The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I recall some around here arguing the bush administration talking point that Congress had access to the same intelligence leading up to the start of the war that the administration had.

Not surprisingly, they didn't.

This may just be my inner Sebby and I'm not usually this cynical but...the result would not have been different even if the Executive Branch had ignored traditional safeguards and shared all it had with every member of Congress. There would have still been an overwhelming majority of thumbs-up on the vote. They would not have wanted to be seen as having blood on their hands and they'd have voted accordingly. The research commissioned by Feinstein is a waste of our taxpayer's money -- used so Dems can claim that they'd have done things differently and to protect their asses no matter how the war is viewed in the future.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Regarding the article, I think both the stastics are carefully being manipulated to make a point. And even so, so what. Assume its true that there is no active white racism holding down black people. It's really just their family structure. I know that in in your world view that puts all the blame on them, then, but answer me one question: how did the families get that way? Could it have something to do with a cultural history of having families torn apart by white slave masters?

The answer is no. I'm not sure about the how, but if you look at the stats, and many have, the percentage of blacks living in nuclear families was at least equal, if not higher than, whites, until around the 1960s.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think the White House Christmas video is cute, though the dogs are better actors than most of the people (especially the First Lady).

That's 9 minutes and 48 seconds of my life I'd like back please.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
That's 9 minutes and 48 seconds of my life I'd like back please.

Imagine how much time you'd want back if you'd actually dated Shape Shifter.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
This may just be my inner Sebby and I'm not usually this cynical but...the result would not have been different even if the Executive Branch had ignored traditional safeguards and shared all it had with every member of Congress. There would have still been an overwhelming majority of thumbs-up on the vote. They would not have wanted to be seen as having blood on their hands and they'd have voted accordingly. The research commissioned by Feinstein is a waste of our taxpayer's money -- used so Dems can claim that they'd have done things differently and to protect their asses no matter how the war is viewed in the future.

Even so, the President shouldn't be telling mistruths. It sets a bad example for the children. Think about the children.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because French cojones would have nipped the support for Hitler in the bud?

Is this a bad joke? Hitler broke the Versailles treaty when he militarized the Rhineland. His army was incredibly weak at the time and the French could have stepped in and put a stop to it. Hitler kept breaking the treaty and the French did nothing. When Hitler invaded Poland he was exposed on the western front. If France had hit then the war might have been over pretty quickly.

Doesn't prettty much anyone who has finished high school know this?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Is this a bad joke? Hitler broke the Versailles treaty when he militarized the Rhineland. His army was incredibly weak at the time and the French could have stepped in and put a stop to it. Hitler kept breaking the treaty and the French did nothing. When Hitler invaded Poland he was exposed on the western front. If France had hit then the war might have been over pretty quickly.

Doesn't prettty much anyone who has finished high school know this?

If France had been capable of something like that, it's hard to imagine Hitler seizing Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland in the way that he did. Military history is interesting stuff, but it's only part of history.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If France had been capable of something like that, it's hard to imagine Hitler seizing Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland in the way that he did. Military history is interesting stuff, but it's only part of history.

if France had engaged Germany, Hitler would not have attacked USSR. Germany would have been able to concentrate on the 1 front, and wouldn't have lost.

We would have become a colony- our government disbanded, Al Gore would not have been elected Senator and thus would not have invented the interne- no internet means no Lawtalkers, means I don't meet fringey. I am happy that France did not engage Germany.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If France had been capable of something like that, it's hard to imagine Hitler seizing Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland in the way that he did. Military history is interesting stuff, but it's only part of history.

I know that it is generally accepted by historians that Hitler was very vulnerable when he made those moves, but he guessed that France and Britain were so sick of war, and so scared, that they would never do anything when he made his moves. He believed that these liberal democracies did not have the cajones to stand up to him. There were large peace movements in Britain and France, and Hitler saw this as a sign of weakness. The movie, "All Quiet on the Wester Front" was banned in Germany, but was huge in Europe, and the Gestapo subsidized the promotion of the film in Europe to further strengthen the pacifist cause.

