetent?

As for your characterization of my British friend as a "socialist," you couldn't be more off mark. I cannot even begin to fathom his political philosophy, because he doesn't spend a lot of time expounding it. Whenever he does speak on the topic, he offers a refreshing and practical approach to governance that I have quite literally never heard before. I try to learn from him. It's enough for me just to keep up. Besides, taking an advanced degree with high honors from Oxford at 19 is worth something, I suppose, when it comes to gaining a worldview. But hey, in America, we prefer OUR OWN WAY ... even when it doesnt work!

I'm suggesting we can learn a lot from our British and French and German and Scandinavian cousins, instead of making a knee-jerk, blanket condemnation of such systems as "socialism."

"The vast majority better not need medical care, and VERY few of those who do better need extensive care, or the system would collapse."

Interesting. Another warning about "extensive care." Are you still smoking, Flint? If so, I can see why you are so concerned about "heroic" care. But wait a second, Europeans smoke more than Americans, dont they? And how long have they been providing quality healthcare to all their citizens without collapsing? Last I checked, they're still providing it, and no country has yet "collapsed" because it couldn't provide "extensive" care.

"See Russia for example."

You know, I wasn't speaking and am not speaking of Russia here. I'm speaking of Germany, France, England, Holland, great old civilized nations that competed in world capitalistic markets long before America was born and who provide excellent quality healthcare and retirement and education to all their citizens.

"I believe the costs of services should be borne as much as possible by those who *use* those services."

1. Are you willing to pay a higher gas tax for consumption of gas?

2. Are you willing to pay a higher tax to use your gun for recreational shooting pleasure, to help offset the enormous burden borne by non-gun owners to cover the cost of "heroic" emergency room treatment for gunshot wounds? (Approximate mean direct medical cost per gunshot injury, 1994: $17,000. Direct medical costs for firearm injuries in 1997: $4 billion. Percentage of costs for treating firearm injuries paid by taxpayers: at least 80 percent. Source: Washington Ceasefire.)

3. Are you willing to pay a much higher tax on your cigarette consumption to offset the public health costs of treating smokers?

"And I do NOT believe I should be forced to pay so that YOU can get something for "free.""

I'm not asking just "YOU" to pay, Flint. I'm asking ALL of us to pay A LITTLE to serve the greater whole.

"I'd much rather risk making stupid mistakes, than be forced to have government shove wisdom down my throat. I'd like to make my OWN choice as to how I allocate my resources, thank you. I believe you should have this same choice."

Yes, that is narrow-minded, selfish self-interest in a nutshell. The government is stupid, and cannot be trusted to provide services that work for the whole. Never mind how the people in Europe feel about their public services and much higher standard of living, and whether they feel their tax dollars work for them. For us, there is no tradeoff, because there's hardly any services, just mindless personal consumption at the expense of the environment, public health, and the lives of the poor, the aged, the young born into wretched poverty, the sick and crippled, the insane. Hell, who cares? "What a DAMN shame that here in the rich USA, nearly everyone must earn their own way and few get to steal it." Unless, that is, you're Dick Cheney, and you get billions of dollars in government contracts. But let's not talk about the wealthiest one to ten percent who live at the expense at the vast hoards. We all want (and deserve!) our own selfish little share.

And as for those who cannot fend for themselves, hell, let them eat cake!

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 10, 2000.

Gotta go with you on this one Frank. My nieghbors are Canucks. They moved here to America to get away from all those Canadian taxes. I asked them about the vaunted Canadian health care system. They said "If you are poor and ready to keel over from a heart attack it is pretty good, otherwise get ready to stand in line".

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 10, 2000.

WOOF! WOOF!

I need to interject a little here...

Celia you said, "I'm suggesting we can learn a lot from our British and French and German and Scandinavian cousins, instead of making a knee-jerk, blanket condemnation of such systems as "socialism." "

Yeah, from the people who brought you WWI and WWII...

I lived in Ireland for 4 months back in 1994, and my son needed medical care (he ripped his leg open on the side of a stone wall). We took him to 'hospital' in Dublin. We sat in a basically empty waiting room for over 3 hours while the interns and nurse played 'grabass' in the other rooms. When we finally got to see an 'intern' (he was NOT a doctor in my book), he found out my son was only 12 (big for his age) and told us that they would not see him due to insurance issues. He directed us to a 'children's hospital' on the other side of Dublin. Well by now it was approaching 11:00 at night, and he said the 'children's hospital' was CLOSED until 8:00 in the morning... I was fairly steaming by this point to say the least. So, while our "esteemed doctor" was back at the nurse's station flirting with the dubious woman there, (he still had not released us) I purloined the necessary supplies to bandage up my son's leg from the cabinet in the exam room we were interned in, so that when we left to back to the 'flat', I became my son's doctor... Yeah, it WAS free... BTW, we were released at 12:30...

