the art of writing is discovering what you believe
: Here’s the real act of cowardice: Hustings thugs created a blatant special interest group that exploits Vietnam veterans who served with distinction, and who may well have a fair beef with Kerry over his antiwar activities, simply to advance the political career of a candidate who used the war himself as little more than a glorified dental plan.
http://tampatrib.com/MGBF7XRQAYD.html:
Here’s the real act of cowardice:
Hustings thugs created a blatant special interest group that exploits Vietnam veterans who served with distinction, and who may well have a fair beef with Kerry over his antiwar activities, simply to advance the political career of a candidate who used the war himself as little more than a glorified dental plan.
: With the president descending to the most shameless sort of attack politics to save his presidency, there’s an understandable desire on the part of Democrats to reopen every political vulnerability he has that has yet to be fully explored or dissected: his failure to show up for military service in the Texas Air National Guard, personal indiscretions from his ‘lost years’, insider deals from the various failed companies…. To pick up on the military language that is now so ubiquitous, I think Democrats need to open up on all fronts.
With the president descending to the most shameless sort of attack politics to save his presidency, there’s an understandable desire on the part of Democrats to reopen every political vulnerability he has that has yet to be fully explored or dissected: his failure to show up for military service in the Texas Air National Guard, personal indiscretions from his ‘lost years’, insider deals from the various failed companies. All of it.
I have no argument with any of this. I think it makes perfect sense. To pick up on the military language that is now so ubiquitous, I think Democrats need to open up on all fronts.
As noted later in the piece, this just gets into a tit-for-tat campaign and doesn’t do anything to undermine the president’s claims that he deserves another four years. Kerry’s commendations were based on his willingness to attack ambushers in Vietnam, but he’s not the commander of a small combat unit anymore. Now he’s the general of his own army and and needs to take the fight to his opposite number and ignore the “irregulars” and militia fighters who operate on his opponent’s behalf.
Sheesh, speaking of ubiquitous military language . . . .
I think Chri$ Matthew$ knows which way the wind’s blowing, and he’s buying his umbrella early.
Asked if it was possible that she had worked with other administration officials, [she] said, “The answer is ‘no,’ unless you refresh my memory.”
The evidence of well-financed machine politics behind the the Swift Boat veterans is exposed in the NYTimes today, and I loved this quote from one of the players, after having been caught in a lie: Asked if it was possible that she had worked with other administration officials, [she] said, “The answer is ‘no,’ unless you refresh my memory.”
Looks like some reporters woke up hungry after their 4 year collective nap.
[IP] looking for MAC OSX application or script
I am looking for a script/program that will., working with the OS X Mail filters and ICAL take a message from a particular person with say a coded subject and an appointment in the body and enter that
appointment in my Ical calendar.Any help or pointers to anything similar much appreciated.
Leave comments here if you must, but better to email your solutions to dave@farber.net and mention the IP mailing list.
CNN.com – Bear guzzles 36 beers, passes out at campground – Aug 18, 2004: It turns out the bear was a bit of a beer sophisticate. He tried a mass-market Busch beer, but switched to Rainier Beer, a local ale, and stuck with it for his drinking binge.
Yakima Herald-Republic Local News, Sports, Real Estate, Obituaries, Shopping and Advertising:
“He drank the Rainier and wouldn’t drink the Busch beer,” resort bookkeeper Lisa Broxson said. “This was a bear with beer preference.”
The bear did try one can of Busch, but then ignored the rest of those cans, says Sgt. Bill Heinck, an enforcement officer with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. “He didn’t like that (Busch), and consumed, as near as we can tell, about 36 cans of Rainier.”
Apparently the bear hasn’t been exposed to enough advertising to know what he should prefer. Silly old bear . . .
One recent score and one near (or maybe not so near) miss. I did find a beater bike, billed as a 15 speed mountain bike but is actually a 21 speed, and snagged it. It needs some work: so far I have replaced the chain, one tire and tube (the tube blew up when I pumped up the tire and the tire itself was coming apart). The only other major deficiency is the saddle. The brakes work, now that I have fixed the front one.
One recent score and one near (or maybe not so near) miss.
I did find a beater bike, billed as a 15 speed mountain bike but is actually a 21 speed, and snagged it. It needs some work: so far I have replaced the chain, one tire and tube (the tube blew up when I pumped up the tire and the tire itself was coming apart). The only other major deficiency is the saddle. The brakes work, now that I have fixed the front one. The shifters work, though they need adjusting. Not bad nothing, plus parts and labor.
But I missed one of these cool Ikea POÄNG chairs, with matching footstool.