His Generals vehemently objected when he remilitarized the Rhineland, because they were sure France would respond and they were in no position to take on France at that time. Of course, they turned out to be wrong and Hitler was right. In the Munich accords Hitler expressly told Chamberlain that the Sudetenland was the last thing he wanted. Austria is ethnically German and the Sudetenland was 95% ethnic Germans so he told Chamberlain that he was just trying to create a true German national state by absorbing those lands. He assured Chamberlain that after the Sudetenland he was definitely finished. .

Within months after the Munich Accords Hitler took the “rump” of Czechzavakia, in direct violation of the Munich accords, and again Hitler’s Generals were sure there would be a response, but England and France did nothing. The rump of Czechoslovakia (actually the part of Bohemia and Moravia after the Sudetenland was taken out) was almost a 100% Czech so there absolutely no “national unifying” justification for what he did. Yet the allies did nothing.

Hitler didn’t even think that the Allies would respond after he attacked Poland. He was proven wrong, because they declared war. But he was right to the effect that they did nothing. After Poland there was the Sitzkreig, where both sides did nothing and waited. But actually just France was waiting, as Hitler reorganized his troops and moved them West for the invasion of Denmark, Norway and then France. Before he got his Army out of Poland Germany’s flank was completely exposed to the French army. After Hitler regrouped and moved his army west, German Army attacked France. When he did attack France, France’s army was significantly larger than Germany’s.

I think you are the first person I have ever come across that has tried to argue that France was not in a position to prevent Hitler from conquering Europe before Hitler moved his Army west after attacking Poland.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't need the whole transcript just the part where Powell says the "sole" reason we are going to war is to eliminate the "WMDs" or even where Powell says the "main" reason we are going in is to take the WMDs away from Saddam.

Is that too much to ask?

You've been spending too much time reading Bilmore's posts here. These certainly convey the "main reason" point.

Here you go --

On December 12, 2002 -- From www.state.gov (reporting on an interview Colin Powell had with a Persian Gulf newspaper.) The quote was used on Meet the Press this morning.

"The President has said repeatedly that the purpose of this is to disarm. And if he [Sadddam] cooperates, not just cooperate to see how much he can get away with, but cooperate fully to turn over all the documents necessary, all the people who could be interviewed to get to the truth, and turn over all his capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction, if he does all that to the satisfaction of the international community,then there will be no war and the people of Iraq can decide who their leader should be."


Also --

from Scott McClellan a month earlier --

"This is about disarmament and this is a final opportunity for Saddam Hussein to disarm. If he chooses not to do so peacefully, then the United States is prepared to act, with our friends, to do so by force. And we will do so forcefully and swiftly and decisively, as the President has outlined."

Nov. 12, 2002 -- White House Press briefing.

from the man himself --

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region..."

--G. W. Bush. July 14, 2003 Press Conference


S_A_M

eta more bold

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think you are the first person I have ever come across that has tried to argue that France was not in a position to prevent Hitler from conquering Europe before Hitler moved his Army west after attacking Poland.

That's not what I said.

If you're interested in the fall of France, you should read this book. I've talked about it before on this board, but I think that was before you came.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I'm happy to see that no one here is arguing that Bush's status as commander-in-chief in the so-called war on terror lets him ignore whatever laws he doesn't like. Too bad no one close to him is willing to tell him it doesn't work that way.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm happy to see that no one here is arguing that Bush's status as commander-in-chief in the so-called war on terror lets him ignore whatever laws he doesn't like. Too bad no one close to him is willing to tell him it doesn't work that way.

Can you show an example of who the illegal wiretaps were against?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's not what I said.

You said: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If France had been capable of something like that, it's hard to imagine Hitler seizing Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland in the way that he did. Military history is interesting stuff, but it's only part of history.

"That" being hitting Hitler with a preemtive strike.

How is that different from what I said you said:

"I think you are the first person I have ever come across that has tried to argue that France was not in a position to prevent Hitler from conquering Europe before Hitler moved his Army west after attacking Poland."