So, when you taunt this board with the "so-called" free healthcare, I know better.

I find it interesting too that when one of the 'elite' of the rest of the world gets sick, where do they go? Here in the good old USA of course. They don't want the sawbones treatment they have cursed their people with...

Celia, you also said, "Are you willing to pay a higher tax to use your gun for recreational shooting pleasure, to help offset the enormous burden borne by non-gun owners to cover the cost of "heroic" emergency room treatment for gunshot wounds? (Approximate mean direct medical cost per gunshot injury, 1994: $17,000. Direct medical costs for firearm injuries in 1997: $4 billion. Percentage of costs for treating firearm injuries paid by taxpayers: at least 80 percent. Source: Washington Ceasefire.)"

How many of those gunshot wounds were "administered" by policemen? Now, can you tell me how much it costs to see to all these idiots who do the extreme sport stuff? How about how much it costs per annum for the treatment of injuries sustained in car accidents?

BTW, the "Washington Ceasefire" is I am sure a high quality publication... It probably rates right up there with the National Enquirer... I am sure, by the naming of this rag, it is a "gun control now", liberal subsidized, extreme left-wing, "protect-me-from- myself" mass of propaganda and disinformation.

Celia, I bet you have NEVER even seen a "American Rifleman" magazine, much less touched one...

Sorry for the rant, Celia, but you pushed too many buttons...

I AM voting for Bush/Cheney... they are the lesser of the two evils.

"Baalzebub/Asmodeus in 2000... why settle for the 'lesser' evil..."

growlin' at the idiot on TV...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), October 10, 2000.

Celia:

OK, I'm game.

[By your reasoning, we cannot condemn Hitler, Mussolini, or Slobo, because they all did whatever it took to gain political power.]

Not quite. I tried to make it clear that it's up to us to vote the scoundrels both in and out. The penalty for lies and/or ugliness is (occasionally) that the electorate becomes offended and votes *against* the perpetrators. So long as we have genuine choices to vote for, we get what we deserve.

[how to you propose to "stop buying"? Through voting alone?]

Yes. I see a contract here, do you?

[I believe that the best governments of the future will be an innovative mix of visionary public and private enterprise.]

So do I.

[Well, they were for me, Flint. Sorry, but they were all free to me.]

And if I break into your home when you're away, anything I walk out with is free to me. Sorry if you don't like it, but it's free to me. And for the life of me, I just can't understand how you might not agree that the stuff you worked to buy was all free after all. It was free to ME, so it was free PERIOD!

(Of course, indirectly it wasn't free to me either. I now live in a higher-crime neighborhood than before I committed a crime. And I too must pay the cost of locks on my doors and mistrust of my neighbors. But if you refuse to recognize direct costs of your policies, it's silly to delve into the indirect and more significant social costs of those same policies.)

[Sure, if you measure "standard of living" by materialistic means only.]

Any other measure risks swimming in very murky waters. It's hard to find even close agreement among different people as to just how valuable a free medical service is that you die waiting in line to receive, for example.

[Never mind who is hungry, homeless, abused, or mentally ill.]

This is incorrect. We simply need to recognize that such people entail a carrying cost, which varies along several axes. *How* hungry or abused do they need to be? Everyone I know has felt hungry or abused at one time or another. *How much* support should be alloted to those who fall beneath this arbitrary line? *How* should this support be provided -- in what form, and by whom, and how often, and how institutionalized should it be?

And WHO determines who qualifies? It's a common observation that when something of value is made available according to a set of rules (whether it be money or compassion or "free" medical care), people adjust their circumstances so as to maximize their eligibility according to those rules. Part of the "nonmaterialistic measure" of a standard of living is the game of "out-needying" the Joneses.