[click for larger image]
The posting went up at 11:19 and my reply was at 11:35, but I was way too late. Stuff goes fast. This is a really comfortable chair: the bentwood frame has a little flex so it takes your weight as you settle and move around. A nice seating angle: I had some naps all planned out for it. Looks like I may have to <gasp> buy one . . .
I also tried for a sailing dinghy but I knew I was too slow to get it. Ah well, I did post a WANTED for a small sailboat earlier this week: looks like the messages just passed each other.
So I found a conversation over here that leads off with a simplified version of how the two US parties differ (not that I disagree with it). Somehow the comments thread turned into a discussion of trial lawyers and healthcare costs.
So I found a conversation over here that leads off with a simplified version of how the two US parties differ (not that I disagree with it). Somehow the comments thread turned into a discussion of trial lawyers and healthcare costs.
Having had some experience in this — my kidney stone surgery in early 2003 wasn’t covered by insurance and I have been hung out to dry other times as well — what I see happening here is a colossal buck pass. Company A wants to insure it’s employees so it contracts with Insurer B who authorizes payments for Doctors C, D, and E. The good doctors have their own insurance to cover malpractice, from Insurer G. But what if one of Doctor D’s cases has an unsatisfactory outcome — the patient has some condition that now requires long-term care, and Insurer F has to cover those costs.
Now, let’s say the family of this patient (H) is unhappy and thinks the Doctor was negligent. Will Doctors C and E take action? Would they be willing to honestly examine a case that could end up with them drumming one of their own out of the profession?
So enter Trial Lawyer I who takes the case on contingency, wins a huge settlement — which Insurer G has to pick up. It of course passes on the cost to the other doctors who in turn raise their rates, allowing Insurer G to raise its premiums to Company A, eating into their profits.
Who is in a position to stop this and hold the line on costs? The insurers? They’ll charge what the traffic will bear. The companies that buy from them? I’m guessing the market isn’t all that competitive when you hear how many employees of small firms are uninsured. The doctors? They don’t want to be exposed to the risk of losing their livelihood (one doctor I was a patient of some years ago — when I was uninsured — told me he had to clear $300,000 before he could take a salary, just to cover overheads, like his office, staff, and insurance). What about the patient? Should they take it on the chin?
It sounds to me like the whole system needs to be trashed and rebuilt from scratch. I would like to see some kind of arrangement where the insured people deal directly with a doctor or group, and just pay directly, rather than involving a multiplicity of additional parties (insurers, brokers, etc.). Of course, the risk analysis means involving some experts, actuaries and the like, but surely this can be made to work again, assuming it ever did.
What would it take for ordinary people to self-organize into a group and effectively sell themselves to a group of doctors? What’s so different about when I entered the work force and insurance was complete and covered by an employer, and today where it is not always complete and there is often an employee contribution (ie, a pay cut)? I don’t know if I buy the argument that trial lawyers and malpractice costs are the sole cause. Blaming lost legal suits and the associated costs is like blaming the cops for your speeding tickets. It just sounds to like a bunch of people standing in a circle blaming the person next to them . . . round and round it goes, but never stops.
One of the great frustrations about news, be it radio, TV, or paper, is how often we assume the reporter got the facts right about stories we don’t know firsthand but how often they screw up on stories we know about. CJR Campaign Desk: Archives: Last night, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, to use Atrios’ words, went “nuclear” on Matthew Dowd, a senior Bush-Cheney strategist and Hardball guest.
One of the great frustrations about news, be it radio, TV, or paper, is how often we assume the reporter got the facts right about stories we don’t know firsthand but how often they screw up on stories we know about.
I was reminded of this, somewhat obliquely, when I saw this lead on the CampaignDesk website:
CJR Campaign Desk: Archives:
Last night, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, to use Atrios’ words, went “nuclear” on Matthew Dowd, a senior Bush-Cheney strategist and Hardball guest.
Apparently, Matthews was incensed that the RNC would take a clip of his program and edit it down to both simplify his question of a candidate and strip the candidate’s answer of any depth or nuance (and with Kerry, nuance is substance).
So we go from:
MATTHEWS: Do you think you belong in that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war? The way it’s been fought? Along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean, and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?”
KERRY: “I am, yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took to us war as he should have, yes. Absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris. Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was and we should have done it right.”
to this:
“Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” and Kerry replying, “I am, yes.”
CampaignDesk makes it clear that Matthews was more upset about his show being used as a political tool than being one himself, as they have noted before. I’m sure it’s too much to hope this could be a trend, but it would be nice if these folks took their jobs as seriously as they take themselves.
Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004
Some Googlejuice coming right up . . .