You said France was not capable of launching a preemtive Strike (or else Hitler would not have seized Austria) and my point was that not only was France capable of doing something like like, but Hitler knew they were capabable of doing that.

Stand by your statement or admit it was wrong, but don't say you didn't say it.

[Spanky]

A while back I said that the Trial Lawyer lobby in the United States was a problem because of the litigation crisis in this country. I said that Business's in California's biggest beef was the cost of frivilous lawsuits, and the reason why most doctors were Republican and involved in the party is because they were upset by Medical Malpractice litigation.

Then I got a litany of responses saying that the Business community and doctor's complaints did not make sense because litigation in this country was not really a problem. The litigation problem was a false bogeyman that had no stats to back it up.

Sorry guys, litigation costs are a huge problem in this country driving up the cost of doing business and driving up the cost of healthcare. Heres why:


United States
Litigation and health care

Scalpel, scissors, lawyer
Dec 14th 2005 | ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
From The Economist print edition

Health-care litigation costs America far too much


AS ANYONE thinking of having a baby in Maryland will know, it's not easy to find an obstetrician in the Old Line State. The main reason, says Debbie Redd, the head of Capital Women's Care (CWC), the largest group of obstetrician/gynaecologists in the Washington, DC, area, is that it costs $118,000 a year to insure just one of them against malpractice lawsuits. That is more than the total cost of employing a doctor in most countries.

Trial lawyers argue that malpractice lawsuits deter negligence. Craig Dickman, an obstetrician affiliated to CWC, says they mostly deter the kind of behaviour that might get you sued, which is not the same thing. To cover himself, he says, he orders excessive tests, monitoring and consultations with specialists. He guesses that 12%-15% of the procedures he bills for are unnecessary. If he fails to order every imaginable test, even if there is “no clinical evidence of efficacy”, he is exposed if something were to go wrong. A trial lawyer can scour the country for the one expert who thinks that his omission might have caused the patient's injury.

Dr Dickman has been sued five times in 21 years on what he (inevitably) describes as specious grounds. That is not unusual for an American obstetrician: 76% of them have been sued at least once. (They are more at risk than most doctors, since they typically operate on healthy patients, who may then blame them if they become ill.)

When doctors win cases, as they usually do, they still lose, because they have to pay their legal bills. And when they lose, they lose big. In jury trials, the average award of damages against a doctor is $4.7m. How much they have to pay to insure against these costs depends on where they practice. In St Clair County, Illinois, neurosurgeons paid an average premium of $228,396 in 2004, five times more than their colleagues in Wisconsin did. Inevitably, doctors (and insurers) flee the states that are friendliest to plaintiffs. Pennsylvania lost a third of its general surgeons between 1995 and 2002.

The cost of medical-malpractice lawsuits has risen more than 2,000% since 1975, to $26.5 billion in 2003, according to Tillinghast, an actuarial consultancy. And to what end? A study of malpractice suits in New York by the Harvard Medical Practice Group found that plaintiffs had actually been injured by doctors' negligence in only 17% of cases. Those patients with small claims often cannot find a lawyer to represent them, while those who win find their lawyers have swallowed half the payout from the doctors.

American health care is bedevilled by two problems that lawsuits do nothing to heal. First, health care costs too much. Americans pay twice as much per head for health care as people in other rich countries. Rising health-care costs threaten the solvency not just of private firms such as General Motors but ultimately also of the government itself. Second, some 46m Americans languish uninsured.

The problems of an industry that chews up 15% of GDP ($1.6 trillion in 2003) plainly cannot all be laid at the lawyers' door. But they do help push up prices (and thus increase the number of uninsured). For instance, in the 1990s, health-maintenance organisations cut costs by trying to cover only treatments that were proven to work. But patients who were denied experimental treatments, and the hospitals that wanted to be paid for providing them, started to sue. After being slapped with a few multi-million dollar verdicts, HMOs more or less gave up trying to ration treatment and just raised their premiums instead. The cost of covering a family soared 59% in the four years from 2000, and the proportion of small firms offering employees health insurance fell from 68% to 63%.