[I'd wager that Europeans have an enormous advantage in quality of life... (followed by an astounding paragraph of rapture for all things European and disgust for all things American]

My word! Why in the HELL are you here? Pure self-hatred? Why haven't you long since moved to the Land of Milk and Honey, where nobody needs to work and everyone is fed and cured and cared for by manna from heaven, where men are all strong and women are all good looking and the children are all polite and above average? Where you can loll around all day, supported by free government services, laughing your superior ass off at those uncivilized fat American hooligans who don't know shit from beans? Paradise awaits you, what are you waiting for?

[what about decent affordable preventive care?]

Most of which is simply intelligent living -- balanced diet, regular exercise. But even then, several people have pointed out the long waiting lists.

[Why is it I cannot even find affordable basic care, never mind heroic care?]

Has your story changed? Earlier, you said you could not find insurance, which likely would have included heroic care if such insurance were available. I've found the basic care you describe ("basic checkups, blood tests, screenings, that kind of thing") simply by calling the nearest doctor's office and making an appointment. No huge fees, no insurance involved. Basic checkups are *affordable*, you don't NEED insurance for them. You need insurance against MAJOR expenses, which are not basic by definition. This is inherent in the concept of insurance as shared risk. Getting periodic checkups, tests, and screening are not RISKS. They're supposed to be standard routine behavior by everyone. Unless you think insurance companies are charitable organizations, or you think those who forego checkups should subsidize those who don't, this sort of thing isn't what insurance is supposed to be about. Is it?

[I believe you're wrong here, Flint.]

You may be right. I started to add up necessary expenses -- doctor and nurses' fees, malpractice insurance costs, supplies and equipment, drugs, facilities, distribution, administrative overhead (making sure the right person got the right drugs, etc.) These expenses seem fairly universal. So if *anyone* can do all this substantially cheaper than anyone else, I'd really like to know either what steps are being shortchanged by the cheaper provider, or what serious overcharges are being imposed by the more expensive. These things can be subtle, like qualifications of the physician, length of waiting lists, specific (usually expensive) non-coverages or overlooking incipient problems, on and on. There really is no free lunch.

[So only "heroic", outrageously expensive, surgically intrusive, or otherwise "high-tech" medicine is "real" healthcare? Are you kidding?]

Not what I said. Not every urgent medical problem requires heroic measures. But you really ought to ponder the utility of "free" medicine with 6-month waiting lists. Just how ill are you really, if you can wait 6 months to see the doctor? At that price, it damn well better be free.

As for competence, I've read Canadians expressing doubts. I'm perfectly willing to express more than just doubts about American programmers working for the government. I've even had bad experience with private sector programmers working on government projects and being paid with tax dollars. Traditionally, the government pays a lot less than the private sector, and tends to attract the private sector's rejects. At least with programmers. Are doctors any different?

[instead of making a knee-jerk, blanket condemnation of such systems as "socialism."]

You have become a victim of language. Those systems ARE socialistic. This is not knee-jerk, nor is it a condemnation. This is a dictionary definition.

[in America, we prefer OUR OWN WAY ... even when it doesnt work!]

Everyone is always tinkering. The reluctance to back away from the trough is fairly universal.

[Last I checked, they're still providing it, and no country has yet "collapsed" because it couldn't provide "extensive" care.]

If you look back and read honestly, you will notice my observation that something has to give way. I mentioned prohibitive taxation, and sure enough, real European successes tend to become tax exiles. I mentioned long waiting lists, and sure enough, so has everyone else with experience of socialized medicine. I mentioned curtailed services, and sure enough, here you are practically having kittens every time I mention that some medicine might involve more than taking 2 aspirin.

I said if these things were NOT done, the system would collapse. You observe that the system has not collapsed, while VERY carefully not noticing that *every one* of the avoidance techniques I mentioned is being practiced. Why am I not surprised?

[1. Are you willing to pay a higher gas tax for consumption of gas?]

??? In what form? Gas excise taxes are, for me, a Good Thing. They are paid entirely by the consumers of gas, and not at all by those who consume no gas. But I do think a tax should be carefully earmarked. Gas tax for road building and maintenance, for vehicle inspections, for air pollution enforcement is fine. Gas tax to subsidize your health insurance is inappropriate, I think.

[2. Are you willing to pay a higher tax to use your gun for recreational shooting pleasure, to help offset...]

Yes. And also to pay for training in the proper use and handling of guns, and to pay for organized competitions and public shooting ranges.

[3. Are you willing to pay a much higher tax on your cigarette consumption to offset the public health costs of treating smokers?]

Yes, but I already do. I believe about 80% of the cost of cigarettes is taxes. I consider those revenues currently to be misdirected.

[I'm asking ALL of us to pay A LITTLE to serve the greater whole.]

This desperately needs to be quantified. I believe we already pay far too much in taxes in the US, for all manner of unnecessary "services". We spend $2 billion a pop for bombers the military doesn't even want. We have bureaus and departments whose administrators can't tell you their missions. We pour incredible amounts into a War on Drugs that serves only to enrich the mob. Certainly I think much of what we spend could be redirected to our greater benefit. But I also recognize that what I might choose differs from what you might choose, and we have a process in place to determine those choices. Voting counts. It's important.

Now, if by "A LITTLE" you are talking 80% and 90% tax rates, I can only laugh.

[Yes, that is narrow-minded, selfish self-interest in a nutshell. The government is stupid...]

...rant, snort, dribble, drool. I really wonder what the net migration is between the US and Europe, or at least those wonderful European countries where everything is free and the standard of living is so much higher. I wonder how people are voting with their feet.

Most of all, I wonder why you haven't already made that vote?

I agree that actions have consequences, about which reasonable people can disagree. I agree that I tend to trust my own judgment most in matters that affect me directly. The government isn't stupid, but it is necessarily more ignorant than I of the details of my own life. If you really *want* someone who doesn't know your circumstances telling you what's best for you, I'm sure the US is the last place on Earth you should choose to live. I'd encourage you to go forth and emulate Mother Theresa, except I read recently that her accountants have documented that Mother Theresa ran a VERY tidy profit, at the expense of the poor. Imagine that!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 2000.

WOW, Celia!

You knock my socks off.

Bravo.

-- Pam (Sheep@thistles.the pasture), October 10, 2000.

Damn! Pardon my "French", but Flint, you da fukin BOMB man!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 10, 2000.

Anita, You wrote David: I was well aware of the Christian view of Lieberman, both before and after the fund-raiser where Lieberman didn't make a stink over a harmless joke.

Are you sure you aren't stereotyping people here, Anita? I can assure you that the views of all Christians on Lieberman aren't all the same, just as all blacks don't all vote Democratic. I personally like Lieberman, although I disagree with some of his political stands, especially now that he has to tow the Gore line. If Lieberman had a different view on just a couple of issues, I would much prefer a Cheney/Lieberman ticket. I voted for a black man in the Republican primary. Somehow I don't think this quite fits the stereotypical view some have of a Christian.

And about the "joke", this is an area where resonable people can disagree. When you call it harmless, that doesn't make it fact, just your opinion. When I called it "bashing", that too was just my opinion, and I stand by it based on my faith.

BTW, were you aware of George's funding role in the movie "Hitcher"? [I THINK that was the name.] It was the one where the woman was torn apart by being tied to two trucks that drove away in opposite directions with her tied to both.

No, I was not, but what a coincidence, I saw this movie and actually thought it was a good horror flick with excellent acting by Rutger Hauer as a murdering psychopath. Here's a review:

http://www.dvdangle.com/reviews/hitcher.html

Not sure of your point, but I would be against promoting this movie for kids, or showing it on primetime TV, if thats what you wan't to know.

Were you aware that Cheney's wife wrote a book entitled, I think Sisters wherein she discussed the lives of Lesbians and the beauty of their closeness?

I'm suprised you didn't mention that Cheney has a Lesbian daughter as well, but in any case it is not applicable to the thread subject or my response.

Celia, Bush's religion was not "bashed." Stated as fact, but merely an opinion Celia.

Tell me exactly how the joke Larry David told is Christian bashing.

Celia, I didn't have to read the article as you suggested to find out "exactly" what the joke was, it has already been reported in the press. I can tell you why I personally find it offensive, and that is quite simple - it makes fun of someone who has faith in Christ. Now, that is my opinion, and reasonable people may disagree.

Finally, if "not flying in Peoria" means not flying with bigoted, thick-skinned Christian Republicans, yes, I would have to agree. <.i>

Celia, would the opposite of this bigoted stereotype of yours be "thin skinned Jewish Liberal Democrats" or "thin skinned Athiest Libertarians" or "black skinned AME Zionist Democrats" Celia, you are the pot that called the kettle black with this one. Again, just my opinion, lol....

Politics, "phewwww"...brings out the worst sometimes!

-- David (David@bzn.com), October 10, 2000.