A cure indeed
Can legal costs be curbed? You might imagine that the Democrats would be keen to change a system that leaves so many poor people uninsured, overcharged and uncompensated. But the party gets a lot of money from trial lawyers and even chose one, John Edwards, as its vice-presidential candidate last year. So it is left to the Republicans (who get even more money from insurers and hospitals) to be the keenest promoters of tort reform.

Earlier this year, Congress passed a bill forcing most big class-action suits to go through the federal courts, thus preventing lawyers from shopping around for the most plaintiff-friendly local courts. That may help drug firms, who complain that awards for faulty products are out of all proportion to the damage; and that the costs deter research by lowering the expected returns to it. Wyeth, a drug firm, has set aside $21 billion to settle lawsuits over Fen-Phen, a diet drug, while Merck, another drug firm, is expected to have to pay between $18 billion and $50 billion for having released a painkiller called Vioxx.

Both drugs were faulty—tests suggested that they caused heart problems in some patients. So the scope of the eventual settlements will give some clue as to whether the legal bandwagon has slowed down. Drug firms are not wildly optimistic that it has. Although the first federal prosecution against Merck collapsed this week, it is still facing 6,500 suits related to Vioxx, and was ordered by a jury in Texas to pay $253m to the family of just one victim.

Such awards are usually reduced on appeal, but the industry's chief complaint is that juries are unable to distinguish between good and bad science. Safe products, such as Norplant, a contraceptive device, have been hounded off the American market. Drug firms are especially reluctant to develop pills for people who are well, which is why no American drug firm has produced a new contraceptive since Norplant was withdrawn in 2002.

Class-action suits matter less to individual doctors and hospitals. The Republicans have made less progress when it comes to reforming straightforward medical malpractice. That is partly because most Americans want to be able to sue their doctor. But it is also because many of the costs of the current system are hidden. Studies have found that “defensive medicine”, of the sort Dr Dickman describes, more than doubles the costs that malpractice suits impose on health care, and sometimes prompts doctors to hack patients around more than is healthy.

For example, few clinicians think that babies get cerebral palsy because the obstetrician failed to deliver them by caesarean section. But smooth lawyers like Mr Edwards have made a fortune by convincing juries that this is the case. The fear of being sued prompts doctors to perform unnecessary C-sections—a risky and invasive procedure. But a five-fold increase in C-sections in rich countries in the past three decades has brought no decrease in the incidence of cerebral palsy.

James Copland of the Centre for Legal Policy at the conservative Manhattan Institute, author of a recent study called “Trial Lawyers Inc”, estimates that the total costs, direct and indirect, of health-care litigation (including suits against doctors, drug firms, HMOs, nursing homes and so on) could be as much as $200 billion—a Hurricane Katrina every year. This figure involves some heroic extrapolation, but even half that sum would seem a lot to pay for a system that is not even good at compensating patients who are injured.

So what can be done? Some “solutions” look bizarre. Maryland's state government, for example, pays a portion of doctors' insurance bills, thereby adding to the pot that lawyers feed on. (A 10th-century English king, Aethelred the Unready, tried something similar when he offered bloodthirsty invaders cash or “Danegeld” to go away; oddly, they kept coming back.)

A more sensible idea would be specialist medical courts, as proposed by Philip Howard of Common Good, a group that lobbies for legal reform. Cases could be decided by judges who heard only medical cases, rather than by juries. The court could call its own neutral expert witnesses, rather than relying solely on the partisans hired by the litigants. Non-economic compensation for pain and suffering would be according to a fixed schedule—so much for an arm, etc—rather than by having jurors pluck a number out of the air.

The idea is partly modelled on the specialist courts that deal with other complex technical issues, such as patent disputes and bankruptcy. It ought to make the system less capricious. The Centre for Justice and Democracy, a pro-lawyer group, calls it “horrific”, which suggests it is worth a try. A Senate bill to allow pilot medical courts (among other reforms) may begin hearings early next year.